Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 1 of 13

IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT P; '/..

~<

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

I:: \
.c.:: I::!t.

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN and PAUL M. LURIE, et aI.,

JU'/..

U

)

e({RMICIeNIIll

26'
W

2o.~

)

II, S. . DOB

)

OISli.'iC 8 IVS

Plaintiffs,

)

T COIIRI;

)

v.

)

No. 69 C 2145

)

THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION

)

Hon. Wayne R. Andersen

OF COOK COUNTY, et aI.,

)

APPLICATION TO HOLD THE CITY OF CHICAGO AND ITS MAVOR IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR VIOI"ATIONS OF THE COURT ORDERS

Now come Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie, on behalf of the Plaintiff Class of Voters and Candidates for Public Office (thc "Plaintiffs"), by their attorneys, Roger R. Fross and Brian I. Hays of Lord Bissell & Brook LLP, and apply to (he Court to hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor, Richard M. Daley, in civil contempt for systemic, widespread violations of this Court's judgments of May 5, 1972, and June 20, 1983, (collectively, the "Court Orders").
Summary of Relief Sought 1. In recent weeks it has becomc clear that the City of Chicago and many highranking City officials have systematically and knowingly violated long-standing orders of this Court that forbid political hiring and promotion and coerecd political contributions. This Application, which Plaintiffs may supplement as appropriate, seeks relief in three areas: A. Present and forn1er City officials who knowingly violated this Court's
orders, or who knew of such violations and failed to take action within their power to prcvent such violations, should be identified and held in civil contempt. They should be required to pay substantial civil fines to

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 2 of 13
make them and other City personnel aware that compliance with orders of this Court is not optional. B. The hundreds and perhaps thousands of honest citizens who have applied or been considered for City employment or promotions but who have been deprived by such violations of a fair chance to obtain public employment, or promotions or advancement in positions with the City, should be identified and given priority consideration [or an appropriate City job, and their applications should be evaluated under non-political standards. C. The rights of candidates for public office and their supporters that have been adversely affected by the use of City employment to create political work forces to support favored candidates also warrants relief. The individuals who were hired or advanced in violation of this Court's orders, and any organizations, formal or informal, for whom they were required to do political work or provide financial contributions, should be identified. Responsible persons who directed coerced pOlitical work or financial contributions in violation of this Court's orders, or who otherwise participated in the City's violations of this Court's orders, should be subjected to civil contempt proceedings and appropriately sanctioned. 2. To accomplish the foregoing, the Court should appoint a Special Master pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 from candidates proposed by the Plaintiffs. The Special Master should be authorized and directed to investigate the matters referred to in this Application and to identify the perpetrators and victims of the City's illegal activities. The Special Master should have all the powers of the Court to obtain documents and testimony and
2

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 3 of 13
to conduct hearings for the purposes authorized. The Special Master should from time to time as appropriate report to the Court concerning (a) individuals who should be subject to civil contempt proceedings and the grounds therefore, (b) applicants for employment and employees eligible for advancement who were discriminated again~t by the City's illegal practices and methods to afford those individuals fair opportunities to be considered for the next available appropriate City position, (c) the identity of organizations and individuals who benefitted from the City's violations of this Court's order~, and individuals who should be ~ubjee( to civil contempt proceedings as a result thereof. I
3. Plaintiffs' counsel should be authorized and directed to review all proposals for modil1eations to the City's existing hiring practices and procedures and to recommend appropriate modil1eations or alternative methods or protections to prevent a repetition of the violations described herein.
4. The Special Master should be authorized to retain counsel and investigators, whose fees and costs, as well as those of the Special Master and those oflhe Plaintiffs' counsel in developing the above recommendations, should be paid by the City on a monthly basis.
5. The Special Master should consult with the Plaintiffs' counsel and City personnel, advise the office of the United Statcs Attorney of the Special Master's activitie~, and when appropriate conduct public hearings. From time to time as appropriate the Special Master should issue interim reports. The City should be directed to fully cooperate with the Special Master.
I This Court is audlOrized to appoint a special master in these circumst.nces. See CHA v. AI/slin, SII 1'.2d 82 at 83 (7th Cir. I97S)(authorizing special masler to study and report on how enforcement of prior judgment' of the court could be facilitated, and formulating a plan to implement prior judgments); Williams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 884 (7th Cir. I988)(authorizing special master where defendants have "demonstrated a 'continued and deliberate inanentioll to piaintifL..' constitutional rights' , , ." and where "non-compliance with the previous district court order was emphasized.")
3

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 4 of 13
6. The Special Master should be authorized to exercise all powers provided in Rule 53 with respcct to matters referred to the Special Master. The Plaintiffs should be authorized to take discovcry on an accelerated basis conmlencing immediately and continuing from time to time. Defendants should be directed to comply with accelerated discovery requests.
Nature of the Application 7. The City has cngaged in systematic, widespread violations of the Court Ordcrs by: (I) conditioning, basing, or knowingly prejudicing or affecting the hiring of any person as a governmental employee because of political reasons and factors; (2) conditioning, basing, or knowingly prejudicing or affecting terms and aspects of governmental cmployment of cmployees because of political reasons and factors; (3) causing 01' permitting employees to do partisan political work during the regular working hours of his or her governmental employment; and (4) cocrcing political payments. 8. Plaintiffs petition this Court to enforce its judgments of May 5,1972 and June 20, 1983, by holding the City in contempt of court. The judgments entered by this Court prohibit the City from coercing political payments, requiring city employees to engage in political activity during normal working hOUTS, rewarding or promoting employees based upon political work, or hiring employees bascd upon political factors. The City has regularly and systematically violated the Court Ordcrs by engaging in all ofthese activities. 9. Based on the City's extensive and continued violations orthe Court Ordcrs, this Court should hold the City in contempt and impose additional obligations upon the City both as a remedy for the City's past violations and to ensure future compliance with the Court Orders. The City's course of behavior makes it evident that this Court must impose additional obligations upon tbc City to force the City to comply with its judgments.
4

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 5 of 13
10. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because it involves the enforcemcnt of the Court Orders entered by this Court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
II. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391 because this Application is brought in the judicial district where the Defendants reside and violations of the Court Orders occurred.
Statement of Facts Applicable to All Counts 12. On October 17, 1969, Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie brought a lawsuit against the City alleging that the City had engaged in unconstitutional patronage practices in its methods or hiring and firing employees. 13. On May 5,1972, the City entered into a consent judgment with the Plaintiffs which prohibits "coerced political financial contributions by any governmental employee, contractor or supplier, to any individual or organization ...." Shakman consentjudgmcnt entered May 5, 1972, ~ D (the "1972 Court Order," located at Appendix "A.").z 14. The 1972 Court Order also prohibits the City from: (1) conditioning, basing, or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor; (2) knowingly causing OT permitting any employee to do any partisan political work during the regular working hours of his OT her governmental employment, or during time paid for by puhlic funds. 1972 Court Order, ~ E. 15. In 1983, the City entered into a second consent judgment in the Shakman litigation. This consent judgment (the" 1983 Court Order," located at Appendix "B") extended
2 A separate Appendix containing the documents cited and incorporated herein was filed concurrcntly with this Application.
5

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 6 of 13
the 1972 Court Order to include a prohibition against hiring based on political factors. 1983
Court Order, '1 E.
16. Specifically, the 1983 Court Order enjoins the City from: (1) conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting the hiTing of any person as a Governmental Employee (other than for Excmpt Positions), upon or because of any political reason or factor including, without limitation, any prospective employee's political affiliation, political support or activity, political I1nancial contributions, promises of such political support, activity or financial contributions, or such prospective employee's political sponsorship or recommendation. Jd.
17. As part of the 1983 Court Order, the City was required to submit a Plan of Compliance outlining the steps the City would take in hiting and promoting employees to ensure compliance with the CouT( Orders. The Plan of Compliance applies "to all hiring decisions concerning individuals who currently arc not employed by the City as well as to transfer, demotion, promotion, and reclassification decisions involving current City employees." Plan of Compliance, I-I (located at Appendix "C").
18. The City has an affirmative obligation to ensure that its employees comply with the Court Orders. When an employee of the City violates the Court Orders, the City is deemed to have violated the Court Orders. Wzorek v. City a/Chicago, 906 F.2d 1180, 1183 (7th Cir. 1990) (rejecting City's argument that it should not be held in civil contempt when its "lower level supervisors" violate the 1972 Court Order).
19. Recently it has been discovered the City has routinely committed widespread, systematic violations of the Court Orders.
Holding the City in Contempt and Imposing ReJiefTs Necessary to Remedy Past Violations and to Ensure Compliance with the Court Orders 20. This Court's ability to impose sanctions to punish disobedience of judicial orders
6

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 7 of 13
is essential to ensure the judiciary's ability to uphold its judgments. This Court has broad discretion (0 fashion a remedy specific (0 (he nature ofthe harm resulting from disobeying a court order and (0 take into consideration the effects of aHemative remedies.
21. Civil sanctions for contempt are designed to compel or coerce obedience to a court order and to compensate the parties for losses resulting from the contemnors' noncompliance with a court order.
22. The Court Orders have for years set forth clear, unequivocal and well-known commands which the City has recently and repeatedly violated.
23. The coercive function of civil contempt is necessary to compel the City's compliance with the Court Orders. Although (he two Court Orders have long been in place, the City continues (0 violate the constitutional rights of candidates, voters, employees, and job applicants on an ongoing and widespread basis.
24. A finding of contempt is necessary to hold the City accountable for its conduct and (0 send the City and its employees a message that the orders of this Court must be obeyed.
25. The prospective rcliefrequested is necessary to ensure compliance and to protect the constitutional rights oCthe Plaintiff class members, as well as the rights of City employees and job applicants.
26. The actions described herein include repeated violations of Court Orders by City department heads and commissioners who report directly (0 Richard M. Daley, as Mayor ofthe City of Chicago. Richard M. Daley is a "hands-on" administrator who takes an active role in (he activities pursued by subordinates. As the Mayor of the City of Chicago, Richard M. Daley has the responsibility for monitoring the activities of his department heads, commissioners and other ranking City officials. More importantly, he has (he responsibility for setting the ethical
7

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 8 of 13
standards and establishing a culture of compliance with the law for the entire City workforce. Because oCthe aforementioned extensive, continuing and deliberate violations oCthe Court Orders we are also seeking sanctions against the Mayor Cor civil contempt.
CQuntl VIOLATIONS OF THE 1972 COURT ORDER INVOLVING COERCED POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 27. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs J through 26 as if set forth here in full. 28. On February 24, 2005, the United States of America brought an indictment against a number ofhigh ranking City employees including, Gerald Wesolowski, Roger McMahon, and Flcnory Barnes, for criminal activity arising out of the City's Hired Truck Program. See Superseding Indictment (locatcd at Appendix "D"). 29. A number of deCendants in those criminal cases have pleaded guilty to their roles in the Hired TTlIek Progranl. See Wesolowski Plea Agreement, McMahon Plea Agreement and Barnes Pica Ab'feement located at Appendix "E", Appendix "F", and Appendix "G", 30. The allegations in the Superseding Indictment and the admissions in the Plea Agreements are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 31. The statements contained in the Plea Agreements are substantiated in whole or in part by several other guilty pleas by other defendants named in the Superseding Indictment. See Joseph Ignoffo Plea Agreement (located at Appendix "H"); Commclie Peters Plea Agreement (located at Appendix "I"); Leroy S. Peters Pica Agreement (located at Appendix "J"); Charles Romano Plea Agreement (located at Appendix .oK"); Debra Coveliers Plea Agreement (located at Appendix "L"). The admissions in these Plea Agreements are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein, 32. The United Slales Attorney's criminal investigation oCthe Hired Truck Program
8

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 9 of 13
and the resulting indictments and guilty pleas allege that the City has regularly and systematically coerced political financial contributions, through threats of economic harm, in violation of the 1972 Court Order, ~ D.
33. The City's IIired Truck Program provided certain City operating departments with a mechanism to use privately provided trucking services on an as-needed basis to assist in the delivery of City services. Participating trucking companies were hired by the City and provided equipment and operators to the respective City operating departments to perform specific tasks. The principal opcrating departments using Hired Truck Program scrvices were the Department of Water, the Department of Streets and Sanitation, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Sewers.
34. City employees routinely demanded payment of money in the form of political contributions from persons seeking contracts and trucking assignments through the Hired Truck Program. This process was used to raise campaign funds from the participating companies.
35. The City's conduct as alleged in the Superseding Indietmcnt constitutes widesprcad, systematic violations of the Court Orders by high level City employees, and would establish that the City must be subjected to contempt sanctions.
36. The City has knowing and willfully violated the requiremcnts of the Court Orders. 37. These facts further allege a culture of disobeying federal court orders within the City and, therefore, would demonstrate the necessity for contempt sanctions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants, as follows: a. Find the City and its Mayor in civil contempt for their repeated violations ofthe
1972 Court Order.
9

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 10 of 13
b. Appoint a Special Master from candidates proposed by the Plaintiffs to investigate the matters referred to in this Application, identi fy the perpetrators, beneficiaries and victims ofthc City's illegal activities, and to report to the Court the Special Maskr's findings and recommendations. The Special Master should be given all powers provided by Rule 53 with respect to the matters referred 10 the Special Master.
c. Authorize the Plaintiffs to monitor and ensure the continuing enforcement ofthe Court Orders and the Plan of Compliance and to present matters through counsel of their choice in connection with carrying out the Court Orders and Plan of Compliance.
d. Impose a fine for the purposes pennitted by the law of civil contempt upon any person found to be in contempt.
e. Award the Plaintiffs their reasonahle attorneys' fees and costs incurred in hringing this action.
Count II VIOLATIONS 01<' THE COURT ORDERS IN THE CITY'S EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
38. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 26 as if set forth here in full.
39. The investigation of the United States Attorney's office has also revealed
violations of the Court Orders' prohibitions against conditioning any aspect of employment
with the City on political factors or considerations. 40. In addition to the Superseding Indictment and Plea Agreements idenli lied above,
on July 17,2005, the United States of America filed criminal complaints against Robert Sorich
and Patrick Slattery, both high ranking City employees, alleging criminal activity in connection
with the City's hiring procedures. Copies of these criminal complaints are located at Appendix
"M" and Appendix "N" and arc incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
41. The facts in the Superseding Indictment, Plea Agreements, and the Sorich and
Slattery criminal complaints allege that since 1993 and continuing:
• The City bas regularly and systematically hired employees based upon political
10

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 11 of 13
factors, in violation of the 1983 Court Order. • The City has regularly and systematically promoted employees based upon
political factors, in violation orthe 1972 Court Order. • The City has regularly and systematically rewarded City employees with raises
and overtime pay based on political factors in violation of the 1972 Court Order. 42. The Sorich and Slattery complaints and the admissions by high-ranking City ofllcials described therein, allege that City employees engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to commit and hide violations of the Court Orders by acts of fraud and deeeption. City employees routinely manipulated the interview and selection process for certain City employment positions by conducting sham interviews, ralsely inflating interview scores, and otherwise guaranteeing that certain pre-selected candidates who were ravored by top City officials would win the employment positions, often to the exclusion of equally or more qualified candidates. This pre-selected status was granted by City officials at times because of the prospective employee's association with particular political organizations or contributions of labor to certain political organizations or candidates. 43. City employees routinely and consistently manipulated and falsified the ostensibly merit-based ratings given to prospective employees in order to improperly influence the hiring and promotions for Shakman-covered positions. 44. These racts allege recent widespread, systematic violations ofthe Court Orders by high level City employees justifying the imposition of contempt sanctions against the City. 45. The Superseding indictment and Pica Agreements allege that City employees participated in political work on behalf of candidates the selection ofwhieh was determined by City officials. City officials notified high ranking City employees as to the particular field
11

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 12 of 13
work each employee's organization was to conduct. The City employees then held meetings of other City employees in their department during the business day to notify them of the particular political campaigns they would be supporting and to discuss the intended work plan for carrying out the political activities.
46. Following these meetings, the City employees in attendance contactcd additional employees to provide them with their field assignments for the upcoming election cycle. These employees in tum contact additional employ~~s to obtain "volunteers" for the field activities.
47. During the field activities, sign up lists were maintained and the political work perform cd by City employees was tracked. City officials and employees met after each election cycle to review the individual political perfonnances of City employees. The purpose of these meetings was to provide specific information to high ranking City employees in order to obtain work·rc1ated benefits for the City employees who had performed political work. City employees were given raises, promotions and overtime as a reward for their political work.
48. The City has knowing and willfully violated the requirements of the Court Orders. 49. These facts further allege a culture of disobeying Federal Court orders within the City of Chicago and would demonstrate the necessity for contempt sanctions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants, as follows: a. Find the City and its Mayor in civil contempt for their repeated violations ofthe
1972 Court Order. b. Appoint a Special Master from candidates proposed by the Plaintiffs to investigate
the matters referred to in this Application, identify the perpetrators, beneficiaries and victims of the City's ilkgal activities, and to report to the Court the Special Master's findings and recommendations. The Special Master should be given all powers provided by Rule 53 with respect to the matters referred to the Special Master.
12

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 310 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 13 of 13
c. Authorize the Plaintiffs to monitor and ensure the continuing enforcement of the Court Orders and the Plan of Compliance and to present matters through counsel of their choice in connection with carrying out the Court Orders and Plan of Compliance.
d. Impose a fine for the purposes permitted by the law of civil contempt upon any person found to be in contempt.
e. 1\ward the PlaintiiTs their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action.
Roger R. Fross Brian 1. Hays Lord, Bissell & Brook I 15 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 443-0700
13

 
 Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 316 Filed 08/02/2005 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN and

)

PAUL M. LURIE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No: 69 C 2145

)

DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION

)

Honorable Wayne R. Andersen

OF COOK COUNTY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER APPOINTING COURT MONITOR AND COUNSEL In 1972, a Consent Judgment was entered into which, among other things, prohibited certain defendants from "conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor." On .June 20, 1983, Defendants the City of Chicago and then Mayor Harold Washington, (hereinafter "the City") entered into a Consent Judgment which incorporated the 1972 prohibitions and extended those prohibitions to include the City's hiring practices, with certain exclusions. The 1983 Consent Judgment specifically empowers this Court to enforce the terms of both the 1972 Consent Judgment and the 1983 Consent Judgment. On January 24, 2002, Defendants City of Chicago and its current Mayor, Richard M. Daley, filed a Motion seeking to vacate the 1983 Consent Judgment. The Court denied that Motion and the City appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. As of this date, no decision has been rendered by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and thus, this

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 316 Filed 08/02/2005 Page 2 of 4
Court retains jurisdiction over the parties for the purposes of ensuring that the City is in compliance with the terms of the 1983 Consent Judgment.
On July 26, 2005 the Plaintiffs in this matter filed an Application to Hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor in Civil Contempt for Violations of the Court Orders. The Plaintiffs' Motion is based, in part, on recent developments in the criminal investigation currently underway in the United States Attorney's Office. As part of their Application, the Plaintiffs have requested appointment of a Special Master to investigate prior alleged violations of the Court's 1972 and 1983 Consent Judgments (hereinafter "Orders" or "Shakman Orders"). Plaintiffs also seek Court authorization for outside monitoring offuture compliance of the Consent Judgments.
On July 17,2005 the United States of America filed criminal complaints, numbered 05 CR 644 and 05 CR 646, against two former city officials, Robert Sorich and Patrick Slattery. The sworn statements contained in the criminal complaints allege systematic violations of this Court's Orders by senior city officials. Specifically, the complaints detail repeated instances of manipulation of the interviewing, selection and hiring processes to ensure preferential hiring and promotions for pre-selected candidates. According to the allegations in the criminal complaints, senior city officials pre-selected candidates based on pre-selected considerations, in direct violation of the Shakman Orders. Further, the sworn statements indicate that city officials falsely certified that pre-selected considerations did not enter into certain hiring decisions.
On July 29, 2005, Donald Tomczak, former Deputy Commissioner of the City of Chicago Water Department pleaded guilty to criminal charges regarding his role in the city's hiring and promotion practices. Tomczak's guilty plea includes admissions that he and
2

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 316 Filed 08/02/2005 Page 3 of 4
others awarded jobs and promotions to individuals based on political considerations, in direct violation of this Court's previous Orders. Tomczak stated in open court "I was involved with the illegal hiring process at City Hall."
In light of the evidence presented to the Court by the Plaintiffs, the sworn statements included in the criminal complaints filed by the United States and the public sworn admissions by Tomczak and others regarding previous violations of the Shakman Orders, this Court hereby appoints a Shakman Consent Judgment Decree Monitor ("Shakman Monitor") to ensure future compliance with this Court's previous Orders.
The Shakman Monitor, subject to the supervision and orders ofthis Court, shall study the Defendants' existing employment practices, policies and procedures for nonpolitical hiring, promotion transfer, discipline and discharge. The Monitor shall be an agent of the Court and shall only have the duties, responsibilities and authority conferred by this Order and subsequent Court Orders regarding such duties.
Defendants shall cooperate with the Shakman Monitor in connection with her efforts to oversee and ensure implementation of the Court's previous Orders, including providing reasonable access to all relevant documents, as well as reasonable access to current employees at all levels. The City shall also provide access to other sources of information, in whatever form they are maintained in the ordinary course of business, necessary or appropriate to the exercise of her authority. The Shakman Monitor shall make best efforts to minimize the disruption to the workplace during the course of her evaluation. Given the need ofthe Shakman Monitor to review confidential business information maintained by the City, the Monitor, and anyone working in conjunction with her, will sign a confidentiality agreement.
3

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 316 Filed 08/02/2005 Page 4 of 4
On September 6, 2005 the Shakman Monitor shall make a Preliminary Report to the Court which shall include:
1) A recommendation to the Court regarding the necessary powers that should be vested with the Shakman Monitor in order to ensure future compliance with this Court's previous Orders;
2) A recommendation regarding the necessary staffing needs required for the
Shakman Monitor to fulfill her assigned duties; and
3) A proposed mechanism for ensuring future employment actions are III compliance with the Court's previous Orders.
The Court hereby appoints as the Shakman Decree Monitor, Noelle C. Brennan, of Brennan & Monte, Ltd. As Counsel to the Monitor, the Court hereby appoints Susan Cox, of Luke DeGrand & Associates and Ines M. Monte, also of Brennan & Monte Ltd. Defendants shall compensate the Monitor and Counsel to the Monitor, at their customary hourly rates and shall pay any and all reasonable costs necessary to fulfill the work of the Monitor and Counsel to the Monitor.
The Plaintiffs Application to Hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor in Civil Contempt for Violations of the Court's Orders is entered and continued until September 6. 2005 at 1:30 p.m.
Wayne . Andersen United States District Judge
4

 
 Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 1 of 12

I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTF

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS·

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN
ct~,

EASTERN DIVISION
) ) ) Case No. 69 C 2145

~.p 06200.5 ~ ,)cb O(LJ (OD":) WAYNt R, ANDERSEN U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Plaintiffs,

)

) Wayne R. Andersen

v.

) United States District Judge

)

DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF )

COOK COUNTY, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

FIRST REPORT OF MONITOR

The Monitor, Noelle C. Brennan ("Monitor"), hy and through her counsel, Ines M. Monte or the law firm Brennan & Monte, Ltd. and Susan E. Cox of the law firm Luke DeGrand & Associates, P.C. submits this Report pursuant to the Order of the Court entered on August 2, 2005.

Introduction

On August 2. 2005. this Court appointed a Monitor "to ensure fl.iture compliance" with the Court's prior orders in Shakman et al. 11. The Democratic Organizulion (!f' Cook County. et aI, Case No. 69 C 2145. Those prior orders, in parI, prohibited the City of Chicago from: (1) "conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect 10 one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or hecause of any political reason or factor;" and (2) "conditioning, hasing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting the hiring or any person as a Governmental Employee (other than for Exempt Positions), upon or because of any political reason or factor ..." Se~ Court Orders in Case No. 69 C 2145 dated May 5, 1972 and June 20, 1983. As part of its appointmenl order, (he Court directed the Monitor to study the City of Chicago's "existing employment practices, policies and procedures for non-political hiring, promotion, transfer, discipline and discharge." Further, the Court ordered the Monitor 10 make a Report to the Court on Septemher 6, 2005 regarding a "proposed mechanism for ensuring future employment actions [by the City] are in compliance with the Court's previous Orders." See Court Order dated August 2,2005.

Monitor's Ob.jectives and Process

The Monitor's primary objective was to study the City's existing employment practices to detect potenlial deficiencies in the City's future eompli,mce wilh the Shakman judgments and to identify any systemic prohlems or vulnerabilities which may lead to such future noncompliance.

I

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 2 of 12
In all, the Monitor and her counsel (and other staff members) met with and/or interviewed more than thirty individuals including: (I) the Mayor's Chief of Staff and Deputy, who made themselves available to answer questions whenever they arose; (2) employees within the Department of Personnel; (3) officials within hiring departments, including personnel liaisons; (4) employecs responsible for reviewing the hiring process and making changes; (5) Department of Law attorneys; (6) employees and/or applicants who alleged Shakman violations; and (7) at the request of Alderman Ed Smith, members ofthe Black Caucus ofthe City Council.
The City also provided the Monitor with thousands of documents which she and her counsel preliminarily reviewed. These documents related to: (I) past hiring practices and procedures; (2) requests for hire, notices of job opportunity, and bid lists; (3) job titles, both Shakman covered and Shakman exenlpt; (4) requests to exempt certain positions from decree; (5)
internal proposals for redesigning the hiring practices at the City; (6) designation of employees
as "paid as" employees; (7) litigation concerning alleged violations of the decree; (8) training materials related (0 tbe decree and hiring practices; (9) documents maintained by the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs; and (10) proposed complaint process for violations.
It bears noting that, to date, the Monitor and her counsel have obtained thc full cooperation of the City throughout this process. The City has made its employees available for lengthy interviews and placed no restrictions on the interviewing process. Additionally, the Mayor issued a directive to all department heads encouraging employees 10 cooperate in the Monitor's study and further stating that there would be no retribution against elllployces for any such cooperation.
Finally, the Monitor sought and received significant input from Michael ShakmaIl, PlaintitYin the underlying action, and his counsel, Roger Fross and Brian Hays from the law firm of Lord, Bissell & Brook. The Monilor mct and spoke with Mr. Sbakman and his attorneys on various occasions. Furthem1ore, Plaintiff and his counsel provided the Monitor and her counsel with documents conceming the prior litigation in this case, the Court's various orders, compliaIlce and audit documents, and complaints received from individuals who believe thaI they are victims of political hiring. The Monitor anticipates their continued involvement and participation in jmplementing both the immediate and future recommendations.
Tn the period between August 2, 2005 and September 6, 2005, due to lime constraints, the Monitor did not examine the hiring and promotion practices at the Police or Fire Departments. Although lhese two City departments are subjecl to the Shakman prohibitions, they operate under a slightly separate hiring system that includes the use of outside vendors. Consequently, the matters discussed berein do not relate (0 these two deparlments.
City's Current System
As required by the Shakman Judgment entered by the Court on June 20, 1983, the City of Chicago filed ils "Principles for Plan of Compliance wilh Shakman Judgment" on May 4, 1984. The purpose of the City's Plan of Compliance was to implement the requirements mandated by the Court in its prior orders. To that end, the PlaIl outlined basic principles that would apply to the City's biring process and also provided for the adoption of a more comprehensive set of
2

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 3 of 12
"Detailed Hiring Provisions" that were to be consistent with the Plan and with the Court's prior orders. The Detailed Hiring Provisions were completed in 1986 and, with the cxccption of the expiration of certain provisions, have remaincd substantially unchanged since that date. All City employment rules, regulations, and procedure& covering the selection of individuals for employment in Shakman~covered positions were to be consistent with the City'S Plan of Compliance and its Detailed Hiring Provisions.
The primary goals of the City'S Plan of Compliance and Detailed Hiring Provisions were to "exclude politics from hiring for all positions other than Exempt positions" and to "seek to eliminate continuing effccts of past patronage hiring violations by the City." Accordingly, the Plan of Compliance and the Detailed Hiring Provisions contained several prophylactic measures intended to exclude politics from all positions other than Exempt positions.
Deficiencies in City's Current System
TIle Monitor's investigation has revealed that the City has been substantially noncompliant with many of the Shakman provisions for a significant period of time. Notwithstanding the o~jcctives of the City's Plan of Compliance and Detailed IIiring Provisions, the City's current system suffers from several significant deficiencies which hinder future compliance with the Shakman judgments. The most noteworthy inelude instances of:
o Improper interference by variOU& hiring departments in the screening and referral ofjob applicants;
o Failure to identify required job critcria for impartial applicant screening; o Failure to post notice of select job openings; o Hiring from a limited pool ol'preselected applicant&; o Improper involvement by the Office of Goverrunental Affairs ("lOA") in the
hiring and promotion process; o Incidents of Department of Personnel ("DOP") being asked to place individuals
previously deemed unqualified by DOP on Eligibility andlor Referral lists; o Failure to respond to complaints of politically based hiring; and o Inadequatc staffing and resources for DOP to adcquately perform independent
screening of job applicant& and compliance functions outlined under Detailed Hiring Provisions.
As outlined below, the Monitor has included recommendations for immediate implementation, and recommendations that will require ongoing development for purposes of ensuring future compliance with the Shakman judgments. This Preliminary Report also provides recommendations regarding the Monitor's proposed powers, budget and staffing needs. It is important to reiterate that this is a preliminary report. It does not purport to present the Monitor's final conclusions or recommendations regarding any proposed mechanisms for ensuring the City's future employment actions are in compliance with the Court's previous Orders. Such recommendations would be premature at this point.
3

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 4 of 12
Monitor's Recommendations for Immediate Implementation
I. Interim Hiring and Promotion Process for Next 60 Days
As of May 23, 2005, the City of Chicago enacted a partial hiring freeze covering specific positions. The City has advised the Monitor that if the hiring freeze were to be lifted, the City anticipates hiring and/or promoting approximately 1,100 individuals between September 6, 2005 and November 6, 2005, excluding sworn police and fire of1icers, recalled seasonal employces or part-lime workers.
To ensure that the City's hiring and promotion practices during this interim period arc in l\tll compliance with the Shalanan judgments, the Monitor recommends the following:
A. The previously established Detailed Hiring Provisions shall remain in full force and effect, subject to the modifications detailed below.
B. The Department of Personnel shall immediately hire sufficient staff to enable it to independently screen eligible applicants for all titles subject to the Shalanan judgments to be filled during the interim period.
C. The Monitor shall directly oversee the hiring of such DOP staff, to ensure full compliance with the Shalanan judgments. The DOP shall obtain Monitor approval prior to hiring any such staff.
D. The City shall purge all existing eligible lists, referral lists and applications created Of filed prior to January I, 2004, J<)r those positions to be filled during the interim period. The City must notifY all such purged applicants tbat they must reapply for employment with the City in order to be considered. The City shall determine the most appropriate way to provide such noti (kation, subject to Monitor approval. Upon any such purge, the City must fully comply with Section G of the Plan of Compliance related to Posting of Notices of Job Availability.
E. During the interim hiring period, hiring departments shall play no role in screening applicants for inclusion on any list of eligible applicants and referrals, or in scoring applicants as qualified or unqualified. DOP personnel shall directly participate in all interview panels. DOP may independently select representatives from tbe hiring department to participate in particular interview panels.
F. Each department and the Department of Personnel shall maintain a timely log of all oral and written communications regarding all applicants, hires, and promotions. The individual hiring department will submit the log to tI,e Monitor for review, as part of the hiring process. As per the Detailed Hiring Provisions, the Department of Personnel shall approve all interview questions to be used in the selection of job candidates and comply with all requirements regarding the interview process, as contained in the Detailed Hiring Provisions. In addition to those requirements, all employees directly invol ved in a Shakman covered employment action shall compkte a sworn certification in the form found in Appendix A. The "Shakman Certification" shall be completed contemporaneously with the completion and/or submission of any documentation concerning the employment action in question. This documentation includes, hut is not limited to allY Request for Hire forms, Eligibility Lists, l3id Lists,
4

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 5 of 12
Referral Lists, Interview Questions, Interview Documentation, Justification for Hire Memos, and Test Resu\t~. The purpo~e of the Shakman Certification shall be for the employce involved in the employment proce~s to attest, under penalty of perjury, that s/he has not been influenced by any political considerations or factors in completing his or her duties. G. If, during this interim period the Monitor deten11incs that further modi fications need to be implemented to ensurc that the employment practices of the City are free from illegal political influence, she shall work with the City to make such modifications by agreement. If no agreement can be reached, the Monitor shall petition the Court for the appropriate relief.
II. Monitoring ofInterim Sixty Day Hiring and Promotion Process
A. lne Monitor's staff will randomly audit each stage of the hiring and promotion process. In order for the Monitor to conduct ~uch audits, the City will provide notice of each new position it seeks to fill and each anticipated promotion, contemporaneous with the opening/posting/advertising of the position. On the Monitor's request, the City is to provide all relevant documentation concerning the proposed hire or promotion, including but not limited to Request for Hire Forms, Eligihility Lists, Bid Lists, Referral Lists, Applications, Interview Questions, Interview Documentation, Justification for Hire Memos, Tests and Test Results.
B. All proposed new hire~/promotions must be submitted by the City to the Monitor's staff to randomly review for Shakman compliance before any offer of employment or promotion is extended. The Monitor shall notify the City within ten (l0) days whether additional information is required fbr audit before the City extends such offer of employment or promotion. The audit shall be conducted through review of documents, interviews of participants, and any other steps the Monitor deems reasonable, prior to any further action taken by the City to fill the position. All such audits shall be completed as expeditiously as feasible. If no audit is requested by the Monitor within the ten (l0) day period as specified herein, the City may proceed with the hire or promotion.
C. Where any potential Shakman violation is suspected or discovered, the City shall be so advised by the Monitor. The City shall cooperate with the Monitor to ensure that there is no actual noncompliance in the hire or promotion.
D. In the past, failure to properly certify compliance with Shakman resulted in no discernible penalties or consequences. Accordingly, for every hire and promotion completed during interim period, the respective Departmental Commissioner, Departmental Hiring Manager and Mayor's office must also submit a sworn certillcation in the foml found in Appendix A, attesting under penalty of perjury, their compliance with Shakman. These Shakman certifications shall be filed with the Court by the Monitor.
5

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 6 of 12
III. Oesignation of Compliance Officers and Creation of Complaint Procedure for Current and Future Victims of Patronage Hiring and Promotion
A. Factual 8ackb'Tound
1. The City's current external Shakman compliance audits are substantially out of datc and fail to meaningfully identify noncompliance with Shakman.
2. The City lacks an effective internal mechanism for receiving. investigating, and remedying employee or applicant complaints of Shakman violations.
B. It is inadvisable for the City's Law Department to have responsibility for addressing complaints, in light of the tact that it is charged with defending the City against Shakman based litigation.
C. Until a permanent mechanism is developed to receive, investigate and remedy complaints of Shakman violations, there should be an interim procedure that allows complainants of ongoing, current, Of future violations to registcr complaints and that allows for the prompt investigation and remedy of such complaints.
D. Toward that end, the City shall immediately appoint, with Monitor approval, an individual responsible for receiving complaints from current employees and/or applicants alleging Shakman violations or hiring and promotion improprieties. The City shall timely provide the Monitor with these complaints and cooperate with the Monitor's investigation into the complaints. The City shall immediately inform all employees of the identity and contact information for the appointed individual.
IV. Immediate Training on Interim Hiring Plan and SlIakman Principles
A. The City has been unsuccessful in adequately providing any meaningful training regarding Shakman's prohibition against political hiring and persOimel decisions to relevant personnel within individual departments and the Department of Personnel.
B. The Monitor and her staff shall immediately provide mandatory training to the City's Department of Personnel analysts and to all hiring personnel, Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, and department heads within all City departments anticipated to engage in hires/transfers/promotions during the interim period.
V. Redesignation of SIIakman Exempt Titles
A. The Shakman Decree allows the City to take political factors into account in employment dceisions if the City can demonstrate that party aOmation is an
6

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 7 of 12
appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved. See Branti v. Finkel et ai., 445 U.S. 507, 518 (1980). B. Currently the City can designate positions as Shakman exempt with few limitations so long as the number of Shakman exempt titles stays below a predetermined number of employees. In addition, the City can change the Shakman status of various positions with relatively minimal justification. C. Accordingly, since the first designation of Shakman exempt positions, the City has amended the Shakman exempt titles on over one-hundred (l00) occasions. Several of the current Shakman exempt positions do not appear to meet the standard announced in Branti which requires the City to demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved. D. The mechanism currently in place has had the perverse effect of using Shakman exempt position designation in a marmer that is inconsistent with the Shakman requirements. E. The City must provide a new list of Shakman exempt titles to the Monitor within thirty (30) days. Each title must be accompanied by a written explanation that demonstrates that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public MIke involved. F. The Monitor will review the new list of titles and make a recommendation to the Court as to whether the new list of positions should be approved.
VI. Review of Potential Institutional Barriers to Compliance
"Paid As" Positions
A. The City uses an internal system that allows an employee to be hired into one position, but nonetheless "paid as" if the employee held a different position.
B. The use of the "paid as" process creates a potential institutional barrier to compliance with Shakman by promoting employees through this system without notice of or competition for the newly created promotion.
C. It is also not elear whether an individual can be hired into a Shakman exempt position and then "paid as" a Shakman covered position, ef1ectively eliminating the Shakman requirements from the hire.
D. Within thirty (30) days the City should report to the Monitor the feasibility of eliminating or altering the "paid as" process to ensure tlmt these promotions are Shakman compliant in the future.
Recall ListslReclassifications
A. The City uses an internal system that allows for the recall of laid off employees through "Recall Lists". The recall process is not subject to the Shakman initial hire oversight provisions. The City also allows employees to be reclassified under certain conditions. The reclassification process is similarly not subject to the Shakman initial hire oversight provisions. Accordingly, Shakman violations
7

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 8 of 12
may become institutionalized as a result of employees being recalled or reclassified. B. Within thirty (30) days the City should report to the Monitor the feasibility of altering the recall and reclassification system to ensure that these processes are Shakman compliant in the future.
VII. Consideration of R:<ecutive Order Prohibiting Retaliation
A. Currently there are limited protections for City employees who come forward to report alleged Shakman violations.
B. The City should formalize its stated commitment to encourage its employees to cooperate with the Monitor by incorporating a "No Retaliation" provision into an Executive Order issued by the Mayor.
Monitor's Recommendations for Future Study
I. Continue Information Gathering and Analysis for Purposes of Reforming Current System to Ensure }'uture SIIakman Compliance
A. Continue to interview individuals and review information regarding City's hiring. promotion, and transfer practices and procedures to further identify weaknesses in the current system.
B. Solicit input from applicants, current employees, former employees, and other interested individuals. I. Establish a wehsite with a dedicated e-mail address to allow any person to provide the Monitor with input electronically. 2. Conduct survey of current employees for input regarding patronage Issues.
C. Canvass and review hest practices used hy other government entities to reduce unlawful consideration of political factors in hiring, promotion, and transfers.
D. Review potential use of technology and/or e-recruiting as an additional means for reducing the risk of improper political considerations in personnel decisions.
II. Develop Alternative to Current Detailed Hiring Provisions Designed to Significantly Increase Accountability of Hiring Personnel and Ensure Maximum Compliance with Shakman Principles
A. Evaluate use oflotteries for certain categories of positions.
B. Evaluate potential outsourcing of certain components of the hiring processes.
C. Evaluate creation of stronger and more independent Department of Personnel.
D. Evaluate establishment of civil service model.

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 9 of 12
E. Evaluate decentralization of hiring process to individual departments.
F. Evaluate problems with screening, including problems associated with eligibility lists and referral lists.
G. Evaluate other alternative remedies based on additional information gathered.
III. Analyze Potential Mechanisms for Increasing Transparency in City's Personnel Decision-making Processes
A. The City'S personnel practices should be more open to public scrutiny. Lack of transparency may prevent applicants, current employees, and taxpayers from raising questions or protesting improper politically-motivated personnel decisions.
13. Lack of transparency also may conceal unlawful consideration of political factors in public employment personnel decisions.
C. Analyze potential use of public disclosure of information relatcd to successful hires and promotions, including demographic information of successful applicants/promotees. Consider other possible means of increasing transparency.
IV. Analyze Potential Mechanisms for Increasing Accountability for Compliance with Shakman Decrees by City Officials and Personnel
A. Develop a binding and enforceable court ccrtification process for city personnel involved in ultimate hiring and promotion decisions, including high level officials, similar to Sarbanes-Oxlcy.
B. Develop other deterrence and enforcement mechanisms to increase compliance with Shakman decrees, including assessment of penalties for proven violations (including potential job loss, or potential loss of pension or other benefits).
C. Implement regular and timely forensic audits of City's compliance with Shakman decrees by wholly independent auditor.
D. Establish impartial, effective entity to adjudicate allegations of Shakman violations in the future, under jurisdiction offederal court.
E. Establish mechanism for entity to receive, investigate, and pursue en ",rcement actions for complaints of Shakman violations.
V. Evaluate Possible Enactment of City Ordinance to Prohihit Political Discrimination in City Employment and RemedieslPenalties
VI. Evaluate Possible Enactment of City Ordinance to Prohibit Retaliation Related to Making or Participating in SIIakntan Complaints or Investigations
Powers Required hy Monitor
I. To date, the City has provided all infonnation requested hy the Monitor.
9

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 10 of 12

II. To ensure the Monitor's continued ability to perform the specific tasks assigned by the Court and outlined in the recommendations of this Report, the Monitor
recommends that she be granted the following limited powers:

A. Power to subpoena City records;

B. Power to compel employee interviews; and

C. Power to receive complaints of alleged Shakman violations, compel the production of relevant information from the City regarding such violations. and recommend appropriate relief, if necessary.

Anticipated Staffing and Budgetary Needs

1.

The Monitor, Cowl~el for Monitor, associate attorneys and their respective support staffs

working under the direct supervision of the Monitor and/or Counsel for Monitor will be

primarily responsible for implementing and carrying out the key elements of each of the

recommendations delineated above. Time spent by these individuals will continue to be

charged to the City as provided by the Court's Order dated August 8, 2005.

II.

In addition, the Monitor and her counsel anticipate requiring the assistance of two

paralegals on a full-time basis in the next one hundred twenty (120) days to assist with

the Monitor's random audits of City's interim hiring and promotions, information

gathering activities, document analysis, organization of information from interviews,

compilation and organization of relevant information from current employees via

surveys, compilation and organization of relevant infonnation from the public via the

internet, and assistance with legal research and research regarding fair hiring and

promotion practices. Work perfotmed by such paralegals will be billed to the City on an

hourly basis at the rate of $90. Additional administrative support staff assistance will

also be r<!quircd in the next one hundred twenty days. Administratiw support staff will

be billed to the City on an hourly basis at the rate of $30 per hour.

III.

The Monitor may retain professionals with expertise in establishment of a dedicated e·

mail or appropriate web site, auditing, human resources tec1U1ology, and gowmment

hiring systems, on an as needed basis, to provide input regarding specialized issues

rclated to any proposals under consideration. The City shall be responsible for all fees

associated with the retention of such professional(s).

IV.

The Monitor may require the services oCadditional consultants with specialized expertise,

including collective bargaining agreements. The City shall be responsible for all fees

associated with the retention of such professional(s).

V.

For consultants identified in Paragraphs III and IV above, the Monitor will notify and

consult with the City before hiring any such consultant or expert whose costs are

anticipated to exceed $10,000.

10

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 11 of 12
Further Reports The parties and the Monitor should appear bei'ilre the Court on October 7, 2005 at 9:00am
to provide a status regarding the implementation of the foregoing. At lhis time, the Monitor shall file a status report identifying the following:
o Recommendations regarding the Interim Hiring and Promotion Plan; o Progress on implementation of immcdiate and on-going action items
identilled herc; and o Additional powers and/or staftlng requirements.
l1~L 1AlUUA Noelle C. Brennan Monitor Brennan & Monte Ltd. 321 S. Plymouth Court Suite 1515 Chicago, IL 60604
.. J#d
Susan E. Cox Counsel to the Monitor Luke DeGrand & Associates, P.C. 20 N. Clark Street Suite 1450 Chicago, IL 60602
~d~'~
Counsel to the Monitor Brennan & Monte Ltd. 321 S. Plymouth Court Suite 1515 Chicago, 1L 60604
11

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 327 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 12 of 12
Appendix A
Shakman Certification
With respect to all City jobs that are not exempt from the Shakman decrees, all City employees are strictly prohibited from directly or indirectly:
(1) Conditioning, basing, or knowingly prejudicing of affecting any term or aspect of City employment of an existing City employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor;
(2) Affecting the hiring of any individual as a City employee because of any political reason or factor; and
(3) Knowingly inducing, aiding, abetting, participating in, cooperating with or encouraging the commission of any act which is proscribed by the Shakman decrees.
Political considerations may not enter, in any manner whatsoever, into personnel decisions for Shakman covered positions in the City of Chicago.

I certify that I am aware of and am in full compliance with the above stated prohibitions regarding personnel decisions by the City of Chicago. I certify, under penalty of perjury, as provided for by law. that, to the best of my knowledge, political considerations did not enter into the employment actions documented herein. I understand that failure to comply with the above prohibitions and/or failure to submit an accurate Shakman
Certification form may result in diSCiplinary action up to and including immediate termination.

Signature

Printed Name

Date

 
 Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 386 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN and PAUL M. LURIE, et aI.,
Plaintiffs, v.
THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK COUNTY, et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

No. 69 C 2145

)

)

)

Honorable Wayne Andersen

)

)

)

ORDER

This matter coming before the Court on Defendant City of Chicago's Agreed Motion to

Amend the Detailed Hiring Provisions, due notice having been given and counsel for plaintiffs

having agreed to the Motion, it is hereby ordered that Defendant City's Motion is granted and that

the City's Detailed Hiring Provisions are amended by adding thereto the Inspector General's Office

Hiring Procedures in the form submitted to the Court, a copy of which being attached hereto, such

amendment to be effective immediately.

DATEb1,2006

ENTERED:

CJ c, -

(~ .J?

Wayn{R. Andersen

Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 386 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 2 of 6
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE HIRING PROCEDURES
In troduction These Inspector General's Office Hiring Procedures are an amendment to the Detailed
Hiring Provisions for Compliance with the Shakman Judgment ("the Detailed Provisions"), as amended, and provide for an alternative method of recruitment and selection of employees of the Inspector General's Office.
These Hiring Procedures are intended to provide the Inspector General's Office with a method of hiring employees that maximizes the independence of the Inspector General's Office and helps to ensure that its employees are nonpal1isan and free from connicts of interest. A. Methods of Obtaining or Accepting Applications
1. Available positions with the Inspector General's Office shall be advertised and posted at the location where other City of Chicago positions are posted, as well as either (a) on the Inspector General's Office website, (b) on the Department of Human Resources' website, or (c) through another publicly-available website. The notice of available positions shall remain posted and the application period shall remain open for a minimum of 14 days. The notice shall list the minimum qualifications and screening criteria and shall state that the Inspector General's Oflice requires that its employees be nonpartisan and free fi·om connicts of interest.
2. The Inspector General's Office may recruit individuals to apply for available positions in order to attract the most highly-qualified, connict-free candidates.
3. Applications for such positions shall be sent directly to the Inspector General's Office, as specified in the notice. Any applications for such positions received by the Department of Human Resources shall be forwarded to the Inspector General's Office.

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 386 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 3 of 6
4. All applicants shall submit a resume, transcripts from their educational institution(s), a writing sample or essay if requested in the hiring advertisement, and any other requested information relevant to the position involved. All application materials shall be made part of the Hiring File. B. Screening and Interviewing Applications
1. At least two members of the Inspector General's Office designated by the Inspector General shall review the applications and select applicants for interview based on the screening criteria set for the applicable position.
2. Applicants selected for an interview shall be interviewed by at least three senior or supervisory employees in the Inspector General's Office, each of whom shall fill out an Evaluation Form prescribed by the Inspector General's Offlce. The Evaluation Fomls shall be made part of the Hiring File
3. The Inspector General's Office may ask questions of its applicants to determine whether the applicants have ties to City officials or City political figures or entities. The Inspector General's Office shall create a written record of the infonnation supplied by the applicants on this subject, and may require applicants to provide such information in writing as part of the application process. The documents containing this information shall be made part of the Hiring File. [n making its hiring decision, the Inspector General's Office may consider this information in determining whether the applicant would be able to pursue the mission of the Inspector General's Office without any conflicts of interest.
4. The Inspector General's Office shall retain applications for three years after receipt and may contact applicants for the purpose of filling any position. The Inspector General's Office may rely on its previous screening or may have the applicant re-scrcened.
2

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 386 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 4 of 6
C. The Hiring Decision 1. For each applicant who is interviewed, the Hiring File shall be distributed to the
Inspector General's Office Hiring Committee, which shall consist of the Inspector General plus at least five other senior or supervisory employees in the Inspector General's Office selected by the Inspector General. The Hiring Committee shall meet to discuss the qualifications of the applicants interviewed. The Shakman Decree Monitor shall be given at least 48 hours advance written e-mail notice of eaeh such meeting. At each Hiring Committee meeting, the Shakman Decree Monitor or an individual appointed by the Court or by the Shakman Decree Monitor may be present and may review all documentation.
2. At the meeting, each member of the Hiring Committee shall state his or her views on each interviewed applicant and shall state in writing his or her opinion as to whether each interviewed applicant is qualified or not qualified. If the Inspector General has not interviewed an applicant at this point in the process, the Inspector General shall do so before making a decision on employment. The Inspector General shall make the final decision as to which action to take.
3. For each applicant hired by the Inspector General's Office, the Inspector General shall complete a Hiring Decision Form stating the reasons for the hiring decision. This form shall be made part of the Hiring File.
4. As to each applicant hired by the Inspector General's Office, the applicant, the Inspector General, and all Inspector General's Office employees who participated in the evaluation or hiring process shall, under penalties of pe~ury and possible loss of employment, sign an affidavit stating that, except for the consideration of political factors for the sole purpose of addressing possible conflicts of interest, the evaluation of the applicant, the hiring decision
3

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 386 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 5 of 6
and the recommendations regarding the applicant were not based on or affected by political considerations, including political sponsorship, affiliation, or support. Such affidavits shall be made part of the Hiring File.
5. Within one week of the applicant being hired by the Inspector General's Office, the Inspector General's Office shall forward the Hiring File to the Shakman Decree Monitor.
6. Within 30 days of the applicant being hired by the Inspector General's Office, the Inspector General's Office shall post on its website or the Department of Human Resources' website the following information: (i) the number of people who applied for the position, (ii) the number of people interviewed, and (iii) whether at least two members of the Hiring Committee considered the applicant not qualified for the position. The information shall remain posted until replaced with the annual data for categories (i) - (iii) along with (iv) a geographical breakdown of the residences of the employees hired during the year by ward of residence for each year after 2005. Such annual infomlation shall remain so posted for five years. In addition, each quarter, the Inspector General's Office shall post on its website or the Department of Human Resources' website a geographical breakdown of the residences of its employees showing the number of employees who live in each ward.
7. For those applicants hired by the Inspector General's Office, the Hiring Filc will be maintained by the Inspector General's Office for a period of 10 years unless otherwise ordered by the Court. For applicants not hired, the Hiring File will be maintained by the Inspector General's Office for a period of 5 years unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Hiring File and other hiring documentation shall remain confidential within the Inspector General's Office and shall not be disclosed, except to the Court, the Shakman Decree Monitor, and such other individuals or entities as the Court or the Shakman Decree Monitor deem
4

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 386 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 6 of 6 appropriate for the purpose of monitoring or conducting an audit or review. Nothing in this document shall make the Hiring File or other hiring documentation a public record.
5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN, PAUL M. LURIE, )

KENNETH AYERS, ANN M. KING,

)

INDEPENDENT VOTERS OF ILLINOIS-

)

INDEPENDENT PRECINCT ORGANIZATION, )

MICHAEL SULLIVAN, DARRYN JONES,

)

STUART MAJERCZYK, RICHARD

)

GRAMAROSSA and CONNIE GRAMAROSSA, )

et al.,

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK )

COUNTY, THE CITY OF CHICAGO,

)

RICI-IARD M. DALEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND )

AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO,

)

REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL

)

COMMITTEE OF ILLINOIS, REPUBLICAN )

COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF COOK )

COUNTY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case Number: 69 C 2145 Judge Andersen Magistrate Judge Schenkier

AGREED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND ACCORD SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Rule 23 Order .............................................................................................. 2 (a) Settlement of Complaint, Motion for Contempt and Eventual Dissolution of Injunction .........................................................................................2 (b) Contingent Final Accord Approval ...........................................................2 (c) Accord Preliminary Approval; Contempt Motion and City Motion to Vacate Become Moot; Rule 23 Procedures and Injunction of Further Complaints ..............2
2. Conditions Precedent to Final Approval of Accord ...................................................3 3. Dismissal of Mayor; Vacate 1983 Consent Judgment as to Mayor ................................ .3 4. Accord Supersedes and Replaces 1983 Consent Judgment .......................................... 3 5. Non-Effect of Accord on Other Parties ................................................................ 4 6. Status of 1972 Consent Judgment ...................................................................... .4 7. City Council .........................................................................................................4 I. Prohibited Activities..................................................................................................................... 5
A. Injunction. .. ............................................................................................................ 5 B. Covered City Emplovees. .. .................................... " .............................................. 5 C. Recommendations and Definition of Political Reasons and Factors...................... 6 D. Continued Jurisdiction of the Court; Funding of Shakman Decree Monitor. ....... 7 E. Post-Accord Review and Enforcement.. .................................................................. 8
(J) Plaintiffs' Review of Accord Performance. .. .................................................... 8 (2) PlaintifTs' Enforcement Actions on Behalf of Class Members Other Than Campaign Candidates. .. ................................................................................................. 8 (3) Waiver by Named Plaintiffs of Enforcement on Behalf of Campaign Candidates. .. ...................................................................................... ,........................... 8 (4) Candidate Rights for Post-Accord Acts ............................................................. 9 F. Implementation of New Plan: Continued SDM Monitoring. .. .............................. 9 G. Sunset Procedures .............................................. ,........................ ,.......................... 10 (1) DHR Certification of Substantial Compliance. .. ............................................. 10 (2) Mayoral Declaration . ....................................................................................... 10 (3) SDM's Opinion................................................................................................ 10 (4) Conditions to Termination of the Accord. .. ..................................................... 10 (5) Hearing if Negative SDM Opinion................................................................... II (6) Effective Date of Termination; Pending Arbitration Demands ........................ 11

(7) Reinitiating Substantial Completion Process................................................... 11 (8) Substantial Compliance Definition. ................................................................. 11 H. Post-Accord Relief and Defenses.......................................................................... 12 (1) Accord Claims and Other Relief. .................................................................... 12 (2) Waiver ofChallengc to Accord Validity and Class Member Standing; Preservation of Other Defenses. .................................................................................. 13 II. The New Plan............................................................................................................................ ] 3 A. New Plan to Replace Detailed Hiring Plan. ........................................................ ] 3 B. Ne\v Plan Development. ...................................................................................... 13
c. Interim New Plan Components............................................................................ 13
D. Impasse Resolution for New Plan Development. ................................................. 14 E. Senior Manager Hiring Process. .. ........................................................................ 14 F. Private Secretary Hiring Process. .. ...................................................................... 14 G. Exemptions. .. ....................................................................................................... ]4 III. Claims Procedure for Alleged Past Violations Pre-Dating Entry of the Accord..................... 15 A. Claim Fund............................. ,.............................................................. ,............. 15 B. Notice. .. ................................................................................................................ 15 C. Opt-Out Rights. .. ................................................................................................. 16 D. Certain Named PlaintifTs Incentive Awards ....................................................... 16 E. (~laim Forms. ,.................................... ,.................... ,...................... ,..................... 17
1. Contents. .. .... ,...................................... ,................ ,....................................... ] 7 2. Interpretation. .. .................................. ,......................... ,................. ,............. 18 3. Cooperation of City and Claimants. .. .......................................................... 18 4. Eligibility Period. .. ....................................................................................... 18 5. Availabilitv of Claim Forms........................................................................ 18 6. Claitn Determination. .. ................................................................................ 19 7. Matters to Be Considered. ........................................................................... 19 8. Notice of SDM Decision. ............................................................................ 19 F. Disbursement of A\vards .......................................... "" ....................... " ...... " ...... 19 (;. Remainder to the City, ...................................................... ,............... ,.................. 20 II. Release.............................................................................................. " ................... 20 1. Released Clailns. .. ......................................................... ,............................. 20 2. Released Parties. .......................................................................................... 20
II

3. Final Settlement of Claims. ......................................................................... 20 4. Effect of Release .......................................................................................... 21 IV. Procedure for Alleged Violations Occurring After the Entry of the Accord .......................... 21 A. Accord Complaint Process .................................................................................... 2] (1) Making an Accord Complaint. .................................................................... 21 (2) Availability of Accord Complaint Forms .................................................... 22 (3) IGO Investigation. .. ..................................................................................... 23 (4) Distribution to SDM .................................................................................... 23 (5) Cooperation with IGO. ................................................................................ 24 (6) Timing ofIGO Investigation....................................................................... 24 (7) Sustained Cases. .......................................................................................... 24 (8) Non-Sustained Cases................................................................................... 25 (9) Quarterly Reports. .. ..................................................................................... 25 (10) Tolling During IGO Investigation............................................................... 25 B. Arbitration Procedure ............................................................................................ 26 (1) Written Arbitration Request Due Date........................................................ 26 (2) Settlement Orfer. ......................................................................................... 26 (3) Timing for Arbitration. ................................................................................ 26 (4) Arbitrator's Fees; Representatives of Complainant. .................................... 27 (5) Selection of Arbitrator. ................................................................................ 27 (6) Governing Rules. .. ....................................................................................... 27 (7) Arbitrator's Decision. .................................................................................. 27 (8) Finalitv of Decision. .. .................................................................................. 28 (9) Vv'aiver. .. ...................................................................................................... 29 (10) J\ udit Documentation. .. ............................................................................... 29 V. No Admission ........................................................................................................................... 29 VI. No Retaliation .......................................................................................................................... 29 VII. Compliance Reports to Court................................................................................................. 29 VIII. Attorneys' Fees..................................................................................................................... 30 IX. Term ination of the Accord ...................................................................................................... 30 A. Effect of Non-Approval. ...................................................................................... 30 B. Effect of Termination. .. ....................................................................................... 30 X. Entire AgreeITIcnt. ..................................................................................................................... 30
iii

In 1972, Defendants the City of Chicago (hereinafter "the City") and its Mayor entered into a Consent Judgment which, among other things, prohibited Defendants from "conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor." On June 20, 1983, the City entered into a Consent Judgment which incorporated the 1972 Consent Judgment's prohibitions and extended those prohibitions to include the City's hiring practices, \vith certain exclusions. The 1983 Consent Judgment specifically empowers this Court to enforce the terms of both the 1972 Consent Judgment and the 1983 Consent Judgment. On November 11, 2001. the Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Entry of Rule to Show Cause Why the City of Chicago and Its Mayor Should Not Be Held in Civil Contempt of Court and Various Relief Granted ("November 11, 2001 Motion") for alleged past violations of the 1972 and 1983 Consent Judgments. The Court granted the November 11, 2001 Motion in part and the City appealed. On November 17, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded the matter whieh is now pending before this Court. On January 24, 2002, the City filed a Motion seeking to vacate the 1983 Consent Judgment. The Court denied that Motion and the City appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On July 26, 2005, the Plaintiffs filed an Application to Hold the City of Chicago and Its Mayor in Civil Contempt ("July 26, 2005 Application") for alleged past violations of the 1972 and 1983 Consent Judgments. On August 2, 2005, the Court appointed a Shakman Decree Monitor and her counsel (collectively referred to as "SDM") "to ensure future compliance" with the Court's prior orders in Shakman et a!. v. The Democratic Organization of Cook County, et al., Case No. 69 C 2145. On October 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision reversing the denial of the

City's Motion to Vacate and remanding to the District Court with instructions. On January 11,
2006, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint and the City and the Mayor tiled a
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint along \vith a renc\ved Motion to Vacate the
1983 Consent Judgment.
The City of Chicago and thc Plaintiffs (collectively "the Parties") agree as follows:
1. Rule 23 Ordec The Court shall enter an order in the form attached as Exhibit A
provisionally ccrtifying the additional classes in the Second Amended Complaint as follows: (i)
all past employees and applicants for employment \\lith the City of Chicago to the date of the
entry of this Accord pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) and (ii) all
employees or applicants for employment with the City of Chicago during the lite of the Accord.
The order shall appoint currcnt class counsel as counsel for the additional classes.
(a) Settlement of Complaint. Motion for Contempt and Eventual Dissolution of Injunction. Effective when finally approved by the Court, this Accord fully and finally resolves all of Plaintitfs' claims against the City and the Mayor in the Second Amended Complaint and the Plaintiffs' motion to hold the City and its Mayor in civil contempt and is intended to have res judicata eiTect regarding those Plaintiffs' claims and that Plaintiffs' motion. Effective when the Accord is finally approved by the Court, Plaintiffs covenant not to sue the City or its Mayor regarding the claims resolved by this Accord. Upon the termination of this Accord pursuant to Section I.F, all injunctive provisions of the Accord shall dissolve and all obligations of the City under this Accord shall cease.
(b) Contingent final Accord Approval. This agreement to certi fy the above classes is contingent upon final approval of the Accord (,vhich has become not further appealable). No certified settlement class or other class of applicants and employees pursuant hereto, or other agreement set forth herein, shall remain effective if the Accord is not approved and such approval does not become final and not further appealable. In that event, the terms of this Accord, including any agreed or certified settlement classes, shall be without force or effect for any purpose.
(c) Accord Preliminary Approval: Contempt Motion and City Motion to Vacate Become Moot; Rule 23 Procedures and Injunction of Further Complaints. The order also preliminarily approves the Accord. denies as moot the Plaintiffs' November 1],200 I Motion and July 25, 2006 Application to hold the City and its Mayor in civil contempt and the City's motion to vacate the 1983 Consent
2

Judgment, sets forth procedures for notice, hearing and final approval of the Accord, and preliminarily bars and enjoins the institution and prosecution, by class members who do not opt out of this Accord, of any claims against the City and the Mayor that were or could have been asserted in the underlying Action.
2. Conditions Precedent to Final Approval of Accord. Prior to final approval of the
Accord by the Court:
(a) the Mayor will have signed an Executive Order, a draft of which is attached as Exhibit B and which shall be finalized within 30 days, (i) forbidding unlawful political discrimination in all aspects of employment with the City exccpt with respect to exempt positions and endorsing the Accord and (ii) requiring City employces to report unlawful political discrimination to the Inspector General's OffIce directly and without undue delay;
(b) the City Council will have approved all clemcnts of the Accord which include, but are not limited to (i) the $12,000,000 of funding for Claims awards pursuant to Section III, (ii) claims administration pursuant to Scction IlL (iii) the SDM monitoring and procedures set forth in Sections I.E. and III, and (iv) thc Inspector General's investigation and remedial procedures set forth in Section IV; and
(c) the Inspector General will have agreed to inves6gate claims that arise after the Court's final approval of the Accord.
3. Dismissal of Mayor; Vacate 1983 Consent Judgment as to Mayor. Effective upon
final approval of the Accord, the Mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, is dismissed with
prejudice as a party in his individual and official capacities and all claims asserted against the
Mayor in the Second Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. The 1983 Consent
Judgment shall be vacated as to Mayor Richard M. Daley in his individual and oflicial capacity
. . . and to successor Mayors when the Court finds that Richard M. Dalev and the Citv have
presented and the Court has approved the "New Plan" (for all categories of covered employees
except fire and police) provided for in Section 11.
4. Accord Supersedes and Replaces 1983 Consent Judgment. This Accord provides
for the superseding and replacement of the 1983 Consent Judgment with this Agreed Settlement
3

Order with regard to the City and Plaintiffs may not petition the Court to have it reinstated after the Accord has been finally terminated.
5. Non-Effect of Accord on Other Parties. This Accord shall have no effect on nonCity parties to other judgments or orders, or persons who opt out of the Accord pursuant to the procedure ordered for submission of this Accord for judicial approval (collectively, "Other Parties"). This Court retains jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims and issues involving the validity of the 1983 Consent Judgment or the Accord brought in proceedings initiated by Other Parties.
6. Status of 1972 Consent Judgment. The 1972 Consent Judgment remains in full force and effect after the Court's approval of the Accord. However, the remedy provided in this Accord is the exclusive remedy for Class Members seeking remedies for claims under both the 1972 and 1983 Consent Judgments based on events occurring prior to the entry of the Accord \vho fail to opt out as provided herein. The City may petition the Court to vacate the 1972 Consent Judgment at any time, including prior to, during, at the time of termination of the Accord, or after the termination of the Accord.
7. City Council. The City Council of the City of Chicago and the Aldermen are not, and have never been, named parties to the 1972 and 1983 Consent Judgments, nor are they named parties to the underlying Action or this Accord. Plaintifls further agree they will not add any new defendants employed by the City or officials orthe City to the Second Amended Complaint or to thc Accord. The foregoing is \vithout prejudice to PlaintitTs' rights to enforce the Accord.
The Parties further agree and the Court hereby Orders as fo11O\\1s:
4

I. Prohibited Activities. A. Injunction. Other than for exempt positions, the City, its present and future oflicers, members, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those acting at the direction of and/or in concert with such persons are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly, in whole or in part: (1) conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of government employment (other than for exempt positions) or offering employment (whether to a prospective or current City employee) based upon or because of any political reason or factor, including, without limitation, any individual's political affiliation, political support or activity, political financial contributions, promises of such political support, activity or financial contributions, or such individual's political sponsorship or recommendation; or (2) knowingly inducing, aiding, abetting, participating in, cooperating with the commission of any act \vhich is proscribed in Section l.A(l), or threatening to commit any action proscribed in Section LA(1). B. Covered Citv Employees. The prohibitions set forth in Section 1.A( 1) and (2) above shall extend to all employment by or for the City, or by or 1<')[ any person or entity under the direction and control of the City, except for those positions excluded by the Accord. For this purpose "employment" means the relationship that constitutes employment at common law by the City or by or for any person or entity under the direction and control of the City except for those positions excluded by the Accord and includes probationary, temporary, part time and permanent employment, whether pursuant to a written contract or otherwise. The prohibitions set forth in Section I.A(l) and (2) above do not apply to the retention
5

of independent contractors by the City or employment by other agencies not under the direction and control of the City, including but not limited to, the Chicago Transit Authority, the Chicago Public Schools, the Chicago Housing Authority, the Board of Elections, the Public Buildings Commission, or the Chicago Park District (which is subject to separate judgments in this case).
c. Recommendations and Definition of Political Reasons and Factors. Nothing in
the Accord or the New Plan shall limit the right of any citizen, including elected officials, to make recommendations not based on political reasons or factors to personnel involved in making employment decisions on behalf of the City. In the case of hiring for positions that are not exempt from the requirement that political reasons or factors bc excluded from consideration, recommendations from public office holders or political party officials that are based on their personal knO\vlcdge of the person's work skill, work experience or other job-related qualifications are permitted and may be considered. Recommendations based on political reasons or factors shall not be given any effect, and shall be reported as provided in the New Plan. As used herein, "political reasons or factors" include: 1. Recommendations for hiring, promotion or other employment terms for specific persons from public office holders or political party officials that arc not based on personal knowledge of the person's work skills, \vork experience or other job-related qualifications. 2. The fact that the person worked in a political campaign or belongs to a political organization or political party. Or the fact that the person chose not to work in a political campaign or to belong to a political organization or a political party. The mere
6

fact that a person worked for a political campaign for elective ot1ice does not prohibit consideration of a recommendation related to that person insofar as the basis for that recommendation relates to the person's relevant work experience.
3. The fact that the person contributed money, raised money or provided something else of value to a candidate for public office or a political organization. Or the fact that the person chose not to contribute or raise money for a candidate for public office or a political organization.
4. The fact that the person is a Democrat or a Republican or a member of any other political party or group. Or the fact that the applicant is not a member.
5. The fact that the person expressed views or beliefs on political matters such as what candidates or elected oflicials he or she favored or opposed, what public policy issue he or she favored or opposed, or what views on government actions or failures to act he or she expressed. D. Continued Jurisdiction of the Court; Funding of Shakman Decree Monitor. The
Court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcement and ongoing monitoring of the City'S compliance with the Accord, including monitoring by the SDM and the SDM's counsel and staff, until such time as the Accord shall terminate, as described in Section I.E. During such period, the City shall continue to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the SDM and her counsel and stafr as may periodically be adjusted with Court approval or with agreement by the City, pursuant to the process previously ordered by the Court.
7

The SDM will prepare and file semi-annual reports with the Court, and copies will be provided to counsel for the parties. The parties may provide input to the Court regarding information contained in the SDM's reports. E. Post-Accord Review and Enforcement. (1) Plaintiffs' Review of Accord Performance. PlaintitIs shall be entitled to review the City's performance under the Accord and the new hiring and promotion plan described in Sections ILA-C (the "New Plan") through counsel of their choice, may present matters to the Court, including but not limited to, suggestions or objections to any proposal or motion for termination or modification to the Accord or the New Plan, and may petition the Court for costs and attorneys' fees incurred as part of their reasonable and appropriate review hereunder. (2) Plaintiffs' Enforcement Actions on Behalf of Class Members Other Than Campaign Candidates. Plaintiffs may also seet enforcement of the Accord and New Plan (although as provided in the next paragraph Michael L Shakman and Paul Lurie may not seek enforcement on behalf of individual candidates or slate of candidates in connection with any particular campaign for public office:., through counsel of their choice on behalf of Class Members for matters arising alter the final approval of the Accord ("Enforcement Actions"). In the event Plaintiffs prevail in any Enforcement Actions, the City shall pay the Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in any such Enforcement Actions. (3) Waiver by Named Plaintiffs of Enforcement on Behalf of Campaign Candidates. Although Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie have not been dismissed as Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint, by agreeing to the Accord, they waive any and all rights
8

to assert any claims or requests for relief on behalf of individual candidates or slate of candidates for violations of the Accord or the 1972 or 1983 Consent Judgments in connection with any particular campaign for p'lblic office. This stipulated limitation on the enforcement rights of Paul M. Lurie and Michael L. Shakman is without prejudice and without any admission, stipulation or adjudication as to whether either of them has standing to seek remedies for such violations of the Accord in such capacities, and does not divest them of any other right to seek enfe,rcement of the Accord, the 1972 Consent Judgment, or of the 1983 Consent Judgment with respect to parties other than the City. If Plaintiffs seek to enforce the 1972 or 1983 CCll1sent Judgments with respect to the City, the City reserves the right to assert all arguments and defenses including standing. (4) Candidate Rights for Post-Accord Acs. Any candidate for public oftice who alleges that she or he is a victim of unlawful pltronage practices at any time betwecn the date of entry of the Accord and the datc the Accord has been ordered tCTIllinated by the Court, may pursue legal remedies under the Accord in this Court, or as otherwise provided by law. F. Implementation of New Plan; Continued SDM Monitoring. The New Plan that
replaces the current Detailed Hiring Plan shall be implementcd by the City and bc effective on or before April 30, 2007, or as soon thereafter as adopted in accordance with the procedure described in Sections Il.A-E. The New Plan shall be fully incorporated by reference inte the Accord. The SDM, with her counsel and statT, shall continue to actively monitor thc City's compliance with the Accord until its termination.
9

G. Sunset Procedures (1) DHR Certification of Substantial Compliance. On or after December 3 J, 2008, the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources may sign a Certification of Substantial Compliance ("DHR Certification of Substantial Compliance") in a form attached as Exhibit I.F(l) stating that, after appropriate review and inquiry, the Commissioner believes that the City is in Substantial Compliance (as defined below) with the Accord. The DHR Certification of Substantial Compliance shall be served on the SDM and PlaintifTs' Class Counsel. (2) Mayoral Declaration. On or after De.;.:ember 31, 2008, the Mayor may sign a mayoral declaration in the form attached as Exhibit I.F(2) ("Mayoral Declaration"). The Mayoral Declaration shall be served on the SDM and plaintiffs' counsel. (3) SDM's Opinion. The SDM shall, wi1hin 30 days after the receipt of both the Certification of Substantial Compliance from the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources and the Mayoral Declaration, advise the Court whether, in the opinion of the SDM CSDM's Opinion"), the City is OJ is not in Substantial Compliance with the Accord. The City and Plaintiffs' Class Counsel have the right to challenge the SDM's Opinion and to request a hearing from the Court. (4) Conditions to Termination of the Accord. The Accord shall tenninate if (i) the DI-IR Certification of Substantial Compliance has certified that the City is in Substantial Compliance, in the form attached as Exhibit I.F( I), (ii) the Mayor has signed the Mayoral Declaration, in the form attached as Exhibit I.F(2) (iii) the SDM shall have filed with the Court the SDM's Opinion finding that the City is in Substantial Compliance, and (iv) the
10

Court has not determined, after such procedures the Court deems appropriate, that the

SDM's Opinion is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.

(5) Hearing if Negative SDM Opinion. If the SDM's Opinion finds that Substantial

Compliance has not been achieved, the City m.lY request a hearing, and the Accord shall

terminate if the Court determines, after such procedures the Court deems appropriate, that

the SDM's Opinion that Substantial Compliam:e has not been achieved is contrary to the

preponderance of the evidence.

(6) EtIective Date of Termination: Pending Arbitration Demands. The effective date

of termination shall be thirty (30) days after the delivery to the parties of an SDM's

Opinion finding Substantial Compliance if the: Plaintiffs have not sought reVle\V by the

Court. If either the Plaintiffs or the City have sought Court review of the SDM's Opinion

and findings, the effective date of termination shall be the date of the Distril:t Court's

order finding that Substantial Compliance ha:; been achieved, unless the final order is

stayed pursuant to a subsequent Court Order. Termination of the Accord shall have no

effect on any claim, complaint or written demand for arbitration filed prior to termination

of the Al:cord.

(7) Reinitiating Substantial Completion Process. If the Accord is not so tClminated, it

shall remain in effect, and at the end of each successive six-month period, the City may

by written request to the Court reinitiate 1he above SDM Substantial Compliance

statements and Opinion process.

(8) Substantial Compliance Definition. Substantial Compliance means:

1.

the City has implement~d the New Plan, including procedures to

ensure compliance with the New Plan and identify instances of non-compliance:

II

2. the City has acted in :sood faith to remedy instances of noncompliance that have been identified, and prevent a recurrence;
3. the City does not have a policy, custom or practice of making employment decisions based on poliLcal factors except for positions that are exempt under the Accord;
4. the absence of material noncompliance which frustrates the Accord's essential purpose. The SDM and the Court may consider the number of post-Accord complaints that the Inspector General found to be valid. However, technical violations or isolated incidents of noncompliance shall not be a basis for a finding that the City is not in substantial compliance: and
5. the City has implemented procedures that will effect long-term prevention of the use of impermissible political considerations in connection with City employment. H. Post-Accord Relief and Defenses. (1) Accord Claims and Other Relief. Applicants, employees, candidates and voters may file for post-Accord claim relief under lhe post-Accord claim procedure set forth herein or may seek relief as otherwise provided by law. Voters and candidates may not invoke the Arbitration Process provided in Section IV.B, but they may submit complaints to the Inspector General's Office pursuant to Section IV.A and may pursue other legal remedies under the Accord, in this Court, or as otherwise provided by lav,,'. If any postAccord claims are brought outside of the AccJrd, the City reserves the right to raise any and all defenses to such claims, including stan:ling.
12

(2) Waiver of Challenge to Accord Validity and Class Member Standing; Preservation of Other Defenses. The City shall not seek to vacate, appeal or otherwise challenge the validity of the Accord, and the City stipulates and agrees that the Court has continuing jurisdiction and authority to enforce the Accord. The City expressly waives, covenants and agrees not to assert any argument or claim that any Class Member who seeks relief under the pre or post-Accord claim procedure lacks standing to enforce the Accord or to seek relief under the Accord. However, the City is not precluded from defending a claim brought under the Accord on the basis that the Class Member is not entitled to relief on grounds other than standinE.. II. The New Plan. A. New Plan 10 Replace Detailed Hiring Plan. The City will create a New Plan that
will replace the current Detailed Hiring Provisions. When adopted and approved by the Court, the New Plan shall be deemed fully incorporated by reference into this Accord, The existing Detailed lIiring Provisions, as modified from time to time by the Court, shall continue in ~ffect until the New Plan is adopted and approved by the Court, E. New Plan Development. The SDM \-vill facilitate the development of the New Plan and may make written objections. The Plaintiffs may participate and consult with the SDM and may also object to provisions of the New Plan.
e. Interim New Plan Components. As individual components of the New Plan are
finalized by the City, the City shall present such components to the Court for approval, subject to final adjustment and approval of the entire New Plan by the Court.
13

D. Impasse Resolution for New Plan Development. If, at any time pnor to the adoption of the New Plan, the City and the SDM reach an impasse regarding any component of the New Plan, the SDM shall report to the Court the nature of the umesolved issue(s) and shall make a written recommendation as how to resolve such issue(s) for the Court's determination. The Parties shall have the right to be heard and make submissions concerning the resolution of any unresolved issue(s), and the Court shall then rule on the SDM's recommendation. Provisions directed by the Court pursuant to such ruling(s) ~;hall become part of the New Plan.
E. Senior Manager Hiring Process. The New Plan shall provide fOIr a Senior Manager Hiring Process (attached as Exhibit II.E(1)) which shall identify those senior managers covered by such proce;;s (attached as Exhibit II.E(2)).
F. Private Secretary Hiring Process. The New Plan shall provide for a HiringlTransfer Process for Private Secretary or Assistant to Department or Agency Head and Schedule G Exempt Employees (attached as Exhibit Il.F(J)) which shall identify those positions covered by such process.
G. Exemptions. The New Plan shall include a new list of exempt positions (attached as Exhibit II.G).
(1) The City may from time to time add positions or delete positions from Part G of the Schedule of Exempt Positions so long as the total number of positions in any of the five categories (VIII-XIII) does not increase by more than 10% of the initial number of positions in such category. The City shall notify the SDM and plaintiffs' counsel in writing and post on the City's \vebsite the revised number of exempt positions by the end
14

of each calendar quarter. The SDM or the plaintiffs may file with the Court an objection to any such increase as being not eligible for exemption under applicable legal principles. (2) If the City transfers, reassigns or recl:tssifies an individual holding an exempt position to a non-exempt position, the City shall notify the SDM and plaintiffs' counsel in writing with thirty (30) days. (3) If the City transfers, reassigns or reclassifies an individual holding an exempt position to a non-exempt position, or reclassifes a previously exempt position to a nonexempt position, the City shall notify the SDM and plaintiffs' counsel in writing within thirty days. In addition, the position to \vhich the exempt employee is transferred or which has been reclassified as exempt shall c::mtinue to be counted as exempt until the person who is so transferred or reclassified leaves the employment ofthe City. III. Claims Procedure for Alleged Past Violations Pre-Dating Entry of the Accord. The follmving claim procedures set forth in this Section and Section IV below shall apply after final approval of the Accord. A. Claim Fund. The City of Chicago will establish a fund of $12,000,000 to
compensate Class Members for any and all injuries of any kind (including but not limited to back pay, front pay, emotional distress, or compensatory damages) allegedly arising out of alleged violati<)ns of the 1972 or 1983 Shakman consent decrees between the period of January 1, 2000 and the date of entry of the Accord. B. Notice. The City shall provide a Notice of the Claims Procedure and Notice of Opt-Out Rights to Class Members, in d form and manner approved by the Court, as soon as practicable, and in any event, no later than thirty (30) days following the final approval of the Accord by th;: Court. The Notice shall include a Claim
15

Form, in the form attached as Exhibit IlI.D, and an Opt-Out Request Form, in the form attached as Exhibit III.C. C. Opt-Out Rights. Any Class Member \vho alleges a violation of the 1972 or 1983 Shakman consent decrees occurring prior to January 1, 2000, is not provided relief by this Accord, but may opt out of the Accord and assert whatever rights she or he may have regarding any sue h claim by submitting a written Opt-Out Request to the SOM. The Opt-Out Request Form (attached as Exhibit lII.C) must be received by the SDM by the dat(; specified in the Notice which shall be approximately one hundred twenty (120) days after the final approval of the Accord (the "Opt-Out Date"). Any Class Member who alleges a violation of the 1972 or 1983 Shakman consent decree~ arising between January], 2000 and the final approval date of the Accord may elect not to participate in the Claims Procedure detailed herein by submitting an Opt-Out Request to the SDM received on or before the Opt-Out Date. Unless such individual Class Member opts-out of the Accord in the manner provided herein, her or his rights regarding any such claim shall be governed solely by the Claims Procedure set forth in the Accord. Opt-Out Requests must be in writing, signed by the Class Member, and must include the Class Member's full name, address and telephone number and must state that the Class Member requests to be excluded from the Accord. Within seven (7) days of the Opt-Out Date, th·: SDM shall provide copies of all Opt-Out Requests to the Parties. D. Certain Named Plaintiffs Incentive Av./ards. The City shall pay each of named plaintiffs Michael Sullivan, Richard Gramarossa, Ann King, Stuart Majcrczyk,
16

Darryn Jones and Kenneth Ayers an incentive award of $25,000.00 (the "Incentive A\vards") for their efforts as named plaintiffs on behalf of all class members and for risking possible employment harm and harassment from fellow employees and others. The Incentive Awards shall be paid within fourteen days after approval of the Accord and 11e expiration of time to appeal or the affirmance of the Accord upon such appeal. Upon payment of the Incentive Awards, and without further documentcJion, the Incentive Award recipients shall be deemed to have released, pursuant te, the terms in paragraphs III.O, any claim to any additional award based on such ~fforts and risks as named plaintiffs. The Incentive Awards shall be deducted from the $12,000,000 settlement fund created pursuant to Section IIl.A of this Accord. Each of the named plaintiffs receiving an Incentive Award may submit a claim based on other rationale to the SDM
pursuant to the claims procedure in Section m of this Accord for up to $] 00,000
notwithstanding their receipt of an Incentive Award. However, they may not seek or be paid any additional award from [he SDM that is predicated on the factors supporting their Incentive Award. E. Claim Forms. Class Members who 'Nish to file a claim against the City must submit a Claim Form (attached as Exhibit IlID) to the SDM. All Claim Forms must be received by the SDM by the (,ate specified in the Notice \vhich shall be approximately one hundred twenty (120) days after the final approval of the Accord (the '-Claim Deadline"). 1. Contents. The Claim Form will consist of s\vorn statements setting forth individual claims including: the date of the a;Jeged violation; a narrative description of
17

the alleged violation; a description of alleged damages; identifying information including the claimant's full name, address and telephon= number; and a release of certain claims as detined below. Claimants must attach any supporting documentation to the Claim Form. Claimants may only submit one Claim Form but may allege facts supporting more than one claim on their Claim Form. No Claimant will receive more than $100,000 total, regardless of the number of claims.
2. Interpretation. The SDM shall hterpret the Claim Forms in a liberal, nontechnical manner, and may request further hformation to facilitate identifying valid claims and eliminating those that are not. Such information shall be deemed part of the Claim Form as of the date filed.
3. Cooperation of City and Claimants. During the claims review process the City and/or the Claimant shall provide any and all information reasonably requested by the SDM that she determines necessary for assessment of any claim.
4. Eligibilitv Period. Only claims of violations between the period of January 1, 2000 and the date of final approval of the Accord shall be eligible for recovery under these procedures. Claims for losses during this period that are not properly presented to the SDM through the prescribed claims procedure will be barred. Claims for violations prior to January 1,2000 are not eligible for recovery under the Accord.
5. Availabilitv of Claim Forms. Claim Forms will be available from the SDM, the City and Class Counsel. Claim Forms can be obtained from the SDM's website at wwv....shakmanmonitor.com and the City's website at www.cityofchicago.org. Copies of all Claims Forms and supporting cocumentation filed with the SDM will be made available to the Parties for review' and ccpying.
18

6. Claim Determination. Within ninety (90) days of the Claim Deadline, the SDM in her sale discretion, shall determine whether the claimant is eligible for recovery and, if so, shall assign a monetary award to the claimant based on the relevant information presented to the SDM or otherwise in her possession. No single award shall exceed $100,000. The decision of the SDM will be final.
7. Matters to Be Considered. In determining the assigned award amount for any claim, the SDM may consider all relevant factors and evidence regarding the claim, including but not limited to the following, to the extent applicable: (a) the ratio of applicants to the actual number of positions filled; (b) the facts presented regarding the alleged violation; (c) the salary of the position sought or held: (d) the economic benefit of the action at issue and the number of eligible recipients; (e) the strength of the evidence presented; (f) the amount of the Claim Fund; and (g) the number of claims submitted. In the event additional time is required by the SDM to assess a claim, the SDM shall so inform the Claimant and the City within the ninety (90) day period, and the time shall be extended for the period so specified.
8. Notice of SDM Decision. The SDM shall infonn the parties of her decision by sending a Notice of Determination to the Claimant, the City and Plaintiffs' Class Counsel. The SDM's decision shall be final, and not subject to appeal. F. Disbursement of Awards. Within thirty (30) days following the SDM's
determination on all claims, the SDM shall provide Corporation Counsel with a list of Claimants eligible for an award, the Claimants' last knovVD mailing address, and the amount of each award. Within sixty (60) days ofreccipt of the SDM's list of Claimants and awards, the City \vill mail a check in the amount of the award to
19

each Claimant who has received an award at her or his last knoVvTI mailing address. The City shall provide the SDM and Plaintiffs' Class Counsel with a complete list of all amounts paid, the rc(:ipients and the dates ofpaymcnt. G. Rcmainder to the City. Any portion 0 f the fund remaining after payment of all claims will revert to the City.
H. Release.
1. Released Claims. As used herein, the tcrm "Released Claims" means any and all claims, causes of action, rights, actions, suits, obligations, debts, demands, judgments, agreements, promises, liabilities, controversies, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees, of every nature and description whatsoever that have been or could have been asserted in the Action and \vhether now knov,TI or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising out of employmcnt decisions of any kind (including, but not limited to, hiring, promotion, termination, assignments, disciplin;uy decisions, overtime and the like) made by the City with respect to Class Members prior to the final approval of the Accord by the Court and based on the claim that those tmployment decisions \vere impermissibly motivated by political considerations, including but not limited to any claims for violations of the 1972 Consent Judgment orthc 1983 Consent Judgment.
2. Released Parties. As used herein, the term "Released Parties" means: the City, Mayor Richard M. Daley, the City Council, and all of the City'S employees, agents, advisors, and attorneys, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal or Icgal representatives, successors, transferees and assigns.
3. Final Settlement of Claims. The obligations incurred by the City pursuant to this Accord shall be in full and final dispo:;ition and settlement of all claims, actions,
20

suits, causes of action, and liabilities relating to any of the facts, transactions, events, occurrences, acts or omissions which have been asserted or could have been asserted by the Class against the Released Parties in the Action.
4. EtTect of Release. Once the Accord has been finally approved by the Court, the time for appeal has run or all appeals have been finally exhausted and the Accord has been aHirmed upon any such app;al, and the City has made the payments from the $12 million fund required by the Accord, all Released Claims that have been or could have been asserted by any member of tht Class against the Released Parties or any of them shall be {()fever extinguished and rele'lsed, regardless of whether any claim has been filed pursuant to the Claims provisions of the Accord in Section III above, IV. Procedure for Alleged Violations Occurring After the Entry of the Accord., Any individual who believes that he or she is a victim of unlawful political discrimination in connection with any aspect of City employment aJeged to have occurred during the period that this Accord is in efIcct may file a complaint with the Inspector General's Office, elect to go to Arbitration under the Accord, and/or file a complaint in federal court. In order to elect to go to Arbitration under the Accord, the individual mus': first file a complaint \vith the Inspector General's Office. If an individual elects to go to Arbitration under the Accord, that individual is barred from also filing a complaint in federal court. If an individual files a complaint in federal court for a violation that occurs during the period that this Aceord is in dIect, that individual cannot elect to go to Arbitration under the Accord. A. Accord Complaint Process (I) Making an Accord Complaint. Any individual who believes that he or she is a victim of unlawful political discrimination in any mpect of City employment alleged to have occurred during the period that this Accord is in effec t can make an Accord Complaint. In order
21

to seek remedies through the Arbitration Procedure detailed in Section IV.B for unlawful

political discrimination in connection with any aspect of City employment alleged to have

occurred during the period when the Accord is in effect, an individual (hereafter referred to as

"Accord Complainant") must submit an "Accord Complaint Fonn" to the Inspector Oeneral's

Office ("IGO") attached as Exhibit IV.A(l). The Accord Complaint Form must be received by

the 100 within 180 days after the Accord Complainant knew or should have known of the

alleged unlawful conduct. The Accord Complaint Form shall include a sworn statement setting

forth the Accord Complainant's claims, including:

a. the date or dates of the alleged violation;

b. narrative description of the alleged violation;

c. a description of the alleged damages;

d. identifying information including the Accord Complainant's name, address, telephone number; and

e.

copies of the appropriate supporting documentation, jf in the possession of

the Accord Complainant.

Nothing in this Accord shall restrict the 100's authority or ability to investigate any allegations

of unlawful political discrimination in City cmp:oyment received in any other manner

established by the 100, including through the 100's complaint hotline, through its website

complaint system, by t~lX, by phone or by letter. The filing of an Accord Complaint shall toll an

individual's federal statute of limitations as described in paragraph VI.A( 10) below.

(2) Availabilitv of Accord Complaint FClnns. Accord Complaint Fonns \vill be

available from the SDM, the City, and Plaintiffs' Class Counsel. Accord Complaint Forms can

also be obtained from the SDM's website at W\vv,I.shakmanrnonitor.com, from the IGO's website

at w\vw.chicagoinspectorgeneral.org and the City'S \ve bsite at \N\vw.cityofchicago.org.

22

(3) 100 Investigation. The 100 shall be responsible for conducting or directing the investigation of the Accord Complaint. The IGO's jurisdiction, powers and duties to investigate shall be those set forth in the City's 100 Ordinance.
(4) Distribution to SDM. Within seven (7) days of receiving an Accord Complaint Form, the ]00 shall provide a copy of the Accord Complaint Fonn to the SDM. The 100 shall also provide the SDM with the internal 100 case rumber for the investigation for tracking purposes. The Accord Complaint to the 100 shall othnwise remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to anyone outside the IGO except as proviced for in the IGO Ordinance. The SDM and her agents shall not disclose the contents or existence of the Accord Complaint to anyone other than the Court except as provided below. The S DM shall, within 30 days of receipt of the Accord Complaint Form send a "Notice of Rights," in the form attached as Exhibit IV.A(4), to the Accord Complainant. If Accord Complaint(s) received by the 100 involve an ongoing hiring sequence or a systemic problem, the SDM shall nc>tify the City, if in her discretion such notification is warranted; provided, however, that if the 100 determines, in his sole discretion, that notification to the City would significantly interfere with the lOa's ongoing investigation, the IGO shall instruct the SDM to delay notification to the City until further instruction and the SDM shall do so. The SDM shall report the lOa's instruction to the Court. If the 100 makes such a determination, it shall renew such determination every month and shall, for each such determination, report to the SDM. If the Court determines that the 100's instruction is unreasonable, the Court shall, after giving the IGO an opportunity to be heard, instruct the SDM to provide noti1ication to the City. In the event that the SDM delays notitication to the City based on the IOO's instruction, the SDM shall not consider the City's failure to act in this
23

situation m determining whether or not the City IS within substantial compliance with the Accord.
(5) Cooperation with 100. The City's E)(ecutive branch, its departments and their employees and agents, and the SDM and her agents, shall fully cooperate with the lOa's investigation of the complaint, by, among other things, promptly providing any and all requested documents and infonnation to the 100, and providing the 100 with access to all requested documents and records in a manner that will p~eserve the confidentiality of the 100 investigation.
(6) Timing of 100 Investigation. The IGO shall investigate Accord Complaints expeditiously. The 100 shall attempt to complete it:; investigation within six months after its initiation. If any investigation is not completed within six months after its initiations, the 100 shall notify the City's Law Department, the SDM, Class Counsel, and the Complainant of the general nature of the complaint and the reasons for its failure to complete the investigation \\lithin six months.
(7) Sustained Cases. If the 100 finds at the conclusion of its investigation that impermissible political factors \vere considered in an employment decision ("Sustained Case Report"), the 100 shall report in writing the remIts of its investigation to the Accord Complainant, SDM, Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, the CLy's Department of Human Resources, the City's Law Department, and the department head of any other atTected department. The 100's report shall include the names of all individuals who, according to its investigation, were victims of unla\vful political discrimination in connection \\lith any aspect of government employment with the City and the names of any individuals responsible for such discrimination. The IGO's
24

report shall be accompanied by a Notice of Rights (attached as Exhibit IV.A(4» and a Arbitration Demand Form (attached as Exhibit IV.BO ).
(8) Non-Sustained Cases. If the 100 concludes its investigation without finding that impermissible political factors were considered in an employment decision ("Non-Sustained Case Report") the 100 shall send a report of its findings to the SDM, and to the Accord Complainant. When the 100 sends a report to the Accord Complainant under this paragraph, it shall be sent via certified mail and the 100 shall include a Notice of Rights and a Arbitration Demand Form.
(9) Quarterly Reports. No later than the tifteenth day of January, April, July, and October of each year, the 100 shall file \vith the Court a report, accurate as of the last day of the preceding month, indicating: the number of Accord Ccmplainls received since the date of the last report; the number of investigations initiated since the date of the last report; the number of investigations concluded since the last report broken down by Sustained and Non-Sustained Cases; and the number of investigations pending as of the reporting date.
(10) Tolling During 100 Investigation. The filing of an Accord Complaint shall toll an individual's statute of limitations in federal court ,IS follmvs. An individual shall have thirty (30) days after he or she receives the 100's lnvestigative Case Report to file a complaint in federal court for a violation of the Accord. If an ind:vidual elects to file a complaint in federal court, that individual cannot elect to participate in the Arbitration Procedure described below. If an individual elects to file an Arbitration Demand, ht: or she must do so within thirty (30) days after receipt of the 100's Investigative Case Report.
25

B. Arbitration Procedure. (1) Written Arbitration Request Due Date. Any written demands for arbitration must be received by the Law Department within thirty (30) days after the IGO issues its Investigative Case Report. The Accord Complainant must submit: a written demand for arbitration on the Arbitration Demand Form in the form attached as Exhibit IV.B(l). The Arbitration Demand must state with reasonable specificity sufficient to put the City on notice of the actions that are alleged to violate the Accord and the relief sought. The Arbitration Demand must also include a copy of the Accord Complaint Form submitted to the IGO and the IGO's Case Report. The City's Law Department shall provide a copy of any written Arbitration Demand Form to the SDM within seven (7) days of its receipt. (2) Settlement Offer. The Law Department will have tv.'enty-eight (28) days from receipt of a Demand for Arbitration to make a ,vritten settlement offer to the Accord Complainant or to notify the Accord Complainant in writing that the City declines to make an ofTer. The Accord Complainant and the City can agree in writing to an extension of this date. Settlement offers will be made at the discretion of th(: Law Department. Settlement oiTers may include, but are not limited to, monetary damages, reinstatement or other equitable relief. If accepted by an Accord Complainant, copies of cxecutl:d settlement agreements shall be provided to the SDM and Plaintiffs' Class Counsel. The City'~ La,v Department shall provide a copy of any written Arbitration Demand Fonn for claims where no settlement was reached to the SDM and Plaintiffs' Class Counsel within seven (7) days of the expiration of the settlement period. (3) Timing for Arbitration. After the expiration of the settlement period, the City shall infonn the arbitrator of her or his selection withi:l seven (7) days of the City's receipt of the Arbitration Demand Form by sending the Arbitrator a copy of the Arbitration Demand Form and
26

accompanying documents. Within ten (l0) days of being notified of her or his selection, the arbitrator shall provide the Accord Complainant, the City's Law Department, and Plaintiffs' Class Counsel notice of her or his selection and a proposed arbitration schedule. The proposed schedule shall provide for pre-hearing production Df documents and infonnation and for completion of the arbitration within one hundred twenty (120) days of the selection of the arbitrator. The arbitration will be scheduled at a time mutually selected by the Accord Complainant, the City and the arbitrator. Failure to cClmplete the arbitration within such period, however, shall not affect the validity of the arbitrator's award.
(4) Arbitrator's Fees; Representatives of Complainant. The Arbitrator's fees and any costs of administration shall be paid by the City. The proceeding shall be electronically recorded. Either party may order a copy of the tram;cripts at its own expense. Each party is responsible for the costs of compensating its ovm witnesses and the costs of any transcript, if desired. An Accord Complainant may appear on his or her 0~11 behalf: be represented by an attorney, or be represented by any other representative of his or her choice.
(5) Selection of Arbitrator. The Court wi.l establish a panel of ten arbitrators. The City and Class Counsel may submit a list of sugge ,ted arbitrators. The arbitrators must be members of the National Academy of Arbitrators or 'Je on a list of arbitrators approved by the American Arbitration Association. The approved arbi1rators will serve on a rotating basis.
(6) Governing Rules. Except as modified herein, the arbitration shall be governed by the National Rules for Employment Disputes of the American Arbitration Association.
(7) Arbitrator's Decision. The arbitrator must issue a written award, including written findings of fact, \'\lithin thirty (30) days of 1he completion of the arbitration hearing. Copies of the decision shall be provided to the Accord Complainant, the Law Department, the
27

SDM, and Plaintiffs' Class Counsel. The award shall dctermine (i) whether the Accord has been violated; (ii) whether the Complainant has met the burden of proof set forth in Mt. Healthv City School Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) and any other applicable law; and (iii) the appropriate remedy. Remedies are limited to monetary damages. Prevailing Accord Complainants shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as determined by the arbitrator. The arbitrator will have no authority to mOlify any provision of the New Plan or the Accord. The Parties to the Accord recognize and agree that the City has collective bargaining relationships with unions representing City employee:;, that the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, 5 ILCS 315, e1. seq. ("Act") governs those relationships, and that this Accord will be construed and administered consistent with the AC1, to the extent that the construction or administration does not conflict with the United State~ Constitution or federal civil rights laws. The Parties reserve the right to argue to the arbitrator and the Court the impact of the Act and the collective bargaining agreements negotiated pursuant to the Act on any Accord Complaint. If the arbitrator issues an award that is based on a conclusion that conflicts with a provision of an existing collective bargaining agreement, or if any party objects to the relief granted on the ground that it so conflicts, eithcr party may file an app·;al \vith the Court of the arbitrator's award and decision concerning the effect of the Act and/or a collective bargaining agreement within seven (7) days of the award and the Court shall render its' decision thereon within twenty-eight days of the filing 0 f the appeal.
(8) Finality of Decision. The Arbitrator's award shall be final and binding upon all parties. The award may be reviewed and enforc(:d, and judgment entered in conformity therewith, solely and exclusively by and in this Cont, which shall apply the procedures and
28

standards set forth in Sections 5/11-5/15 of the Illinois Uniti)rm Arbitration Act, 710 ILCS SIllS/IS, inclusive, and applicable court decisions under th)se provisions of that Act.
(9) Waiver. Any Accord Complainant who proceeds under the City's Arbitration Process described herein, shall waive any and all rights she or he may otherwise have arising from the alleged violations of the Accord set forth in his or her written Arbitration Demand Form.
(10) Audit Documentation. The City shall maintain all documcntation related to complaints, investigations, and arbitrations arising ll'1der Section IV until onc year after the Accord has terminated. V. No Admission.
At all times, the City and the Mayor have denied and continue to deny that they have committed any wrongful act or violation of law or tht: 1972 or 1983 Consent Judgments or any duty of any nature, but have decided to enter into this Accord solely for the purpose of avoiding prolonged and expensive litigation and the drain on the City's resources and employees' time and energy that such litigation \vould entail, and to tinally put to rest any and all claims that were or could have been asserted in the Action, or arising out of thc matters set forth in the pleadings, without in any way acknowledging any fault or liabilit),. VI. No Retaliation.
No person shall take any unla\vful retaliatory action against any Class Member who exercises any rights provided by this Accord. A Chss Member who believes retaliation has occurred may seek relief under the post-Accord process. VII. Compliance Reports to Court.
The SDM shall report periodically, and at a minimum every six months, on the status of compliance with the Accord "vhile the Accord is in et1~ct.
29

VIII. Attorneys' Fees. The parties represent that they have not agreec to or discussed the amount of attorneys'
fees awardable to Plaintiffs' Class Counselor costs prior to entry of this Accord, but \vill attempt to reach agreement as to such amount \vithin 45 days of entry of this Accord for presentation to the Court for its review and approval. If the parties arf unable to reach agreement, the plaintiffs' counsel shall be entitled to petition for an award of kes and the City shall be entitled to assert objections thereto. IX. Termination of the Accord.
A. Effect of Non-ApprovaL If, for any rl~ason, the Accord does not become final (that is, is finally approved and the time for appeal expires with no appeal being filed or all appellate review has been exhausted and the Accord remains intact), the Parties shall revert to their respe:tive positions immediately prior to the execution of the Accord.
B. Eflect of Termination. If the Accord is terminated, this Accord shall have no further force and effect. All negotiati :ms, proceedings and statements made in connection herewith shall be without prejudice to any person or party hereto, shall not be deemed or construed to be an admission by any Party of any act, matter or proposition, and shall not be used in any manner or for any purpose 111 any subsequent proceeding in the Action or in any other action or proceeding.
x. Entire Agreement.
All prior negotiations and agreements betwet:n the parties hereto, with respect to this Accord, are superseded by this agreement and there are no representation, warranties, understandings, or agreements of the parties relatinf; to the subject matter hereof, other than those expressly set forth in this agreement.
30

ENTER:
Han. Wayne R. Andersen United StHtes District Judge

AGREED TO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO BY:

Mara S. Georges

D;;te

Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago

AGREED TO ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. DALEY:

Tyrone Fahner

D<tte

One of the Counsel f()r Richard M. Daley

AGREED TO ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
Roger R, Fross One of the Counsel for the PlaintitT Classes

/l1cF LC !2 fy 2c-O7
Date

31

A. B. I.F(l ) LF(2) I1.E(l ) II.E(2) II.F(1 )
lI.G. lIl.e lII.D IY.A(l) IV.A(4) IY.U(l)

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Preliminary Approval Order Mayoral Executive Order DHR Certification of Substantial CompI iance Mayoral Declaration Senior Manager Hiring Process Senior Managers HiringlTransfer Process for Private Secretary or Assistant to Departmental or Agency Head and Schedule G Exempt List Accord Opt-Out Request Form Accord Claim Form Accord Complaint Form Notice of Rights Accord Arbitration Demand Form

 
 EXHIBIT A

IN THE UNITED STATES DlSTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL 1.,. SHAKMAN, PAUL M. LURIE,

)

KENNETH AYERS, ANN M. KING,

)

INDEPENDENT VOTERS OF ILLINOIS-

)

INDEPENDENT PRECINCT ORGANIZATION, )

MICHAEL SULLIVAN, DARRYN JONES,

)

STUART MAJERCZYK, RICHARD

)

GRAMAROSSA and CONNIE GRAMAROSSA, )

et aI.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK )

COUNTY, THE CITY OF CHICAGO, RICHARD )

M. DALEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MAYOR )

OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, REPUBLICAN )

STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF ILLINOIS, )

REPUBLICAN COUNTY CENTRAL

)

COMMITTEE OF COOK COUNTY, et aI.,

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case Number: 69 C 2145 Judge Andersen Magistrate Judge Schenkier

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER

This case comes to be heard on filing of an Agreed Motion of Plaintiffs and the City of

Chicago ("City") for approval of a proposed AGREED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND

ACCORD ("Accord"). The Court orders as follows:

1. The proposed Accord is preliminarily approved, subject to the holding of a hearing on final approval of the settlement as provided by this Order.

2. Subject to the terms of the Accord and for the purposes of the settlement of this case only, this Court hereby certifies the following additional classes pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23:
a. all past employees and applicants for employment with the City of Chicago to the date of the entry I)fthis Accord; and
b. all current and future employees or applicants for employment with the City of Chicago fl'om the date of final approval of the Accord through the date the Accord is terminated by Order of this Court.
3. The Court finds that for the purpose of ~.ettlement, the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) have been met. The classes are sufficiently numerous as to make joinder of all members of the classes impracticable. There are questions oflaw common to all the members of the classes. The plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the class. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
4. The Court finds that for purposes ofsetllement, the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)( 1), (2), and (3) have been met. The prosecution Jf separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the City. The allegations in the Second Amended Complaint assert that the City has acted in a manner g('nerally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief Questions cf law common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
S. The Court appoints the law firms of LOI'd, Bissell & Brook LLP, and Miller, Shakman & Beem LLP as class counsel, finding that they are experienced counsel and wellqualified to prosecute the litigation on behalf of the classes.
6. A hearing shall be held at 8:30 a.m. on \1ay 31,2007, before this Court, for the purpose of determining whether the Court should enter an order of final approval of the proposed Accord, all as set forth in the attached form of Notice of Hearing. The Notice is approved.
7. On or before April 20, 2007, notice in he form attached hereto as Exhibit I shall be published as a display ad on one day in the Chicagc Tribune and in the Chicago Sun-Times, which newspapers have circulations through the Northern District of Illinois in excess of 750,000. For the purpose ofthis Publication, the Notice shall not include as an exhibit the text of the proposed Accord but the text shall be available on the City'S website at www.cityofchicago.org and the Shakman Decree Monitor's \vcbsite at www.shakmanmonitor.com. Notice of the Accord shall also be delivered to each employee of the City in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1 by endosing such Notice 'with each employee's paycheck on a date no latcr than May 4, 2007. Appropriate aflidavits showing that the Notice has been given as provided shall be filed with the Cou:t no later than the final approval hearing.
2

8. The Court finds that the Hearing Notice as prescribed by paragraph 7 constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constitutes due and suflicient notice of the Settlement Hearing and proposed Accord to all pen:ons affected by and/or entitled to participate in the Settlement.
9. The Court tinds that extensive and substantial newspaper, television and radio publicity has been given to this case and the Agreed Settlement Order and Accord.
10. Any Class Member who wants to be excluded from the class must give written notice of his or her intent to opt-out by mail to the Shakman Decree Monitor, Noelle Brennan, Brennan & Monte, Ltd., 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1:530, Chicago, IL 60603. An Opt-Out Request Form (Form 1) can be obtained from the City's website at W\vv/.cityofchicago.org and the Monitor's website at v.,'\\lw.shakmanmonitor.com or from Ms. Brennan, Tracey Ladner, City of Chicago Law Department, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020, Chicago, IL 60602 and Roger Fross, Lord, Bissell & Brook LLP, 111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4100, Chicago, Illinois 60606. The Opt-Out Request shall state: (a) the name and docket number orthis case: (b) the Class Member's legal name, address, and telephone number and (c) that the Class Member wishes to be excluded from membership in the Classes. An Opt-Out Request Form (Form 1) must be received by September 28,2007.
11. Class Members (i) who elect to opt-out;)fthe Accord or (ii) who believe that they were victims of discrimination on the basis of political considerations prior to January I, 2000, and who wish to pursue any claims against the City mr.st file an enforcement action or bring a separate law·suit.
12. Any Class Member may file a written o)jection to the Accord \-vith the Court. The objection must state its substance, the nature oftht: objector's interest in the case and the name and address ofthe o~jector. Written objections must be filed with the Court prior to 3:00 p.m. on May 15,2007, showing copies of the objectior' were mailed to Mr. Fross and Ms. Ladner at the addresses above.
13. If a Class Member wants to speak at the hearing, she or he must ask the Court for permission by filing a request with the Court requestin5 permission to speak at the settlement approval hearing in the case ofShakman \'. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 69 C 2145. The request must shmv that copies of the request were mailed to Mr. Fross, and Ms. Ladner at the addresses listed above, The Class Member should state her or his position and the basis for that position in the request. The request for permission to speak must be filed with the Court prior to 3:00 p.m. on May 25, 2007. The Court may, or may not, grant the request.
14. Any Class Member who believes that she or he was subjected to unlawful political discrimination in connection with hiring or any aspect of govemmental employment with the City between January 1,2000 and the date of ~ntry of the Accord who \-vishes to share in the settlement payment fund described in the Accord must mail a completed Accord Claim Form (Form 2) and Release of Claims Against the City of Chicago Form (Form 3) to the Shakman Decree Monitor, Noelle Brennan, Brennan & Monte, Ltd., 20 S. Clark, Suite 1530, Chicago, IL
3

60603. Accord Claim Forms and Release of Claims Against the City of Chicago Form will be made available in Room 108 of City Hall, 121 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, the City of Chicago website ww\v.cityofchicago.org, from the Shakman Decree Monitor, and on the Monitor's website at www.shakmanrnonitor.com. Accmd Claim Forms and Release of Claims Against the City of Chicago Form must be received no later than September 28, 2007 [120 days after entry of final approval order].
ENTER: United States District Judge
4

EXHIBIT 1

NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPROV AL OF AGREED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND ACCORD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN, et ai"

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 69 C 2145

)

DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF

)

COOK COUNTY, et aI.,

)

)

Defendants,

)

TO: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE PERMAl\'ENT AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICAGO AND CANDIDATES AND VOTERS OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,

THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE PARTIES I1AVE PROPOSED A SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUlT INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF POLITICAL DISCRIMINATION IN CONNECTION WITH HIRING AND OTHI:R ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICAGO. IF THE COURf GIVES FINAL APPROVAL TO THE SETTLEMENT, CERTAIN M)~]\1BERS OF TIlE CLASSES WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE CERTAIN BENEFITS.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND COMPLETEL Y. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF ANY OF THESE CLASSES, THE NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS.

YOU ARE NOTIFIED:

•

The Court in charge of this case has certified plaintiff classes consisting of (1) all

past employees and applicants for employment with the City of Chicago, (2) all

current and future employees and applicants for employment vV'ith the City of

Chicago during the life of the Accord, (3) all registered voters, and (4) all

candidates for public office to whom this Notice is directed (the "Settlement

Classes"). You may be a Member of one of the Settlement Classes.

•

The Court has given preliminary approval to a proposed AGREED

SETTLEMENT ORDER AND ACCORD ("Accord") under which people who

applied for jobs with the Cit)' of Chicago or who were employed by the Citv

of Chicago after Januan' 1. 2000 rna" be eligible to receive cash pavments.

EXHIBIT 1

•

The Court will hold a settlement approval hearing on May 31, 2007, at 8:30 a.m.

to decide whether to give final approval to the proposed Accord.

•

Uyou are a Class Member, your legall rights will be affected if the Court

gives final approval to the Accord.

This Notice explains the lawsuit, the proposed Accord, the benefits available pursuant to the Accord, and who is eligible for those benefits. Thi:; Notice explains how you can participate in, object to, or exclude yourself from, the remedy providcd by the proposed Accord. Full dctails of the proposed Accord arc contained in the Accord. You may obtain a copy of the Accord and other related forms from the City of Chicago website at www.cityofchicago.org/personnel and from the Shakman Decree Monitor website at www.shakmanmonitoLcom. You can also obtain copies from Tracey Ladner, City of Chicago, Department of Law, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020, Chicago, IL 60602, Roger Fross, counsel for the plaintiff classes, Lord, Bissell & Brook LLP, 111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4100, Chicago, Illinois 60606, and from Noelle Brennan, Shakman Decree Monitor, Brennan & Monte, Ltd., 20 South Clark Street, Suitc 1530, Chicago, IL 60603.

The Lawsuit

On October 28, 1969, Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie filed suit on behalf of themselves and all candidates for public oflice and registered voters asking the Court to prohibit the City of Chicago and its Mayor, among other defendants, from conditioning, basing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment upon or because of any political reason or factor in a case captioned Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, No. 69 C 2145. On May 5, 1972 and June 20, 1983, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered Consent Judgments with respect to, among others, the City of Chicago and its Mayor, prohibiting the City from conditioning, basing or affecting any tenn or aspect of governmental employment upon or because of any pohtical reason or factor. Those Judgments provided that the Court retained jurisdiction with respect to, among other matters, issues of political hiring and identified the positions which should be exempt from its injunctive provisions.

On January 11, 2006, a Second Amended Complaint against the City of Chicago and its Mayor \vas filed adding Kenneth Ayers, Michael Sullivan, Richard Gramarossa, Connie Gramarossa, Darryn Jones, Ann M. King, Stuart Majerczyk, and the Independent Voters of Illinois - lndependent Precinct Organization as additional named plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all past, present, and future employees and applicants for employment with the City of Chicago. The Second Amended Complaint an.;:ged violations of the constitutional rights of independent candidates, independent voters, City job applicants and City employees as well as violations of the 1972 and 1983 Consent Judgments. The Second Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages on behalf of classes ofjob applicants and employees.

2

EXIIlBIT 1

The Settlement Accord The parties have filed with the Com1 an Accord. The Accord would:

•

replace and supersede the June 20, 1983 Consent Judgment,

•

add various reporting, monitoring and enforcement provisions,

•

provide for injunctive relief,

•

provide for a new hiring plan for the City,

•

provide for the exemption of designated City positions from the provisions of the

Accord,

•

provide for the tennination of the 1983 Consent Judgment and the Accord on or

after January 3 1,2009 if the City is in substantial compliance \vith the Accord and

hiring plan,

•

provide a settlement fund of $12,000,000 (the "Settlement Fund") to settle

claims of unlawful political discrimin:iltion in any aspect of employment with

the City of Chicago between January 1.2000 and the date of final approval

of the Accord,

•

provide an incentive award to be paid from the Settlement Fund of $25,000 to

each of the six named plaintitIs acting as class representatives of the employee

and applicant classes for their efforts as named plaintiffs on behal f of all class

members and for risking possible empIc.yment harm and discrimination from

fellow employees and others.

The Accord also provides a procedure for reporting and arbitrating claims of future political discrimination against applicants for City employment and City employees. The Accord also preserves the rights of candidates for public office and voters to enforce the terms of the Accord as provided in Section 1.D(4) of the Accord.

Submitting a Claim
Any Class Member who believes that she or he was subjected to unlawful political discrimination in connection with hiring or for any aspect of government employment \vith the City, including but not limited to promotion, job assignments, termination, other disciplinary action and overtime, betv>;een January 1, 2000 and May 31, 2007 who would like to be considered for a damage award from the Settlement Fund provided by the Accord must mail a completed Accord Claim Fonn so that it is received by September 28, 2007, to the Shakman Decree Monitor, Noelle Brennan, Brennan & Monte, Ltd., 20 S. Clark, Suite 1530, Chicago, IL 60603. Claim Forms are available on the City ofChiclgo website, w\vw.cityofchicago.org/personnel, and the Shakman Decree Monitor's website, \V\v\v.shakmanmonitor.com. Claim Fonns can also be obtained in Room 108 of City Hall, 121

3

EXHIBIT 1
North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois and from the Shakman Decree Monitor, Brennan & Monte, Ltd., 20 S. Clark, Suite 1530, Chicago, IL 60603. Completed Claim Forms must be received by the Shakman Decree Monitor no later than September 28,2007. Class Counsel recommends that Class Members send their completed Claim Form to the Shakman Decree Monitor via certified mail, return receipt requested.
Exclusion from the Classes
The Court will exclude from the classes any Class Member who requests exclusion. A Class Member who wants to be excluded from the classes must give written notice of her or his intent to opt-out of the classes no later than September 28, 2007. The Opt-Out Request must be mailed to the Shakman Decree Monitor, Noell;: Brennan, Brennan & Monte, Ltd., 20 S. Clark, Suite 1530, Chicago, IL 60603. The Opt-Out R'~quest must be received by the Shakman Decree Monitor by September 28, 2007. An Opt-Out Request Form can be obtained from the City's website at www.cityofchicago.orglpersonnel and the Monitor's website at www.shakmanmonitoT.comorfromMs.Brennan.Ms. Ladner, and MT. Fross. The Opt-Out Request must state: (a) the name and docket number of this case; (b) the Class Member's legal name, address, and telephone number and (c) that the Class Member wishes to be excluded from membership in the Classes.
The Accord does not provide for any cash payment to anyone who al1eges that she or he was subjected to unlawful political discrimination occllrring prior to January I, 2000. Any Class Member who believes that she or he was subjected to unlawful political discrimination in connection with hiring for or any aspect of government employment with the City prior to January 1,2000 and who would like to assert a claim against the Citv must provide an OptOut Request to the Shakman Decree Monitor no later tban September 28, 2007 to preserve
anv claims or rights sbe or he may have against tbe 9!v:.. Class Members who elect to opt-
out of the Accord and \\Tho wish to pursue any claim they may have against the City must opt-out of the Accord and file their own enforcement action or a separate lawsuit. Claims based on al1eged political discrimination in employment may be subject to statutes oflimitations. See Smith v. City o/Chicago, 769 F.2d 408 (7th CiT. 1985) A Class Member who elects to pursue a remedy outside of the Accord should act quickly to pfCttect whatever rights she or he may have.
Objecting to the Accord
Any member of the plaintiff classes of past, present and future applicants for employment with the City, past, present and future employees of the City, registered voters, and candidates for public office may file a written objection to the Accord with the Court. The objection must state its substance, the nature of the objector's interest in the case and the name and address of the objector. Written objections must be filed with the Court prior to 3:00 p.m. on May 15, 2007, showing copies of the objection were mailed to Mr. Fross and Ms. Ladner at the addresses above.
4

EXHIBIT 1
Settlement Approval Hearing
A hearing will be held in Room 1403 of the UnJed States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago lllinois, at 8:30 a.m. on May 31,2007, for determining whether the Court should give its final approval to the Accord.
Class Members are welcome to attend the heari1g, at their own expense, and they may request permission to speak to the Court. Class Members may also hire their own lawyers at their own expense to speak on their behalf. If Class Members have sent a written objection, they do not need to come to Court. If the Class Member's objection was postmarked on time, the Court will consider it.
If a Class Member wants to speak at the hearing, she or he must ask the Court for permission. To do so, file a request with the Court, and mail copies to Mr. Fross and Ms. Ladner at the addresses listed above, requesting permission to :,peak at the settlement approval hearing in the case ofShakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 69 C 2145. The request should state the Class Member's position and the basis for that position. The request for permission to speak must be filed with the Court prior 1:0 3:00 p.m. on May 25,2007. The Court may, or may not, grant the request.
The parties have not agreed to or discussed the amount of attorneys' fees awardable to Plaintiffs' Class Counselor costs prior to entry of the Accord. They parties will attempt to reach agreement as to such amount \vithin 45 days of final approval of the Accord for presentation to the Court for its review and approval. lfthe parties are unable to reach agreement, Plaintiffs' Class Counsel will petition the Court for an award of fees. Class members may file objections to any fee petition or award.
Final approval of the Accord will be binding or all Class Members who do not serve a timely written notice of their intent to opt-out of the seltlement.
no NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT TO OBTAIN COPIES OF nOCUMENTS OR
TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT.
Dated: Chicago, Illinois
____________________,2007
--------------------------Hon. Wayne R. Andersen United States District Judge
5

 
 Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

)

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN and

)

PAUL M. LURIE, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF )

COOK COUNTY, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 69 C 2145 Honorable Wayne R. Andersen

MONITOR’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CITY OF CHICAGO’S PROPOSED “NEW PLAN” Establishing a new hiring plan that minimizes the potential for unlawful patronage and promotes a lasting positive change in the City of Chicago’s employment practices is a tremendous undertaking. After lengthy deliberation and negotiation, the Shakman Decree Monitor (the “Monitor”) and the City were able to reach agreement on the vast majority of the components in the City’s recently proposed “New Plan.” Notwithstanding the significant effort on both sides, however, agreement on all aspects of the proposed New Plan could not be reached. Specifically, the Monitor and the City have reached an impasse on two important elements of the City’s proposed New Plan. First, the City disagrees with the Monitor’s determination that monitoring and auditing of the City’s compliance with the New Plan be handled by the existing Audit Division of the Inspector General’s Office. Second, the City disagrees with the Monitor’s determination that all contacts by Alderman, the Mayor’s Office or any other elected officials regarding the employment of a particular job seeker or employee remain transparent and reported.

1

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 2 of 23
I. Procedural History and Posture Section II of the Agreed Settlement Order and Accord (the “Accord”) provides that the City of Chicago shall create a New Hiring Plan (the “New Plan”) to replace the existing Detailed Hiring Plan. Section II also provides that the Shakman Decree Monitor shall facilitate the development of the New Plan. Section II (D) specifically provides that if “the City and the SDM reach an impasse regarding any component of the New Plan, the SDM shall report to the Court the nature of the unresolved issue(s) and shall make a written recommendation as to how to resolve such issue(s) for the Court’s determination.” After allowing for the Parties to be heard on such objections, as agreed to by the Parties, the Court shall then rule on the Monitor’s recommendations. Accord, Section II (D). The City and the Plaintiffs have all expressly agreed that “such ruling(s) shall become part of the New Plan.” Id. Pursuant to Section II (D) of the Agreed Settlement Order and Accord, the Monitor submits this report to the Court outlining the nature of the unresolved issues related to the New Plan and the Monitor’s recommendations for the Court’s resolution of such issues. II. Auditing and Monitoring Functions Established in New Plan Should Rest With the Existing Audit Division of the Inspector General’s Office. If there is to be any real prospect for eradicating unlawful patronage practices within the City of Chicago, the City’s New Plan must include a vigorous and effective compliance system. Effective compliance is the key to the overall success of the New Plan. The Monitor and the City agree that an effective compliance framework must provide for auditing and monitoring of the City’s hiring processes. To that end, under the City’s New Plan, a new Hiring Process Compliance Manager and staff (hereafter referred to collectively as the “HPCM” or “Hiring Process Compliance Manager”) would be charged with responsibility for such auditing and monitoring functions. The Monitor supports the City’s proposal regarding the scope of
2

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 3 of 23
monitoring and auditing duties to be performed by the HPCM. However, the Monitor strongly opposes the City’s proposal to house this new HPCM outside of the existing Audit Division of the Inspector General’s Office (hereafter referred to as the “IGO”).
The primary purpose of the auditing and monitoring functions to be performed by the HPCM under the proposed New Plan is the detection of problems. For that reason, these functions properly belong within the Audit Division of the IGO, which is best suited to most effectively perform such functions within City government. This is true for several important reasons. First, the effective detection of problems related to the City’s compliance with a New Plan requires a multifaceted, but integrated approach. Second, the effective detection of compliance problems requires sufficient independence to resist political and/or other pressures to downplay such problems. As further explained below, these compliance components become even more crucial when viewed through the prism of the City’s history of non-compliance with the Shakman Decree.
A. Effective Detection of Problems Requires a Multifaceted and Integrated Approach.
The City’s proposed new hiring plan separates the monitoring and auditing compliance functions from the existing investigative function already established in the Inspector General’s Office. As explained below, divorcing the monitoring and auditing functions from the investigative function will result in weakening the effectiveness of all compliance components. Ferreting out the correct information needed to meaningfully assess the City’s compliance with any new hiring rules will be no easy task. The sheer size and complexity of City government poses a real impediment to the effective detection of non-compliance with such hiring rules. Therefore, the most effective hiring compliance system must collect and integrate information obtained in three ways: (1) from investigating allegations or suspicions of non-compliance; (2)
3

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 4 of 23
from selectively monitoring hiring activities as they take place; and (3) from conducting audits of documentation and processes related to hiring.
After more than two years of overseeing the City’s current hiring practices, there is no question that the integration of these functions within the Monitor’s office has been crucial for detecting compliance problems. Investigating, monitoring, and auditing the hiring process are highly interrelated activities—they each involve the detection of problems and irregularities. And when combined, they create a synergy that would otherwise not exist, producing results far greater than the sum of the separate parts. Simply put, the combined knowledge gathered through investigating complaints, monitoring interviews and testing, and auditing relevant records and processes allows for better detection of problems. Better detection of problems unquestionably will lead to better prevention and correction.
Under the Accord, the Inspector General’s Office has been given responsibility for conducting investigations into complaints of unlawful political discrimination in employment practices occurring after the Accord’s entry. Currently, the Inspector General’s Office has assigned a group of its investigators to focus on investigations into political discrimination allegations.1 Additionally, the Inspector General’s Office has an existing Audit Division that is already authorized to do the type of monitoring and auditing that is contemplated in the City’s proposed New Plan. Notably, the City’s Inspector General Ordinance gives the Inspector General’s Office “the power and duty” to investigate employees and programs “in order to detect and prevent misconduct, inefficiency and waste.” § 2-56-030(b)(emphasis added). Beyond investigations, the Inspector General’s Office is also given the “power and duty” to “review programs,” to identify “potential for misconduct,” and to recommend policies and methods for
1 To date, however, the Inspector General’s Office has not received the additional staff or funding to carry out the duties imposed on it by the Accord.
4

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 5 of 23
preventing misconduct, all in order to “promote . . . integrity in the administration of [City government] programs and operations.” §2-56-030(c). There is no question that the Inspector General’s Office has been vested with the power and duty to detect non-compliance with City rules and regulations through multiple avenues.2
Notwithstanding the fact that the Inspector General’s Office is currently equipped and specifically designed to perform the functions of monitoring and auditing, the City proposes creating a new City department (the “Office of Compliance”) to house the HPCM. This Office of Compliance shall be headed by a new “Executive Director of Compliance” (who has not yet been identified) who will be vested with the power to hire and oversee the HPCM and her staff. Notably, the City’s original proposal called for the HPCM to be hired by and report to the City’s currently existing Chief Compliance Officer. The Chief Compliance Officer, along with her team known as the “Compliance Unit,” currently reports to the Corporation Counsel and is a subdivision within the City’s own Law Department. The Monitor expressed numerous misgivings about such a framework, not the least of which was the apparent and potentially serious conflicts of interest that could result (not to mention, the appearance of this system resulting in little more than the “fox watching the henhouse”). The City has since revised its proposal, but its current proposal remains objectionable for several reasons.
First, the City’s proposal continues to segregate responsibility for investigating complaints on the one hand (which must be handled by the Inspector General’s Office pursuant to the Accord), from the functions of monitoring and auditing the hiring process, on the other
2 The City has previously objected to permitting the Inspector General’s Office to handle monitoring and auditing of the hiring process based on the contention that the IGO is required to keep all information it obtains from monitoring and auditing confidential. That is incorrect. Nothing in the City’s Inspector General Ordinance requires information obtained from monitoring and auditing to be kept “confidential.” On the contrary, only “investigatory files and reports” are confidential. See Inspector General Ordinance at § 2-56-060 Investigative Reports (emphasis added).
5

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 6 of 23
hand. As detailed above, separating these detection tasks will unnecessarily hamper the City’s ability to identify problems and detect irregularities. The need for centralizing these compliance functions is particularly crucial in the present environment, where there is substantial and frequent movement of employees in and out of positions throughout the City.
Such movement has previously resulted in the loss of relevant information related to compliance, which, in turn, makes compliance even more challenging. For example, the City recently sought to reinstate an individual that had been barred from having any personnel responsibilities by the City’s former Chief of Staff in 2005. Now, according to the City, no one is aware of why the individual was moved out of personnel duties in the first instance. Thus, the City has proposed simply reinstating her to those functions despite the fact that it has been unable to discern the reasons for her initial removal. As this example illustrates, records and documentation regarding the detection of past and present compliance problems must be centrally maintained and available to facilitate the detection of on-going and future compliance issues.
Another problem with dispersing compliance functions as proposed under the City’s New Plan is that along with placing the HPCM outside of the IGO’s Audit Division, the City has also proposed to set up a separate complaint and investigation system. This will undoubtedly create terrible confusion about jurisdiction over and responsibility for investigations and will likely result in incomplete information for both entities. As explained above, the Inspector General is already tasked with receiving complaints and conducting investigations of patronage allegations in employment practices.
The City contends that its proposed “alternative” complaint system will not conflict with the Inspector General’s Court mandated duties because the HPCM will simply forward all
6

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 7 of 23
complaints of patronage to the Inspector General for investigation. This contention relies on the assumption that on its face, every complaint will be readily discernible as either a patronage complaint, or a non-patronage complaint. Yet, many complaints received by the Monitor are highly nuanced. They do not always clearly suggest a patronage violation. However, after investigation or when reviewed in light of information from other complaints, or from monitoring or auditing, patronage problems that require further investigation often emerge. The expectation that the new Hiring Process Compliance Manager, who will have limited knowledge and background in patronage practices in the City of Chicago, should or would be capable of exercising that type of discretion is unrealistic.
The City has suggested that this problem can be resolved by requiring that the HPCM provide the IGO with a written log of complaints it has received. This does not redress the deficiencies in the City’s proposal. First, the ability to review a log that by definition will contain only very basic information does not provide for the same level of shared information that would exist by housing the HPCM within the IGO. Moreover, the HPCM’s ability to conduct meaningful investigations will be hindered by being separated from the IGO and denied the benefit of its existing body of information and expertise. By placing the HPCM outside of the IGO, s/he will be unduly constrained in the ability to fully investigate complaints. The City’s proposal promises to inhibit the flow of information that is necessary for detecting problems.
By placing the Hiring Process Compliance Manager within the Audit Division of the Inspector General’s Office, one office would serve as the clearinghouse for all complaints related to the New Plan. Nothing would prevent the Hiring Process Compliance Manager from forwarding any complaints that are wholly unrelated to patronage to the appropriate City department for further review or action.
7

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 8 of 23
Placing the monitoring and auditing functions within the IGO simply makes most sense. The IGO has the necessary knowledge, experience, powers and duties to detect potential problems in the City’s compliance with a New Plan through investigations, audits, and monitoring.
B. The HPCM Must Have Independence from Political and Other Outside Influences and Pressures.
Independence from the Mayor’s Office, the Department of Law and the other operating departments is fundamental to the success of the HPCM. The ability to provide a full and accurate assessment of all detected problems, even when pressured to minimize or downplay such problems, is indispensable for an effective compliance system under the New Plan. Readiness and willingness to provide a full and accurate description of any problems detected is essential if compliance is to be achieved.
The City’s proposal to house the HPCM in a new Office of Compliance provides little to no assurance that the HPCM and his/her staff will have the independence necessary to engage in meaningful monitoring and auditing of the City’s hiring practices. Although the City suggests that the proposed Office of Compliance will have and exercise the same independence and credibility as the Inspector General’s Office, this argument is entirely speculative. First, because the Office of Compliance will be new, it will likely lack the credibility or authority to deal effectively with the City’s various established departments. The expectation that a newly created department would have the ability to deal effectively and forcefully when trying to detect problems within some City departments is unrealistic. Second, the proposed Office of Compliance has no track record, history or experience with monitoring employment practices in the City or dealing with the unique difficulties in eliminating patronage practices and enforcing a hiring plan.
8

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 9 of 23
In assessing any compliance group’s ability to be successful in ensuring compliance with the New Plan, one must recognize that compliance with hiring rules is often at odds with the hiring department’s desire to make its own hiring selections. Robust compliance will inevitably frustrate an individual or department’s goal to “get things done.” Ensuring real compliance will require the ability to withstand pressure from departments and individuals who may view particular rules or requirements as obstacles to their work.
For example, when the Monitor reported an apparent manipulation of a hiring sequence in the Office of Emergency Management Communications (“OEMC”), the City initially resisted taking any remedial action because the position involved was a “critical” safety position. After extensive discussions and several meetings, the City finally agreed that the hiring sequence should be redone with new candidates because the individual selected did not meet the position’s stated minimum qualifications. Although it seems obvious that the City would want the best candidate possible (or at least one that met the minimum qualifications) for a so-called “critical” slot, this is but one example of the conflict between ensuring compliance with the hiring rules and a department’s desire to fill positions. This demonstrates the point that any compliance group must have the ability to challenge all levels of employees in all City departments. Accordingly, unquestionable independence from the Mayor’s Office, the Department of Law and the other operating departments within the City is critical for the effective monitoring and auditing of the City’s hiring.
By placing the HPCM in a new department, which has no track record, history or experience in monitoring and auditing the City’s hiring practices, the City’s proposal reduces the likelihood that the HPCM will be capable of exercising the independence necessary to engage in meaningful compliance activities. The limited success of departments outside of the IGO in the
9

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 10 of 23
area of oversight of Shakman principles attests to this fact. For instance, even after the Monitor’s appointment by the Court, the Mayor’s Office and the Law Department have had repeated difficulty obtaining compliance from various departments with agreed upon hiring rules. In one case, the Monitor notified the City that a department had engaged in extensive and blatant manipulation of the hiring rules to promote two pre-selected individuals into higher paid positions. It was then agreed upon by the Monitor, the Mayor’s Office and the Law Department that, at a minimum, the hiring sequence would be redone with different interviewers. Yet, more than four months later the Monitor discovered that despite the parties’ agreement, these two individuals had simply continued to “act up”3 into the positions, thereby receiving both the higher position’s pay and the benefit of additional experience, which were both denied to the other qualified candidates. The Inspector General’s Office, by contrast, does have a track record of uncovering and investigating hiring improprieties and has demonstrated its independence from the remainder of the City.
The City’s proposed Office of Compliance’s independence may also be encumbered by the fact that many, if not most, of its employees will be current City employees. The City admittedly intends to move various existing groups of City employees into this “new” Office of Compliance. These employees currently work in the City’s Law Department, Department of Human Resources, and other departments. Moreover, the City’s proposal leaves open the possibility that the new “Executive Director” of the Office of Compliance and the Hiring Process Compliance Manager may be hired from within the City. The City has proposed only that it will “make every effort” to fill those positions with individuals that are not current City employees.
3 “Acting-up” refers to a process where an employee is selected to perform the duties of a higher level employee, usually at the higher rate of pay.
10

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 11 of 23
The benefits of hiring a non-City employee to fill the HPCM role are obvious. First, hiring a non-City employee decreases the chance that pre-existing loyalties and/or pressures will unduly influence compliance activities. Notably, current City employees who perform compliance-type functions have sometimes expressed reluctance to follow up on violations that involve or implicate City employees with whom they are friendly or for whom they feel some other allegiance. A similar reluctance is evident when the alleged wrongdoer holds a powerful position or has a close relationship with senior officials within the City.
Even were the City to commit to selecting a non-City candidate for the HPCM position, the concerns expressed herein would not be eliminated as long as the HPCM was segregated from the Inspector General’s Office. Under the City’s proposal, the HPCM will be an island surrounded by incumbent City employees who may have competing agendas. As recent history reflects, the pressures to conform and be a “team player” or to acquiesce in wrongdoing are often overwhelming. It bears repeating that the violations of the Shakman Decree revealed during the recent criminal proceedings against City employees and identified in the Monitor’s First Report to the Court took place despite the presence of a designated “Shakman Compliance Officer” within the City and despite allegations that violations were reported to officials within the Personnel Department and the Law Department at the time, without any meaningful response.
Ensuring the HPCM’s independence from the executive branch will also better protect City employees who report and/or refuse to participate in hiring plan violations from possible retaliation. The risk of retaliation is real and must be minimized. For example, recently a City employee reported to the Monitor that she was aware of a serious alleged Shakman violation that was not reported to the Monitor, despite the Court Order requiring such reporting. When the identity of this employee was discovered by the City, the employee reported that individuals in
11

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 12 of 23
the Mayor’s Office retaliated against her by attempting to exclude her from meetings, attempting to have her stripped of certain duties and attempting to isolate her from the rest of her working group. An explanation given by one City employee for this differential treatment was that the complaining employee “could not be trusted.”
As demonstrated above, ensuring maximum independence for the new Hiring Process Compliance Manager and her staff is key to future compliance with City hiring rules. The Inspector General’s Office has already established itself as a credible force that is willing to exercise the necessary independence. Although any compliance group will face difficulties securing adherence to the rules in some cases, using an existing structure with a track record of independence and established authority makes most sense and increases the chances of success going forward. Rather than gamble that the newly created Office of Compliance will be vested with the necessary independence and credibility to engage in meaningful compliance, the preferable option is to simply house the Hiring Process Compliance Group in the Inspector General’s Office.
C. The City’s Past Compliance Record Cannot Be Ignored When considering where to place responsibility for future monitoring and auditing functions designed to detect compliance problems, one cannot ignore the history of the City’s non-compliance with prior Shakman decrees which led to the appointment of the Monitor. Recent federal indictments, guilty pleas, and criminal convictions related to the City’s hiring practices make plain that the City’s hiring was improperly manipulated for political purposes. Blatant violations of the prior Shakman decrees (now judged also to have involved criminal conduct) were occurring within the executive branch, and with the knowledge of many department officials, but no successful effort was made to halt these practices by the Law
12

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 13 of 23
Department, the Mayor’s Office or any other member of the executive branch. The evidence adduced at the trial of USA v. Robert Sorich, et al. demonstrated that these practices were not hidden, yet the violations continued.
The Monitor’s own preliminary study of the City’s hiring practices revealed that compliance with the Shakman Decree was essentially non-existent. The City’s “Shakman Compliance Manager” claimed to have never received a single complaint alleging noncompliance with the Shakman decrees. Yet, interviews of individuals involved in hiring revealed that violations of the Detailed Hiring Plan and the Shakman Decree had been reported to officials within the Department of Human Resources (formerly the Department of Personnel) and the Law Department. There is no indication, however, that any meaningful remedial or preventative actions were taken to ensure compliance going forward. As recently as 2005, City employees and managers were relying on complicated color-coded lists for awarding City jobs and promotions in exchange for political activities. Even now, resistance and resentment towards reforms designed to curb patronage in employment practices still exists.
Placing responsibility for auditing and monitoring functions with the IGO is also prudent in light of the City’s more recent record monitoring its own compliance under the Shakman decrees. As discussed in the Monitor’s December 15, 2005 Report, the Shakman exempt list that was maintained by the Law Department and regularly “updated” with the Court through official filings contained significant errors and omissions. Even after the appointment of the Monitor, the City continued to violate the Shakman decree by appointing individuals into “exempt” positions which simply did not exist. To “correct” this problem, a former Deputy Chief of Staff violated the decree further by moving open Shakman exempt slots from one department to another, an action prohibited by the Orders entered by the Court.
13

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 14 of 23
Similarly, although the City agreed to and the Court subsequently ordered that individuals involved in the hiring process would certify, under penalty of perjury, that such hire was free from political influence, the City initially failed to comply with this agreement and Court Order. Only after a routine audit by the Monitor’s staff, was it discovered that the City was not complying. Specifically, this audit revealed that hundreds of certifications were missing for completed hires and only partial certifications existed for others.
The City’s current inability to rectify non-compliance with its “Acting Up” policy exemplifies why “audits and investigations must go hand in hand.” As detailed in the Monitor’s December 5, 2006 Annual Report, “Acting Up” is the informal tap-on-the-shoulder promotion practice used in City employment to give individuals higher rated jobs or less onerous duties, often at significantly higher pay, through a completely discretionary and non-competitive process. Many individuals were allowed to act into higher paying positions in violation of the Shakman Decree for a period of years. As noted in the Annual Report, the cost to the City of allowing extensive use of “acting up” practice surpassed $1.3 million during a ten month period.
The Monitor learned of the City’s systemic acting up Shakman violations through numerous complaints. Complainants alleged that individuals across City departments were selected to “act up” allegedly because of political connections or clout. The Monitor’s investigations into these allegations led to the audit of certain pay records and departments, as well as to closer monitoring of certain interview and hiring sequences. The ability to investigate, monitor and audit the acting up practice, and to effectively share and integrate information derived from all of those sources, resulted in a comprehensive understanding of the extent and breadth of the acting up violations. It also resulted in the ability to identify new or ongoing violations.
14

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 15 of 23
It is worth noting that the City was actually aware of this “acting-up” practice prior to the Monitor’s report of the problem in the Spring of 2006. It appears, however, that no action was taken by the individuals responsible for ensuring compliance with the Shakman Decree to address or remediate these extensive violations. Although these same individuals remained responsible for ensuring the City’s compliance with the Shakman Decree, only after months of insistent and repeated requests from the Monitor was any effective action taken to begin to address the violations.
On November 24, 2006, after approximately six months of negotiations, the City agreed to implement a new written policy governing the use of “acting up” which was jointly drafted with the Monitor. Notwithstanding the new policy, the Monitor continued to receive complaints about violations, resulting in a preliminary audit of the City’s compliance with its Acting-Up policy earlier this year. This simple audit revealed that substantial violations of the new Acting Up policy continued to exist across the City. Despite the Monitor’s repeated reports of these problems, the violations of the new policy continued. It was not until March of 2007, after the Monitor informed the City that she had no choice but to report these continuing violations to the Court, that the City gave responsibility for rectifying the ongoing “acting up” violations to the City’s new “Compliance Unit” in the Law Department.4
Shortly afterwards, the Monitor was assured that the ongoing extensive violations previously identified had been eliminated. Notwithstanding the City’s assurances, a new audit by the Monitor’s office in May of 2007 revealed that many of those violations had not, in fact, been cured. At present, more than a year and one half after the Monitor’s initial report to the City about the acting up violations, and despite repeated promises and assurances, the City’s
4 The Compliance Unit is headed by the Chief Compliance Officer, who reports to the City’s Corporation Counsel.
15

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 16 of 23
ability to comply with the new Acting Up policy remains deficient. This has happened for several reasons.
First, responsibility for auditing the City’s compliance with the new policy has been shared or transferred between the Law Department’s Compliance Unit and the City’s Department of Human Resources at various points. This has resulted in significant delay and confusion with respect to auditing adherence to the new Acting Up policy. The sharing and/or transferring of duties has also led to incomplete information within any one group in the City regarding its compliance with the policy. In fact, for several months the Department of Human Resources was under the incorrect impression that the Compliance Unit was reviewing certain documentation that explained or justified a deviation from the policy, while the Compliance Unit assumed that the Department of Human Resources was handling this. Consequently, no one at the City was reviewing this documentation for several months. Acting up assignments that were made in contravention of the policy simply went unquestioned during this time.
Further complicating the City’s ability to comply with its Acting Up policy is the fact that responsibility for investigating violations of the policy that are allegedly based on patronage are handled by the Inspector General’s Office. Yet, only until recently did the City begin to share information related to acting up violations with the Inspector General’s Office.
Similarly, when the Compliance Unit was recently informed by a personnel director that, in her opinion, acting up assignments were being awarded based on political clout in her own department, the Compliance Unit failed to report that information to the Monitor. This failure occurred despite the Court’s order requiring such reports be made and despite the fact that the City knew the Monitor’s office was auditing Acting up violations. The excuse for failing to report the alleged violation was that the incident was reported to the Inspector General. This
16

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 17 of 23
incident illustrates the danger in the City’s proposal to separate compliance functions and to establish competing complaint and investigation processes.
The City’s failure to ensure compliance with its Acting Up policy demonstrates why the City’s proposal to house the HPCM outside the Inspector General’s Office is faulty. Sharing of compliance duties will inevitably result in less compliance. The Monitor’s recommendation that the HPCM be inside the Inspector General’s Office will eliminate some the problems illustrated by the City’s inability to adequately comply with the Acting-Up policy.
D. The City’s Opposition to Housing the HPCM under the Inspector General’s Office Is Unfounded.
Over several months of negotiations, the City has consistently raised certain objections to the Monitor’s recommendation that the HPCM be housed in the Inspector General’s Office. First, the City contends that the Inspector General’s Office may not share all compliance-related information with the City, which would leave the City unaware of issues which would otherwise be effectively addressed by executive action if the HPCM reported to the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance. Closely related to this first objection, is the contention that the City’s ability respond immediately to hiring irregularities (for example, where an immediate suspension of a particular hiring sequence is warranted) will be compromised if the HPCM is housed in the Inspector General’s Office.
The Monitor’s proposal directly addresses these two concerns by requiring that the HPCM share the results of all monitoring and audit functions with both the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Law. In fact, at the City’s request, the IGO was previously asked for its position on this point. The IGO confirmed its agreement to this protocol in writing directly to the City. Accordingly, there is no question that all audits and review of information conducted by the HPCM will be reported to the Commissioner of Human Resources
17

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 18 of 23
and the Department of Law. If the HPCM identifies any specific or systemic violations of the City’s hiring processes, such violations are also to be reported promptly to the Commissioner of Human Resources and the Department of Law. If the HPCM identifies any irregularities during her monitoring function, such irregularities will be promptly reported to the Commissioner of Human Resources and/or the Department of Law.
Additionally, all matters flagged during the hiring process (via the “escalation” procedure in the City’s proposed plan) are reported simultaneously to the Commissioner of Human Resources and to the HPCM. The Corporation Counsel also receives notice of any escalated matters that are referred to the Inspector General’s Office for a formal investigation. If and when matters are referred to the Inspector General’s Office for a formal investigation, any findings and recommendations of the Inspector General are reported to the City. Nothing in the Monitor’s proposal would interfere with or inhibit the City’s ability to promptly and immediately respond to any hiring irregularity. Thus, the City’s concerns about access to information and its ability to respond quickly to violations are fully addressed.
The City also claims that housing the HPCM in the Inspector General’s Office will interfere with the City’s ability to “manage” the hiring of its employees. However, the Monitor’s proposal provides that the Commissioner of Human Resources in consultation with the Department of Law has the exclusive right to determine whether and when a hiring sequence should be halted or cancelled entirely and the exclusive authority to take corrective action or impose discipline. With respect to allegations of political discrimination or matters that are referred to the Inspector General’s Office for formal investigation, the City retains its current right to reject the Inspector General’s findings or recommendations. The HPCM’s role is only to
18

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 19 of 23
recommend corrective actions. These safeguards should sufficiently alleviate the City’s concerns regarding its ability to manage its hiring process.
Most recently, the City has also contended that its proposed compliance framework is consistent with “best practices” for compliance programs. The “best practices” referenced by the City, however, are taken from the corporate context, not the government context. Those practices do not readily apply in the governmental setting. Notably, governmental entities typically contain inspector general’s offices, which is not true in corporate settings. It is precisely the absence of independent oversight bodies like inspector general’s offices that has required recent and drastic reforms in corporate “best practices” in the area of compliance.
Ironically, one of the City’s principle citations for its arguments regarding its proposed compliance framework has been to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The City’s reliance on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to support its proposal to house the HPCM outside the Inspector General’s Office is misplaced. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide that an organization (like a corporation) that is found guilty of criminal conduct may be entitled to a reduction in its “Culpability Score” at the time of sentencing or may be eligible for “Probation” if it can demonstrate it has an effective compliance and ethics program. See 18 USCS Appx § 8B2.1. Notably, to have an effective compliance program for these purposes, the organization must “(1) exercise due diligence to prevent and detect criminal conduct; and (2) otherwise promote an organizational culture that encourages ethical conduct and a commitment to compliance with the law.” Id. Thus, although the Guidelines are inapplicable in the present context, the description of “an effective compliance program” mirrors the current duties of the City’s Inspector General’s Office.
19

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 20 of 23
The compliance model that is proposed here by the Monitor is actually consistent with “best practices” within government settings, where inspector general’s offices typically have responsibility for performing monitoring and auditing functions. In fact, in June of 2005, before the new Inspector General was hired, the City itself had drafted a Proposal for “Reinventing the Inspector General’s Office” which recommended that the Inspector General’s Office “build [a] proactive capacity” that includes “regular and consistent examination” of City departments. See “Reinventing the Inspector General’s Office—A Proposal – 2005,” attached as Exhibit A. The City’s proposal explained that the “Best Practices Research” demonstrates that New York City, Los Angeles and the Department of Justice (among others) all utilize the Inspector General’s Office to conduct proactive audits and to monitor compliance with internal systems. It also specifically noted that the City of Chicago had “no meaningful capacity to systematically detect and root out misconduct, inefficiency or waste.” (emphasis in original). The City’s proposal contemplated allowing the Inspector General’s Office to operate as a “layer of independent oversight of departments to identify vulnerable internal systems that may lead to misconduct, inefficiency or waste” and to identify “problem employees who could compromise internal systems.” The City’s proposal further found that: “Regular Audits and Investigations Must Go Hand in Hand.” Since that time, the IGO has actually created just such an audit unit and has been provided resources for staffing such a unit through the City’s budget ordinance. It is clear that the Monitor’s proposal is not only consistent with best practices for governments, it is also consistent with a proposal previously supported by the City itself.
E. The Monitor’s Recommendation for Resolution of the Dispute Based on all of the foregoing reasons, and after months of extensive deliberation and careful review of several possible compliance proposals, it is the Monitor’s conclusion that in
20

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 21 of 23
order for the New Hiring Plan and its compliance component to have any real likelihood of longterm success, the Inspector General’s Office must have principal responsibility for conducting the monitoring and auditing functions under the City’s New Hiring Plan. These compliance activities must be housed where they can be most effective—the Inspector General’s Office. Any other placement will not only be substantially less effective, it will fail to engender any real confidence that the City’s commitment to an honest and open hiring system is bona fide. It is vital in the present context to establish a compliance framework that has the most likelihood of success, as opposed to gambling on a framework that currently does not exist.
III. Transparency in Elected Officials’ Involvement in Employment Matters Is Crucial to Effective Monitoring and Auditing the City’s Compliance with the New Plan
Apart from needing to provide the most effective compliance mechanism possible, the New Plan must also provide adequate transparency with respect to the involvement of any elected officials in the employment of any individual by the City (except, of course, for Shakman-exempt positions). Any contacts by Alderman, the Mayor’s Office or other elected officials with the hiring departments or the Department of Human Resources regarding the employment of a particular job seeker or employee should remain transparent and be consistently reported to the HPCM. Currently, the Monitor receives reports of all contacts regarding all employment actions regarding particular individuals, regardless of whether such reports are deemed “improper” or not.
Under the City’s current proposal, however, the degree of reporting that is currently in place is significantly reduced. The City’s proposed New Plan only requires that a report be made to the HPCM when an improper contact based on political reasons or factors from any elected officials, including from Aldermen or from the Mayor’s Office, be recorded on a log and
21

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 22 of 23
forwarded to the HPCM. The City’s proposal requires each individual that receives an inquiry to determine whether the inquiry was improperly “based on political reasons or factors.” This provision requires various individuals within different departments to determine independently what constitutes an improper contact based on political reasons or factors. Inevitably, different individuals will report or not report contacts based on his or her determination of what constitutes an “improper” contact. Requiring the reporting of all contacts eliminates the need to exercise discretion, which would otherwise result in inconsistent reporting.
Notably, some department heads have indicated that the mandatory requirement that they report all contacts by Aldermen to the Monitor has both reduced the number of contacts and has eliminated the pressure to comply with requests. Thus, continuing this practice of reporting all contacts is recommended.
IV. Monitor’s Proposed Plan The Monitor’s revised New Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit B. As reflected in Exhibit B, much of the City’s original proposal regarding the scope of duties and powers for the Hiring Compliance Manager and staff remains intact. The key changes provide for placing principal authority for monitoring and auditing functions related to the City’s compliance with the New Hiring Plan within the Inspector General’s Office. The Inspector General’s Office is the obvious and appropriate choice for housing the HPCM: it has the legal authority to do these jobs; it has the duty to perform investigations in this area. This framework is consistent with the typical model for governments that combine oversight functions in the IGO to maximize overall compliance. In addition, the Monitor’s proposal eliminates the words “based on political reasons or factors” from Section II paragraph 10 of the New Plan. In all other respects, the Monitor agrees with the City on the provisions contained in its New Plan.
22

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 721 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 23 of 23
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of September, 2007 ___/s/ Noelle C. Brennan_______ Noelle C. Brennan Shakman Decree Monitor Brennan & Monte Ltd. 20 S. Clark St. Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001 __/s/ Ines M. Monte___________ Ines M. Monte Counsel to the Monitor Brennan & Monte Ltd. 20 S. Clark St. Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001
23

 
 Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

)

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN and

)

PAUL M. LURIE, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF )

COOK COUNTY, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 69 C 2145
Wayne R. Andersen United States District Court Judge

DECEMBER 18, 2007 REPORT OF THE MONITOR

The Monitor, Noelle C. Brennan (“Monitor”), by and through her counsel, Ines Monte and Beth A. Davis of the law firm of Brennan & Monte, Ltd., submits this Report of the Monitor pursuant to the Order of the Court entered on August 2, 2005 and pursuant to the Agreed Settlement Order and Accord entered on May 31, 2007.

On August 2, 2005, the Court appointed the Monitor “to ensure future compliance” with the Court’s prior orders in Shakman, et al. v. The Democratic Organization of Cook County, et al., Case No. 69 C 2145, in response to the Plaintiffs’ Application to Hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor in Civil Contempt for Violations of the Court Orders (“Plaintiffs’ Application for Contempt”). In order to resolve the Plaintiffs’ Application for Contempt and various other pending motions, the parties agreed to and the Court entered an Agreed Settlement Order and Accord (the “Accord”) on May 31, 2007. The Accord provides that the Monitor shall prepare and file semiannual reports with the Court regarding ongoing compliance efforts by the City. This Report constitutes the first semi-annual report and the Monitor’s year-end report for 2007.

Following her initial appointment on August 2, 2005, the Monitor issued her “First Report” concluding, in part, that the City had been substantially non-compliant with many of the Shakman provisions for a significant period of time, and including “Recommendations for Immediate Implementation” to increase the City’s compliance with the Court’s previous Orders. The City implemented and/or agreed to implement many of the recommendations and those recommendations were incorporated into a Court Order entered on November 2, 2005. Since the September 6, 2005 First Report, the Monitor and her counsel have filed several status reports outlining some of the work conducted by the Monitor’s office, including an Annual Report of the Monitor for 2006. See Appendix A.

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 2 of 24
The Monitor’s Annual Report for 2006 concluded, in part, that the City’s compliance with the Shakman Decree had significantly increased since September of 2005. The 2006 Report also noted that the City’s Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) was screening all applicants and creating all referral lists and that “[t]he hiring departments no longer submit names of candidates to DHR or add names to referral lists.” See Appendix A at page 2.
Since that filing, the Monitor has uncovered isolated instances in which certain hiring departments did, in fact, submit names of candidates to DHR and sought to, or actually did, add those names to referral/interview lists. Moreover, although the Monitor has not uncovered the type of wholesale overt manipulation of interviews presented in the criminal trial of USA v. Sorich, et al., other, more subtle, types of manipulations of the hiring process have surfaced. Thus, whereas the City’s compliance had substantially increased during 2006, the same cannot be said for the City’s compliance in 2007. Nevertheless, the City’s overall compliance as compared to pre-2005 still shows a marked improvement over the conditions reported on in September of 2005.
This Report provides: (1) an overview of several key activities conducted by the Monitor and her staff pursuant to the Accord; (2) a description of systemic compliance initiatives; (3) a summary of specific violations and corrective actions undertaken in 2007; and (4) compliance deficiencies requiring immediate redress.
I. KEY ACTIVITIES OF MONITOR IN 2007
The May 31, 2007 Accord supersedes and replaces the 1983 Shakman Consent Judgment. The 1972 Shakman Consent Judgment remains in effect. Under the Accord, the City continues to be prohibited from basing employment decisions on political reasons or factors. The Court retains jurisdiction for ensuring compliance with the Accord and the Monitor shall continue to engage in active oversight of the City’s hiring and employment practices for the duration of the Accord. In addition to the Monitor’s continuing oversight of the City’s employment practices, under the Accord, the Monitor is to facilitate the development of the City’s New Hiring Plan and adjudicate claims submitted by alleged victims of patronage and issue awards from a $12 million settlement fund.
Additionally, the Accord provides that it will terminate on or after December 31, 2008 if the Court finds that the City is in substantial compliance with its terms. “Substantial Compliance” is defined as being met if the City can demonstrate that:
1) the City has implemented the New Plan, including procedures to ensure compliance with the New Plan and identify instances of non-compliance;
2) the City has acted in good faith to remedy instances of non-compliance that have been identified, and prevent a recurrence;
2

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 3 of 24

3) the City does not have a policy, custom or practice of making employment decisions based on political factors except for positions that are exempt under the Accord;
4) the absence of material noncompliance which frustrates the Accord’s essential purpose. The [Monitor] and the Court may consider the number of post-Accord complaints that the Inspector General found to be valid. However, technical violations or isolated incidents of noncompliance shall not be a basis for a finding that the City is not in substantial compliance; and
5) the City has implemented procedures that will effect long-term prevention of the use of impermissible political considerations in connection with City employment. See Accord, Section I.G.(8).
The City may initiate a Substantial Compliance review on or after December 31, 2008. To do so, the City must submit a Certification by the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources stating that she finds the City in Substantial Compliance with the Accord. The City must also submit a Declaration by the Mayor stating that he believes the City is in Substantial Compliance with the Accord. Within thirty days thereafter, the Monitor must advise the Court whether, in her opinion, the City is or is not in Substantial Compliance with the Accord. If, in the Monitor’s opinion, Substantial Compliance has not been achieved, the City may request a hearing. If, after such hearing, the Court finds that the Monitor’s opinion is contrary to the “preponderance of the evidence,” then the Court shall terminate the Accord. If, after such a hearing, the Court does not terminate the Accord, it shall remain in effect and the City may re-initiate the Substantial Compliance review in six months.
A. Adjudication of Claims
The Accord requires the City to establish a $12 million fund to compensate Class Members for any and all injuries arising out of alleged violations of the 1972 or 1983 Shakman Consent Decrees between the period of January 1, 2000 and May 31, 2007.1 Individuals seeking to recover a monetary award from the Claim Fund were required to complete and submit a signed Claim Form and Release to the Monitor’s office by September 28, 2007. Each Claim Form was to include a sworn statement setting forth the individual’s claims including: 1) the date of the alleged violation; 2) a description of the violation; 3) a description of the damages suffered; and 4) certain identifying information. Pursuant to the Accord, within ninety days thereafter the Monitor is to assess whether each Claimant is eligible for relief under the Claim Fund and, if so, the amount of relief to be awarded.
To date, the number of Claim Forms received totals approximately fifteen hundred. In assessing any award amount for each eligible Claim Form, the Monitor is to

1

There is a separate complaint and remedial process administered by the City of Chicago’s

Inspector General’s Office for individuals that allege violations of the prohibition against patronage

practices occurring after May 31, 2007.

3

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 4 of 24
consider all relevant factors and evidence regarding a particular claim, including, but not limited to: 1) the ratio of applicants to the actual number of positions filled; 2) the facts presented regarding the alleged violation; 3) the salary of the position sought; 4) the economic benefit of the action at issue and number of eligible recipients; 5) the strength of the evidence presented; 6) the amount of the Claim Fund; and 7) the number of claims submitted.
As Claim Forms were submitted to the Monitor’s office, each Claim Form was logged into a computer system with certain tracking information including the following: an individual claim number; the name and social security number of the claimant; contact information; the date the Claim Form was received; and the department in which the alleged violation occurred. In addition, single page questionnaires were completed that summarized the nature of the complaint; the decision-maker accused of patronage; the beneficiary of the violation; whether the claimant complained previously to the Monitor’s office (or the City); whether the complaint was within the liability period of January 2000 to May 31, 2007; whether the required documents were signed; and what, if any, other information the Monitor’s office already possessed about the individuals or hiring sequences implicated.
At the close of the submission period, the Monitor and her counsel began conducting initial reviews and assessments of each Claim Form. The Claim Forms were initially separated by department (i.e., Aviation, Streets and Sanitation) and then assigned to a particular attorney. The initial review consists of determining whether the claimant alleges a timely violation against the City; the number of hiring sequences complained of; the type of hiring sequences (e.g., whether they are high volume “laborer” positions or low volume “general foreman” positions); the strength of any evidence presented (e.g., documents demonstrating that claimant applied for and was qualified for a particular position); and the specificity of the patronage evidence. The initial review also includes determining whether independent evidence relevant to the alleged violation exists. For example, were the complained of sequence(s) discussed in the testimony and/or exhibits from the Sorich trial? Did the Monitor’s own investigations uncover evidence of improper practices during a particular hiring sequence? Did representatives from the Monitor’s office attend interviews or tests regarding the complained of sequence? Does the complained of sequence involve individuals accused of wrongdoing in other instances? Finally, the initial review assesses whether the complainant was the beneficiary of patronage in other instances. Based on an analysis of the above-described information, each Claim Form is preliminarily assigned to one of five tiers. Tier One contains the weakest claims and Tier Five contains the strongest claims.
After the initial reviews are completed for each Claim Form, the Claim Forms will be reassessed to determine what, if any, additional investigation is required. Additional investigation methods may include: examining work histories; examining hiring packets, including eligibility lists, referral lists and interview rating forms; conducting interviews of complainants; and conducting interviews of other individuals with knowledge. Ultimately, assignment of monetary awards for each Claim Form will be based on an amalgamation of all relevant evidence.
4

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 5 of 24
Pursuant to the Accord, within ninety days of the Claim Form deadline the Monitor is to determine whether each claimant is eligible for recovery and if so, the specific monetary award for each eligible claimant. The deadline for these determinations is currently December 27, 2007. In light of the large number of Claim Forms received, however, the Monitor anticipates seeking an extension of ninety days from the Court. The motion for extension shall be filed before December 27, 2007.
B. Development of New Hiring Plan
Pursuant to the Accord, the Monitor and her counsel have performed a substantial amount of work facilitating the development of a new hiring plan to replace the City’s previous Detailed Hiring Provisions (the “New Plan”). The Monitor’s work on the development of the New Plan, however, began well before the final entry of the Accord. In January of 2007, the Monitor and her counsel participated in the first of several indepth meetings with City officials and a group of private consultants from Hewitt Associates retained by the City of Chicago’s Law Department to draft the City’s new hiring plan. The Monitor provided detailed input to these individuals, both verbally and in writing, regarding the key principles that should guide the formulation of the City’s new hiring plan. These included recommendations that the City decrease its reliance on the interview process for selecting candidates in favor of an objective selection process utilizing written tests, skills tests, and lotteries where appropriate; streamline the job application process and create a more uniform and objective system for scoring applicants as minimally qualified for various positions; establish an effective recruiting component within the City’s Department of Human Resources to attract and select the most qualified candidates for more specialized positions; and finally, that the City establish an effective monitoring system to minimize unlawful political patronage through the use of random auditing and monitoring of hiring decisions, on-going audits of compliance with the New Plan, and effective measures to detect and respond to any noncompliance.
Over the next several months, the Monitor, her counsel, City officials and representatives from Hewitt Associates continued to have regular meetings to discuss the content of the hiring plan. By late April of 2007, Hewitt Associates produced a highly technical report regarding a redesign of the City’s hiring systems. This technical report proved to be somewhat cumbersome and the City, the Plaintiffs and the Monitor were all concerned that it would result in an ineffective replacement for the City’s Detailed Hiring Provisions. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the Monitor and her counsel drafted and submitted a new hiring plan document in mid-May for the City and Plaintiff’s review. Additional extensive deliberation, discussion, and redrafting continued regarding the various components within this new plan. The parties and the Monitor eventually reached agreement on the majority of components to be included within the City’s redesigned hiring plan. These agreed upon components are reflected in the City’s proposed “New Plan” which was filed with the Court on August 16, 2007.
The City’s filing, however, failed to include two important features that had been strongly recommended by the Monitor and the Plaintiffs: (1) the placement of monitoring
5

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 6 of 24
and auditing of the City’s compliance with the New Plan in the existing Audit Division of the Inspector General’s Office; and (2) the requirement that all contacts by Alderman, the Mayor’s Office or any other elected officials regarding the employment of a particular job seeker or employee remain transparent and reported. As required by the Accord, on September 27, 2007, the Monitor filed a detailed written report to the Court regarding the nature of these disputed issues along with recommendations for resolution of these issues for the Court’s determination. The City’s proposed New Plan, along with the Monitor’s recommendations and the written response of the Plaintiffs and others, remain pending before the Court.
The City is currently in the process of implementing the agreed upon components of the New Plan. Part of this implementation involves the development and launch of its new “CAREERS” online job site. The new “CAREERS” online job site has been redesigned to: (1) give applicants better control of their application information, including immediate access to the status of their pending job applications, (2) provide “real-time” notification to applicants if they do not meet the minimum requirements for positions; (3) improve tracking capabilities for the City’s overall hiring process; and (4) create a fully automated application system that should eventually lead to more effective and efficient hiring in the City and that should allow for the meaningful audit of the City’s employment practices. The City is still transitioning from its previous on-line application and paper system to its new CAREERS system, which is still in development. Screening of “old” on-line applications that were “in process” when the new CAREERS system was recently launched has not been completed. The design, analysis, configuration, test and launch of the CAREERS system for all positions across the City are also still in process.
The City, the Monitor and her counsel have also been involved in other on-going projects required by the redesign of the City’s hiring processes. For example, the Monitor has strongly supported the use of effective skills and/or knowledge tests to identify the most qualified applicants for certain positions in City government. The City’s proposed New Plan adopts this principle and reflects an increased reliance on objective testing in the hiring process. However, the New Plan does not yet include the essential comprehensive list of job titles that will actually be filled with the use of such tests. The Monitor has pressed for the completion of a comprehensive job analysis of positions across the City. Such a job analysis is crucial for both designing and implementing any tests to fill various positions across the City. The Monitor and the City anticipate supplementing the New Plan with the actual titles that will be filled with the use of tests after the City completes its job audit.
As also noted in the New Plan presented by the City to the Court on August 16, 2007, a specific hiring process for sworn and uniformed titles in the City’s Police and Fire Departments remains to be developed and presented for Court approval. Historically, the City has used outside vendors for the development and administration of tests to establish eligibility and promotion lists for various sworn and uniformed titles in these departments. These hiring processes have not been problem-free. For example, in June of 2007, the Monitor’s office received several complaints regarding alleged
6

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 7 of 24
problems with the Police Lieutenant Oral Examination that had been administered without notice to the Monitor in January of 2007. In mid-June, the City scheduled a “redo” of this oral examination that was open to all previous test-takers and that would use the same questions from the previous exam. The Monitor’s office received complaints alleging that individuals with political connections might have access to the correct answers for purposes of the redo. The Monitor’s office raised concerns about the possibility of manipulation of the hiring process directly to the Mayor’s office and the Department of Law, and requested that the City consider an alternative resolution. The City declined and proceeded with the “redo” using the previous questions.
Other potential problems with the hiring processes in the City’s Fire and Police Departments continue to surface. As noted in the Monitor’s Annual Report for 2006, some problems involve the testing process used for selecting fire battalion chiefs and other supervisory level employees in the City’s Fire Department and the use of merit promotions for police officers. All of these areas will require close attention during the development of the new hiring plan for these two departments.
C. Ongoing Monitoring of Hiring Processes
As described in the 2006 Annual Report, the Monitor’s activities continue to include information gathering and active oversight of the City’s hiring process. The Monitor and her staff continue to meet on a weekly basis with officials from the City of Chicago to discuss a variety of hiring-related issues, including ongoing efforts to improve the hiring process and any recently identified hiring irregularities. The Monitor and her staff have developed a system whereby the City is informed of any problematic hiring sequences and/or practices during the weekly meetings and/or through memorandum or letters.
1. Overseeing Interviews and Tests
Much of the information regarding problematic hires, promotions and/or processes continues to be gleaned from the Monitor staff’s presence at interviews and tests. As previously reported, individuals from the Monitor’s staff attend interviews to help ensure that there is no collusion in scoring; that rating sheets are filled out individually; and that each applicant is treated fairly and questioned consistently. Moreover, at the conclusion of each interview series, all rating sheets are collected and copied so that there can be no alterations after the conclusion of the interview process. After each interview series, a memo is prepared identifying any pertinent information and is shared with the rest of the Monitor’s staff.
Since the Annual Report filed on December 4, 2006, more than 1820 interviews have been audited. In total, the percentage of the interviews audited by the Monitor’s staff is approximately 30% of the interviews conducted by the City overall.
7

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 8 of 24

INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT INTERVIEWS AUDITED

AVIATION

316

FLEET

14

GENERAL SERVICES

32

STREETS AND SANITATION

12

TRANSPORTATION

34

WATER MANAGEMENT

142

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENT INTERVIEWS AUDITED

Administrative Hearings BIS Buildings
CYS Construction and Permits Cultural Affairs Finance Graphics Housing Human Resources Library MOPD MOWD OMP Police Revenue

11

Animal Care and Control

4

15

Budget Management

13

33

Business Affairs and

85

Licensing

55

City Clerk

60

14

Consumer Services

10

13

Environment

12

19

Fire

74

4

Health

43

85

Human Relations

8

93

Human Services

32

4

Mayor’s Office

1

4

MOSE

43

5

OEMC

118

17

Planning

39

252

Procurement

15

86

Zoning

4

In addition, approximately 1775 tests have been audited by the Monitor’s staff since the Annual Report was filed on December 4, 2006. As explained above, at the Monitor’s suggestion, the City has started the process of replacing and/or supplementing interviews with tests in order to help ensure that the best qualified candidates are selected. The tests audited range from mass group exercises at the Mayor’s Office of Special Events and Police, to MTD driving tests and trade specific exams given as part of the new Foreman Promotional Process.

CITY DEPARTMENT TESTS AUDITED

AVIATION

91

FLEET

41

MOSE

850

POLICE

550

STREETS AND SANITATION

144

TRANSPORTATION

8

WATER

90

8

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 9 of 24
2. Auditing Hiring Documents
Aside from overseeing interviews and tests, a member of the Monitor’s staff continues to be based at the City’s Department of Human Resources on a full time basis. This role is critical for identifying and investigating irregularities in the hiring process. Duties performed by this individual include: a thorough examination of each referral list sent to each department, including reviewing the criteria for each position to be filled; comparing the minimum requirements to the job descriptions; reviewing and assessing any changes to the minimum requirements and/or hiring/screening criteria; ensuring that positions are posted for the requisite period of time; verifying use of and fairness of the lottery process; ensuring all applicants for given position are scored; reviewing history of eligibility list; reviewing DHR analysts’ screening data and assessments; verifying removal of any political references on candidates’ resumes; and investigating any prior rejections of other referral lists. Similarly, when reviewing hiring packets for the selected candidates, the Monitor’s DHR auditor examines each packet to ensure Shakman certifications are complete; the rating sheets are complete; information on the rating sheets is consistent with the selection made; the selected candidate’s resume supports the selection choice; the memos and notes from the interviews support the selection choice and that no other irregularities occurred during the selection process. When the vacant position involves a test, the DHR auditor reviews the test results and ensures the test results are consistent and accurate.
3. Processing Complaints
Finally, the Monitor’s office continues to receive a fair number of complaints regarding alleged Shakman violations, including allegations of rigged interviews and of violations of the City’s Acting-up policy. To date, the Monitor’s office has received more than 685 complaints for review. The Accord provides that complaints of patronage practices occurring after May of 2007 should be presented to the Inspector General’s Office for investigation. In light of the Monitor’s and the Inspector General’s respective but overlapping mandates, each newly received complaint is reviewed for appropriate action. First, the Monitor’s office advises each new complainant that he or she should contact the Inspector General’s office directly. Second, a determination is made regarding whether the complaint falls under the jurisdiction of the Inspector General, the Monitor or both. For example, a complaint alleging a rigged hiring sequence is relevant to both the Inspector General’s and the Monitor’s duties. Thus, although the Monitor’s office refers the complaint to the Inspector General for investigation, the Monitor’s office may simultaneously put a hold on the suspect hiring packet to prevent any further violation. In some instances, the Monitor’s office will conduct an initial investigation and then forward its results to the Inspector General’s Office for additional investigation. In other instances, the Inspector General’s office will defer the investigation to the Monitor’s office.
As discussed in the Monitor’s September 27, 2007 Report and Recommendations Regarding City of Chicago’s Proposed “New Plan,” the centralization of the monitoring and investigation functions of the City’s new hiring plan would likely increase efficiency
9

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 10 of 24
and effectiveness. If, however, those functions are ultimately split between the new Office of Compliance and the Inspector General’s office, the two departments should establish a formal protocol for the sharing of information.
II. SYSTEMIC COMPLIANCE INITIATIVES
During the course of overseeing the City’s hiring and promotion practices, the Monitor’s office has identified certain systemic deficiencies. The City and the Monitor have worked together to remedy these deficiencies and have worked to institute certain broad-based reforms. Key examples include the creation of a Foreman Promotional Process, the institution of attendance and discipline standards for employees seeking promotion, and the establishment of rules prohibiting the manipulation of City hires through the use of outside contractors.
A. Creation of Foreman Promotional Process
Information gathered through complaints, interview auditing and through other evidentiary sources suggests that some promotions to foreman in the various trade positions were subject to political manipulation during the interview process. Beginning in late 2006, the City and the Monitor’s office sought to create a new process that would inject an objective measure of skill into the foreman selection process. The Monitor and her counsel held a series of meetings with individuals from the Mayor’s Office and the Law Department in an attempt to draft a new Foreman Promotional Process. The Monitor initially proposed that the selection process be limited to testing. Because the positions at issue are all skilled trade positions, using a test to fill these slots would guarantee selection of the individual with superior technical skills. The City, however, sought to retain an interview component in the selection process because of the supervisory skills necessary for these positions.
In an effort to assess both technical and supervisory skills, the Monitor and City agreed to a three part process comprised of two tests and an interview. See Foreman of Laborers Promotional Plan, attached as Appendix B. The City has agreed to use this process for all Foreman Titles, attached as Appendix C. Part I of the process is a twenty question multiple choice and true/false test covering three topics: Personnel Rules; Ethics; and Shakman Compliance. For any given test, the questions will be drawn from a pool of questions in order to help ensure that the same test is not used twice. This test is designed to ensure candidates have a basic level of knowledge that is essential to a manager/supervisor role. Only those individuals with a score of 70% or higher will advance to the next stage of the process.
Part II is a practical application test that measures basic aptitude for supervisory skills and technical skills. This test is a five question short answer test that covers three areas: the ability to use and complete forms and reports (i.e., a Report of Occupational Injury or Illness Form or Vehicle/Equipment Crash/Damage Report Form); key responsibilities and/or expectations of employees the applicant will supervise; and technical questions designed by each department to test the applicant’s knowledge of the
10

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 11 of 24
particular skill required by the applicant. Only the applicants with a score of 70% or higher will advance to the next stage of the process.
Part III of the Foremen Promotional Process is the interview stage. A pool of questions on supervisory ability maintained by DHR will be available for the departments to select, depending on their respective needs. Other questions that are more department specific may also be added, upon approval by DHR. The interview will consist of five questions each with a value of 20 points and 70% shall be deemed a passing score. Any department is free to opt out of the Part III interview stage, so long as the department notifies DHR in advance of any administering of tests.
Each applicant that received passing scores for all three (or two if interviews are waived) parts will have a final score that is the average of the three individual scores. Scores are then ranked with scores greater than or equal to 90 deemed “Most Qualified,” scores greater than or equal to 80 and less than 90 deemed “Highly Qualified” and scores greater than or equal to 70 and less than 80 deemed “Qualified.” Selections will first be made from the Most Qualified category in order of seniority, and subsequently from the Highly Qualified and Qualified categories in seniority order, as needed.
To date, the City has administered approximately ten hiring sequences pursuant to the Foremen Promotional Process. During the Monitor’s auditing of these tests, problems have been identified with the scoring of some of the Part II written tests. In some cases, two test proctors independently score each test answer booklet and when finished the two scores are averaged to produce a final number that determines whether or not the candidate proceeds to the final round of the process (Part III). However, due to the form of the questions, each proctor can subjectively determine how to score the answers, and this process has led to some inconsistent scores for the same answer. Thus, one scorer will have a candidate passing the test, but another scorer will fail the same candidate. Another problem identified is that in some Part II tests no technical skills questions are included at all. Because the purpose of the Part II test is to evaluate technical and practical skills related to the trade position at issue, the lack of technical questions seriously undermines the objectivity of the test. After alerting the City of these problems, the Monitor and the City have worked on improving the system. In order to account for the scoring problem, the Department of Human Resources will rescore any problematic tests already completed and will be responsible for scoring all tests going forward. With respect to the content of the tests, the City has committed to revising Part II tests to ensure the inclusion of technical questions. It is likely that additional modifications are required and those should be addressed going forward. For example, the Monitor has suggested the City use multiple choice questions for Part II tests to eliminate subjectivity in scoring. In addition, she has recommended that Part II questions focus more heavily on technical skills. It is anticipated that these recommendations will be instituted in the future.
11

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 12 of 24
B. Institution of Uniform Attendance and Discipline Criteria
Prior to 2007, the City did not use uniform guidelines regarding attendance or discipline when assessing an individual’s promotional consideration. In 2006, the City, in conjunction with the Monitor’s office, developed guidelines for utilizing the attendance and discipline history of candidates who were selected for promotion through the interview and/or testing process. Under the new policy, any individual with the equivalent of seven (7) cumulative days of unexcused absences or seven (7) cumulative days of disciplinary absences during the previous twelve (12) months is ineligible for promotion. Thus, employees with a recent history of attendance and/or discipline deficiencies will not be rewarded with promotions. Clearly the use of some objective attendance and disciplinary standards is an improvement over the past practice. Since the implementation of this policy, however, two issues have been highlighted that should be addressed.
First, the Monitor recently suggested that the City revise the policy after reviewing a hire packet. The current policy permits an individual with 6.5 days of unexcused absences plus 6.5 days of disciplinary suspension to be eligible for promotion, although an individual with 7.5 days of unexcused absences and no disciplinary suspension days would be ineligible. This discrepancy was not considered prior to the City’s implementation of the policy, and such an outcome was not the intended consequence of the new policy.
Second, the Monitor also recently discovered that City departments were given the option to “opt out” of using the attendance and discipline criteria for promotions within their departments. After discussions between the City and the Monitor’s office, the City has determined that it will require all departments to use the criteria beginning in 2008, unless a collective bargaining agreement requires otherwise. Notably, nothing in the policy prevents any department from using a more restrictive policy, so long as it applies that policy uniformly.
Despite the concerns raised above, the institution of this policy helps ensure that employees’ attendance and disciplinary history is taken into account when determining promotions. The City’s decision to make this policy mandatory will help to increase fairness and equity in promotion decisions.
C. Prohibition Against Using Contractors to Subvert Hiring Rules
Another systemic reform recently instituted is a formal rule prohibiting City employees from using contract assignments to subvert City hiring rules. This issue came to the Monitor’s office attention when the office conducted an investigation into a suspect hiring sequence in the Department of Planning (“Planning”) after discovering the following events. In March of 2007, Planning conducted interviews of two internal City candidates for a Senior Research Assistant. Neither candidate was offered a position due to a purported lack of qualifications. Subsequently, Planning requested a new referral
12

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 13 of 24

list2 that would include outside applicants. Planning received a new interview list of four candidates. During the regular auditing of the second series of interviews for the position, the Monitor’s office detected evidence of potential pre-selection. Specifically, based on the answers to the questions, the predetermined qualifications and the work product that the interviewees brought to the interview, the selection of the successful candidate appeared suspect. At the Monitor’s request, the City agreed to redo the interviews. The third round of interviews produced the same results and raised the same concerns regarding pre-selection.
The Monitor’s office conducted an investigation that revealed that the successful candidate had been a student intern in Planning from November 2004 until January 2007, where he performed the duties of Senior Research Assistant. In January of 2007, the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources began more strictly enforcing the rule that student interns actually be students. As a result, the intern was forced to vacate his position because he was no longer a student and had not been enrolled in any courses since February of 2006. Also in January of 2007, the department decided to “outsource” that same position to an outside contractor. The outside contractor hired the former intern and he continued to perform the duties he had previously performed as a student intern, which were the same duties as the now vacant Senior Research Assistant position. The investigation also revealed that supervisors in Planning had expressly directed the contractor to hire the Planning intern because the department was no longer permitted to employ him. During his transition from a City “student” intern to an employee of the outside contractor, the individual in question never left his duties or his desk at Planning. When Planning sought to fill the Senior Research Assistant position permanently, the former intern was selected on both occasions. The Monitor’s investigation concluded that the hiring sequence had been manipulated in contravention of the City’s hiring rules.
This issue arose again when the Monitor’s office conducted an investigation into a hiring sequence in the Mayor’s Office of Special Events (“MOSE”). In this instance, the Department of Human Resources’ Compliance Division alerted the Monitor’s office to a suspicious hiring sequence in MOSE. MOSE originally sought to fill a Special Events Coordinator (“SEC”) III position in early summer 2006. It appeared that MOSE had delayed requesting an interview list for this position until one of its interns graduated from college in May of 2006. Despite the fact that the intern did not meet the qualifications for the SEC III position, due to an error in DHR, the intern was referred for the position, interviewed, and then selected by MOSE. DHR’s Compliance Department rejected the hire packet after noticing that both of the interviewers involved in the selection process were listed as that candidate’s employment references. Subsequently, DHR discovered the candidate did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position in the first instance, and should not have been eligible to even interview for the position.
After DHR rejected the candidate and informed MOSE it could not hire the former intern, MOSE sought to reclassify the position as an SEC II, a position that would more closely align with the intern’s years of experience. The Monitor’s investigation

2

A “referral” list is the equivalent of an “interview” list. These terms are used interchangeably

herein.

13

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 14 of 24
revealed that the department specifically sought to downgrade the position to award the slot to the former intern. However, DHR’s review of the criteria for the downgraded position revealed that the former intern still did not qualify for the position and she was not included on the list of candidates referred to MOSE for interviews. Instead of choosing a candidate from the list provided by DHR, a list that had produced several qualified candidates for selection, MOSE requested another referral list. This request was denied.
At this point, a Deputy Director in MOSE explicitly stated in an e-mail to DHR that he was awaiting the institution of the Senior Manager Hire Process before filling the position so that he could personally place the former intern on the referral list. (The Senior Manager Hire Process is part of the new Accord and allows departments to recommend candidates based on the presumption that the positions filled under this process are high level manager positions). Careful wording in the subsequent Senior Manager posting, including a new Spanish language fluency requirement, allowed the former intern to meet qualifications she did not meet previously. The Deputy Director requested that the former intern be included on the senior manager hire referral list and she was referred to MOSE for interview.
While this was happening, the intern could no longer continue in her position at the City due to her graduation. She was then placed on the payroll of an organization that contracted with the City. During that period, the former intern continued to perform duties in MOSE, retaining her City work phone number, email and job title. She has remained on the contractor’s payroll for more than a year-and-a-half while MOSE has repeatedly attempted to manipulate the hiring process in order to provide her with a permanent position.
Upon notification of these two instances of manipulation of hiring sequences through the use of contractors, the City instituted a formal rule prohibiting City employees from “subvert[ing] the City’s hiring process, procedures and prohibitions by seeking to have a City contractor hire an employee or a subcontractor.” Memorandum from Lori Healey to Department Heads, dated August 14, 2007. Moreover, the City forwarded these investigative results to the Inspector General’s office. The Inspector General’s office has not concluded its investigation. The Inspector General has stated, however, that the City is free to take corrective action, so long as the Inspector General’s office is given an opportunity to weigh in first. To date, the City has taken no disciplinary action.
III. SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
In addition to the systemic reforms discussed above, the Monitor’s office regularly reports specific incidents of actual or apparent Shakman violations to the City. Depending upon the nature of the incident, the Monitor makes a recommendation for specific corrective action, a request for additional information, and/or a request that the City conduct its own investigation. Since the Monitor’s 2006 Annual Report, the Monitor’s office has identified and investigated many specific incidents of hiring improprieties, including hiring sequences in the Department of Fleet Management, the
14

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 15 of 24
Department of Housing, the Department of Transportation and the Fire Department, as summarized below.
A. Department of Fleet Management
During late 2006 and 2007, the Monitor’s office has identified several instances of Shakman violations in the Department of Fleet Management. In one instance, Fleet managers manipulated bid lists, let valid interview lists expire and collaborated with an individual in the Department of Human Resources in an effort to hire two specific candidates for Equipment Dispatcher positions. When Fleet initially sought to fill the two slots in late 2005, the two preferred candidates lacked the minimum requirement of one year’s experience and thus did not appear on the list of interviewees. Notably, despite the fact that these candidates failed to meet the minimum qualifications for the Equipment Dispatcher position, each candidate was “acting” as an Equipment Dispatcher at the time. Because the candidates did not qualify for the job at that time, Fleet let the list expire and requested a new list after the two candidates had met the one year requirement. The candidates still did not appear on the list, and Fleet allowed that list to expire. In late 2006, Fleet requested yet another list and the preferred candidates both appeared on the list. These two candidates were selected for the two Equipment Dispatcher positions they had been, at that point, acting into for a year and a half despite being the least senior of all the candidates who bid for the title. A Deputy Commissioner in Fleet was involved in the manipulation of this sequence.
After the Monitor’s office relayed the results of its investigation to the City, the City agreed to redo the hiring sequence and forwarded the Monitor’s investigative results to the Inspector General’s Office. Despite the obvious manipulation of this hiring sequence, the Monitor’s office later discovered that the two pre-selected employees were permitted to continue “acting up” into the Equipment Dispatcher position for an additional three months and in violation of the City’s Acting Up policy. The individuals were finally removed from the acting positions after an additional complaint was raised by the Monitor. The Inspector General’s office has not concluded its investigation. To date, the City has taken no corrective action.
B. Department of Housing
In late 2006 and 2007, the Monitor’s office has identified instances of Shakman violations in the Department of Housing. In one instance, the Monitor’s office conducted an investigation that revealed that Housing had manipulated an interview sequence in order to ensure selection of a particular candidate by rejecting a valid interview list, manipulating the content of an interview list and communicating inappropriately with DHR. Specifically, in 2006, the Department of Housing sought to fill the position of Housing Director of Rehabilitation Construction. Before any interviews were even conducted, Housing contacted DHR about being “dissatisfied” with the list and asking for additional candidates. At the same time, Housing asked DHR to modify the screening criteria and re-run the eligibility list. By doing that, Housing was ensuring that a current Housing employee could be included on the new eligibility and interview list. Indeed, a
15

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 16 of 24
note made by the DHR analyst indicates that the Housing Personnel Director told her that she wanted a particular candidate on the list. Accordingly, the new candidate, who had not originally even applied for the job, was placed on the referral list and then selected for hire. The two Deputy Commissioners that selected the candidate gave him perfect “5”s during the interview.
When the Monitor notified the City of the investigation results, the City proposed to redo the hiring sequence, and DHR Commissioner King disciplined the DHR employees involved in the situation. The Monitor’s office, however, had continued concerns about the involvement of Housing employees in this process and conducted additional investigation into the matter. That investigation revealed that in addition to the role that Housing’s personnel liaison played in manipulating the process to have an internal candidate placed on the referral list, senior management in the department had been involved in getting the internal candidate on the referral list as well. Some of those same managers went on to interview the candidates and select the internal candidate for hire. Upon notification of this additional information, the City suspended the department’s Personnel Liaison for a week. No action was taken with regard to the senior managers purportedly involved in the manipulation.
Also in 2006, the Department of Housing sought to fill the position of Housing Development Coordinator. An audit by DHR’s Compliance Unit revealed that candidates marked on the interview sheet submitted by the department to DHR as not being interested in interviewing had either never been contacted about the position or never given the opportunity to interview. Interviews conducted by the Monitor’s office in April of 2007 confirmed this fact. In particular, one candidate who was alleged to have declined the interview had previously been told that the department already had a candidate “in mind” for the job. Another candidate who was alleged to have declined to interview stated that she was never contacted about the Housing Development Coordinator position. Another candidate who was alleged to have declined the interview stated that his interview was cancelled the day it was scheduled to take place. Finally, the candidate that Housing did offer the position to was a former Mayor’s Office employee. As noted above, Housing’s Personnel Liaison was suspended as a result of this issue in conjunction with the hiring sequence mentioned above. The City also agreed to redo this hiring sequence. No other corrective action was taken.
C. Department of Transportation
The Monitor’s office was notified by the City’s Shakman Complaint officer of Shakman violations in the Department of Transportation in January of 2007. At that time, DOT was seeking to fill four specific positions: Project Manager; Project Coordinator; Projects Administrator; and Coordinating Engineer II. Prior to the posting and interviewing for any of these positions, a Deputy Commissioner sent an email identifying the four pre-selected candidates she intended to hire for each position. The email stated in pertinent part:
16

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 17 of 24
The Project Manager at $84,264 that we are trying to get for [name omitted]. Human Resources was supposed to post an announcement to fill that specific position … [name omitted] checked through the month of December and never saw it posted.
The Project Coordinator at $51,228 for [name omitted]. I wanted to get an idea when this one will be authorized.
The Projects Administrator at $58,884 for [name omitted]. I wanted to get an idea when this one will be authorized.
The Coordinating Engineer II for [name omitted]. I wanted to get an idea when this one will be authorized. …
During the course of the Monitor’s office investigation, the Deputy Commissioner admitted that she had, in effect, “promised” these positions to the candidates she intended to select. Upon questioning, the Deputy Commissioner denied knowing that she had done anything wrong or violated any rules. In response, the City suspended the Deputy Commissioner for one week and provided her with Shakman training.
D. Fire Department
In mid-2007, the Monitor’s office conducted an investigation into two related hiring sequences for the Administrative Assistant positions in Support Services and Administrative Services in the Fire Department. These positions are the equivalent of Battalion Chief and report directly to the Deputy Commissioner of the department. The Monitor’s office reviewed these hiring sequences as a result of the following facts: each selected candidate waived her interview for the position in the alternate department; each selected candidate had been hand picked to perform the relevant duties in their respective departments prior to the posting of the position; and the Monitor’s office received several complaints about these hires. During the course of the investigation, the Monitor’s office discovered that one of the selected candidates had been ordered to work from home for several months in 2007 to evade detection for violation of the City’s Acting Up policy. She was directed to do so by one of her superiors following increased monitoring of the Acting Up policy. As a result of this investigation, the City forwarded the information to the Inspector General’s office. The Inspector General’s office has not concluded its investigation. To date, the City has taken no corrective action.
E. Other Departments
In addition to the specific incidents and corrective actions described above, other problematic hiring sequences identified by the Monitor’s office in 2007 have included:
17

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 18 of 24

• Department of Aviation, Assistant Commissioner: Selected candidate*3 had been acting up since October 2004; other candidates appeared better qualified for the position. City agreed, in early 2007, to redo hiring sequence. To date there has been no new selection.

• Department of Aviation, Operating Engineer A: One of the selected candidates* had a history of acting up, had been in violation of the City’s reformed Acting Up policy and was one of the least senior individuals that applied for the opening. The Monitor requested the interviews be redone. The City has proposed to re-conduct the entire sequence of hires.

• OEMC, Aviation Communications Operator: Two selected candidates did not meet minimum qualifications; one candidate’s resume included a reference to political volunteer work; the other candidate had been previously terminated from a Security Officer position in Aviation. Upon notification by the Monitor’s office, the Commissioner of DHR revoked the offers of employment.

• Department of General Services, C-Engineers: In response to the Monitor’s notification that C-Engineers in DGS were in violation of the Acting Up policy, the City advised that these individuals were receiving increased pay for acting up into AEngineer positions when unsupervised on the rotating shift. The City reclassified these C-Engineer positions as A-Engineer positions. The positions were filled based on seniority within DGS C-Engineers. The remaining vacancies were then opened to C-Engineers across the City.

• Aviation, Operating Engineers: A complaint received by the Monitor’s office alleged that the assignment of shifts was used to reward and/or punish employees for political reasons or other purposes. The Monitor’s office discovered that O’Hare’s Chief Operating Engineer had complete discretion to assign Operating Engineers to work shifts, including coveted shifts referred to as “day jobs.” The City agreed to utilize shift transfer requests submitted by employees and to honor them by seniority to fill these positions.

IV.

COMPLIANCE DEFICIENCIES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE

REDRESS

Although the Monitor’s office continues to identify and address systemic and individual problems in the City’s hiring processes, progress is hampered by the City’s failure to: (a) remedy problems; (b) implement and enforce Acting Up Policy; (c) accurately report violations; and (d) meaningfully enforce consequences for noncompliance with hiring rules.

3 Where the selected candidate is asterisked, the individual appears on the so-called “Clout List” presented during the criminal trial of USA v. Sorich, et al.
18

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 19 of 24
A. Failure to Remedy Problems
As reported in the Monitor’s 2006 Annual Report, in many instances where the Monitor has reported problems and/or complaints regarding specific hiring sequences, the City agreed to suspend or redo those hiring sequences. Despite the agreement to suspend or redo a hiring sequence, however, the City in some cases permitted the improperly selected candidates to continue to “act” into the position (in some cases, for over a year). This “remedy” actually compounded the original violation or problem that required the hiring sequence to be redone or suspended. Some examples include:
• Department of Water, Foreman of Electrical Mechanics: Selected candidate answered the fewest number of technical questions correctly and had been acting in position for approximately four years. In early 2007, City agreed to redo hiring sequence. Recently, the Monitor discovered that the Water department allowed the improperly selected candidate to “act” into the position of Foreman of Electrical Mechanics for much of 2007 in violation of City’s reformed Acting Up policy.
• Department of Water, Foreman of Pipe Yards: Selected candidate* had history of acting up from Construction Laborer to Stores Laborer to Foreman of Pipe Yards for period of approximately five years. City agreed to redo hiring sequence in early 2007. The Monitor discovered that candidate was allowed to continue to “act” into position of Foreman of Pipe Yards for at least six months in 2007 and in violation of the City’s reformed Acting Up policy. Sequence was repeated and same candidate was selected.
• Department of Water, Plumbing Inspector in Charge: One selected candidate* and another selected candidate had history of acting up and Monitor raised concerns about interview process. City agreed to redo hiring sequence in early 2007. The Monitor discovered that both candidates were allowed to continue to “act” in position of Plumbing Inspector in Charge for several months after the sequence was halted and in violation of the City’s reformed Acting Up policy.
• Office of Emergency Management Communications, Deputy Director of Internal Secure Operations: Selected candidate* failed to meet the minimum qualifications for the position but had nonetheless been acting in position for two years. City agreed on January 10, 2007 to actively recruit for candidates that met the minimum qualifications. Recently, the Monitor discovered that OEMC allowed the candidate to continue to “act” into the position of Deputy Director of Internal Secure Operations for the entirety of 2007 in violation of City’s reformed Acting Up policy. The City recently notified the Monitor that the position is now Shakman exempt and the originally selected candidate who did not meet the stated qualifications for the position will be formally promoted.
• Department of Fleet Management, Manager(s) of Vehicle Maintenance: Selected candidates had been “acting” into position for six and three years respectively,
19

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 20 of 24

referral list had been manipulated, and other candidate who was not selected appeared better qualified. In early 2007, City agreed to redo the hiring sequence. Subsequently, the Monitor discovered that Fleet allowed the two selected candidates to continue to “act” into the positions in violation of the City’s reformed Acting Up policy.
• Department of General Services, Foreman of Laborers: Selected candidate* had history of “acting” up for period of seven years and problems were identified with interview process. City agreed, in early 2007, to redo hiring sequence. Recently, the Monitor discovered that DGS allowed the selected candidate to continue to “act” into the position of Foreman of Laborers after the sequence was halted in violation of City’s reformed Acting Up policy.
B. Failure to Implement and Enforce Acting Up Policy
A major area requiring immediate redress is the implementation and enforcement of the City’s Acting Up policy. As discussed in the Monitor’s 2006 Annual Report and the more recent Report and Recommendations Regarding City of Chicago’s Proposed New Plan, “acting up” (the process by which individuals are selected to fill higher-rated titles without going through a competitive process, often receiving higher pay and an advantage in the eventual hiring process for the permanent position) has been one of the major areas in which political patronage has negatively affected City hiring practices. Many of the Shakman complaints received by the Monitor’s office have alleged that individuals are chosen to act up based on political connections, leading to systemic violations of the Shakman Decree that have gone unchecked for years.
As noted in the Monitor’s earlier filings, the Monitor first requested changes to this process in the spring of 2006. However, it was not until late 2006 that any prohibitions were put into place for departments with regard to acting up. In January of 2007 the City assured the Monitor that every long-term actor had been removed, yet in March of 2007, the Monitor and her staff discovered that hundreds of individuals who had been acting up for years remained in those roles, in violation of the Acting Up policy.
These violations continued because the City failed to audit departmental compliance with the Acting Up policy in any meaningful way for several months. After these violations were brought to the City’s attention by the Monitor, the City began to “audit” the process, but there was still very limited compliance. This was due in part to the fact that the audit functions were bounced back and forth between the Department Human Resources and the Department of Law, with no one ultimately accountable for the process.
To date, many employees have been acting for longer than the ninety (90) day period permitted under the Acting Up policy established in 2006.4 For example, one particular employee in the Department of Fleet Management who had been acting since

4

In August of 2007, a revision of the Acting Up policy changed the ninety day (90) limit for each

individual to act up per calendar year to an equivalent of five hundred and twenty (520) hours.

20

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 21 of 24
1995 was not removed from this acting up assignment until late March of 2007, only to be returned to the acting up position less than two months later. In the Department of Water, one individual has been awarded at least one hundred and sixty-five (165) days of Acting Up in 2007 alone, in clear violation of the policy.
Because there is no procedure in place for holding departments accountable for violations of the Acting Up policy and the City’s internal auditing has been inadequate, departments regularly provided inaccurate information to City officials responsible for auditing compliance. For example, in a meeting with the Department of Law and the Department of Human Resources in April of 2007, one department’s Personnel Director claimed that her department had no employees “acting up.” This was not true. In fact, the Monitor and her staff discovered that the department has had more than fifty (50) employees acting up, many of whom were acting at the time the statement was made.
Since this issue was first raised in early 2006, the City has taken steps to correct the problems caused by Acting Up. It has modified the policy several times in response to concerns posed by the Monitor, it has conducted training for the departments to increase compliance with the policy, it has met with individual departments to address issues of functionality, it has removed some employees from acting up assignments upon notification that there was a violation, and it is in the process of developing a method for tracking Acting Up in the future. There are significantly fewer long-term acting-up employees today than there were one year ago, however, compliance remains inadequate.
The City’s on-going failure to effectively monitor compliance with the reformed policy coupled with the failure to take any disciplinary action when violations occur is certain to result in on-going violations. Some steps the City could take to increase compliance include: (1) maintaining accurate records of acting up time for each employee, including the specific dates on which the employee acted and the number of hours acted on that day; (2) conducting monthly audits of departments to identify every individual who has acted up for greater than five hundred and twenty (520) hours in the past twelve (12) months; (3) issuing discipline to department officials who permit violations of the policy; and (4) taking prompt action to remove any employee who is in violation and to prevent further violations from occurring.
C. Failure to Accurately Report Violations
As noted previously, in many instances the Monitor’s office requests that the City conduct its own investigations into problematic hiring issues. The Monitor’s office relies upon the results of these investigations in assessing whether a problem exists. Accordingly, it is crucial and expected that all information provided by the City is both truthful and complete. Recently, however, the Monitor’s office has discovered serious breaches of the City’s obligation to be truthful and complete when reporting on potential violations.
For example, on December 13, 2007, the Monitor’s office discovered that senior members of the Department of Law provided materially misleading and inaccurate information to the Monitor in response to a request for an investigation. On October 9,
21

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 22 of 24
2007, the Monitor’s office sent a memorandum to the City notifying the Law Department, the Mayor’s Office and DHR of complaints received regarding promotions to Field Officer in the Fire Department. After conducting an initial investigation, the Monitor’s office was concerned that eligible candidates from the existing Field Officer promotion list were not being promoted into budgeted and vacant positions. Rather, the City determined to conduct a new Field Officer test before making any hires, despite existing vacancies. The Monitor’s initial investigation produced some evidence that the Fire Department’s decision to not hire off of the existing list may have been made in order to favor new test takers.
In response to the Monitor’s request that the City investigate these allegations, senior members of the City’s Law Department provided a five-page memorandum with fifty pages of supporting documentation to the Monitor’s office justifying the Fire Department’s decision. In this memorandum, the City claimed the Fire Department’s decision was dictated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Union. In particular, the Law Department Memorandum stated that the City was bound, as of January 1, 2007, to establish a new Field Officer examination and eligibility list. Based on this Memorandum, the Monitor agreed to close her investigation. Subsequently, it was determined that the information provided by the City was false.
Other incidents of inaccurate reporting by the City have also been identified. For example, after the Monitor’s September 27, 2007 Report, several members of the City’s Law Department denied having any knowledge of the allegation of retaliation referenced in that Report. The Monitor’s office, however, confirmed that the employee had sent an e-mail to individuals in the Law Department specifically complaining that she believed they were retaliating against her for having reported a violation to the Monitor’s office.
Again, in a letter dated August 2, 2007, the Department of Law assured the Monitor’s office that a particular individual had been removed from an acting up position. Despite that assurance, that individual actually continued to act up for several additional months. In another instance, the Department of Law advised the Monitor that several individuals had been removed from their acting roles, when a quick audit by the Monitor and her staff proved otherwise. In Streets & Sanitation, for example, at least seven individuals continued to act far beyond the March 2007 date on which the Department of Law maintained they had been removed.
In other cases, the City has knowingly allowed Acting Up policy violations to go unchecked. For example, the Office of Emergency Management and Communications (“OEMC”) was in violation of the City’s Acting Up policy for over a year without consequence. The City failed to report this ongoing violation, instead making an internal decision to allow the violations to continue.
22

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 23 of 24
D. Failure to Enforce Consequences for Non-Compliance
Appropriate corrective action in cases of past and present non-compliance with City hiring rules is critical for ensuring adherence to these rules and for deterring future hiring infractions. For that reason, an area of significant concern for the Monitor’s office has been the City’s lack of action with regard to current City employees that were directly implicated in Shakman violations as reflected in testimony provided during the criminal trial of USA v. Sorich, et al. and in affidavits or sworn admissions in related cases. After numerous discussions with the Monitor, although the City has relieved a few employees from any present involvement in hiring, few corrective or disciplinary actions have been taken, even after the City’s own Inspector General has recommended termination as the appropriate disciplinary action for one such employee. To date, the Mayor’s Office and the City’s Law Department have reported that the City is still reviewing the appropriate corrective actions to take with respect to these current employees. The City had previously explained that it did not want to interfere with or affect any pending criminal prosecutions or investigations by the United States Attorney’s office by taking employment or disciplinary actions against any such employees.
As of October 9, 2007, however, the City was formally advised by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois that the City may proceed with any employment and disciplinary decisions notwithstanding the pendency of federal prosecutions, as long as the City first apprises the U.S. Attorney’s office of those individuals who might be investigated or disciplined by the City. As the City was informed, the United States Attorney’s Office will request a delay in the City’s action if there is any concern that it may adversely affect a particular federal investigation or trial.
Accordingly, there should be no impediment to taking appropriate corrective action for past and present hiring violations. It is imperative that the City do so as promptly as possible.
V. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to the Accord, the Monitor shall file her next semi-annual report in June of 2008. In the interim, the Monitor’s office anticipates working collaboratively with the City to address the issues reported on herein.
23

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 24 of 24
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of December, 2007
___/s/ Noelle C. Brennan_______ Noelle C. Brennan Shakman Decree Monitor Brennan & Monte, Ltd. 20 S. Clark St. Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001 __/s/ Ines M. Monte___________ Ines M. Monte Counsel to the Monitor Brennan & Monte, Ltd. 20 S. Clark St. Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001 __/s/ Beth A. Davis___________ Beth A. Davis Brennan & Monte, Ltd. 20 S. Clark St. Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001
24

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 11 ooff 2211

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

)

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN and

)

PAUL M. LURIE, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF )

COOK COUNTY, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 69 C 2145
Wayne R. Andersen United States District Court Judge

ANNUAL REPORT OF MONITOR FOR 2006

The Monitor, Noelle C. Brennan (“Monitor”), by and through her counsel, Ines M. Monte of the law firm of Brennan & Monte, Ltd. and Susan E. Cox of the Law Offices of Susan E. Cox, submits this Annual Report pursuant to the Order of the Court entered on August 2, 2005.

I. APPOINTMENT OF SHAKMAN DECREE MONITOR

The principles embodied in the Shakman Decree are grounded in Constitutional rights guaranteed to all persons and apply to all government hiring. “Political belief and association constitute the core of those activities protected by the First Amendment,” the Supreme Court has explained. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 355 (1976). Patronage, the Court explained, “can result in the entrenchment of one or a few parties to the exclusion of others” and “is a very effective impediment to the associational and speech freedoms which are essential to a meaningful system of democratic government.” Id. at 370-371. Thus, although some may espouse the view that patronage is a preferred system, supporting the implementation of such a system is tantamount to supporting the denial of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

On August 2, 2005, the Court appointed a Monitor “to ensure future compliance” with the Court’s prior orders in Shakman, et al. v. The Democratic Organization of Cook County, et al., Case No. 69 C 2145, in response to the Plaintiffs’ Application to Hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor in Civil Contempt for Violations of the Court Orders. Following the August 2, 2005 appointment, the Monitor and her counsel conducted a preliminary study of the City’s existing employment practices. Since that time, the Monitor and her staff have actively overseen the City’s hiring processes. Hiring at the City has not been impeded under the Monitor’s supervision. In fact, the City has hired significantly more employees under the Monitor’s oversight than in prior years. From August of 2005 through July of 2006, the City hired 6,231 employees, a substantial increase over the same period during the previous two years when the City hired only

1

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 22 ooff 2211
5,304 individuals between August 2003 and July 2004 and 5,601 employees from August 2004 through July 2005.
The Monitor’s initial objective was to investigate the City’s existing employment practices in order to detect potential impediments to the City’s ongoing compliance with the Shakman judgments and to identify systemic problems which may lead to such future noncompliance. On September 6, 2005, the Monitor issued her “First Report” that included “Recommendations for Immediate Implementation” as a means to increase immediate compliance with the Court’s previous Orders. See Appendix A. The City agreed with many of these recommendations and they were formally incorporated into a Court Order entered on November 2, 2005. See Appendix B. Since the September 6, 2005 First Report, the Monitor and her counsel have filed several status reports outlining some of the work conducted by the Monitor’s office. See Appendix C.
The Monitor’s September 6, 2005 report concluded, in part, that that the City had been substantially non-compliant with many of the Shakman provisions for a significant period of time. Since that time, the City’s compliance with the Shakman Decree has significantly increased. For example, the City’s Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) now conducts all screening of applicants and creates all referral lists. The hiring departments no longer submit names of candidates to DHR or add names to referral lists. There has been no evidence that DHR has received and/or acted upon any inappropriate recommendations from any individual in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs or the Mayor’s Office. There is no evidence that the type of overt manipulation of interviews presented during the criminal trial of USA v. Sorich, et al. continues to exist. As explained below, however, additional measures are necessary to increase compliance now and to ensure future compliance.
II. MONITOR’S ACTIVITIES
A. Information Gathering
A significant part of the Monitor’s activities continue to focus on gathering information and viewpoints from multiple constituencies. The Monitor and her staff meet on a weekly basis with officials from the City of Chicago to discuss reform initiatives, issues related to specific hiring sequences, and a myriad of topics that relate to eliminating the unlawful use of political considerations in City employment. The Monitor and her staff also regularly meet with management and personnel at the Department of Human Resources. Notably, an individual from the Monitor’s office is present and available at the Department of Human Resources on a daily basis.
The Monitor’s office has also continued to meet with officials within individual City Departments, including the Department of Aviation, the Department of Water, Streets and Sanitation, the Department of General Services, the Chicago Public Libraries, the Fire and Police Departments, and others. Often, these meetings arise because of compliance issues or questions raised by the Departments. Similarly, the Monitor and her staff have met regularly with representatives from various unions, to discuss specific
2

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 33 ooff 2211
union issues related to the City’s compliance with the law and reform of employment practices. The Monitor’s office regularly meets with the Plaintiffs’ counsel to discuss these same issues. Finally, the Monitor has also met with the City Council’s attorneys, the Black Caucus and their attorneys, and any other interested individuals who request a meeting.
Generally, the employees with whom the Monitor has worked with at the City of Chicago have been receptive to changing past employment practices. In particular, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources have been actively attempting to implement fair and open employment practices. Nonetheless, there remains an element of resistance to the Shakman principles expressed during a limited number of interviews and/or discussions with City employees and a small group of Aldermen. These individuals have openly expressed a preference for a patronage system and believe that the advantages of such a system outweigh any ill effects. Thus, these same individuals are adverse to the requirements of the Shakman Decree and its resultant restrictions on the employment practices at the City. The activities of the Monitor and her counsel are an attempt to counter these pockets of resistance.
B. Oversight of City Hiring
One of the primary findings in the Monitor’s initial report was that the Department of Personnel (now known as “DHR’) had abdicated its role under the existing Detailed Hiring Plan to screen qualified candidates for open City positions and create appropriate referral lists for the City Departments to use for their pool of qualified applicants to interview. Instead, City Departments were screening applicants for positions, sometimes with the motive of ensuring that favored candidates were included on the interview lists. Further, as the United States Attorney’s federal prosecutions have made plain, improprieties often occurred in the interview and rating process of candidates. Finally, despite apparently widespread violations of the Shakman decree, the Monitor found no evidence of any investigation by the Department of Personnel into any complaints made regarding potential Shakman violations during her initial investigation into City hiring.
To address these concerns on a going-forward basis, the Monitor and her counsel retained several individuals to serve as auditors for all aspects of City hiring, including the proper notification of job opportunities; the creation of appropriate referral lists; proper conduct of interviews, testing, and scoring of candidates; and related actions. These auditors, who currently number six, are trained in both City hiring and the Shakman decree prior to beginning their work. One auditor is based at DHR and is responsible for performing a variety of crucial monitoring functions, including auditing hiring packets, reviewing referral lists, tracking all hiring sequences and interviews, and responding daily to issues and questions presented by the City’s personnel analysts and personnel liaisons related to compliance with the Shakman decrees.
3

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 44 ooff 2211

The Monitor requires forty-eight hour notification prior to the commencement of any interview.1 The purpose of this notification is to allow the Monitor and her staff to assign an auditor to the hiring sequence if one is deemed necessary. Although there were difficulties with this requirement initially, most Departments have adapted to this requirement. The Monitor has the discretion to cancel an interview if sufficient notification is not given and has done so on occasion. Similarly, there have been a limited number of instances where no notice has been provided to the Monitor at all. Those interviews generally have to be repeated to allow for auditing.

As set out in the tables below, the Monitor’s staff has audited close to 3,000 interviews to help ensure that the hiring is in accordance with the Shakman decree. Although the auditors have attended interviews in most departments, auditing activities have focused on the City’s Infrastructure Departments, given their history of improprieties. In addition, when the Monitor and her staff are alerted to a potential problematic hiring sequence by a complainant, that hiring sequence is audited, if possible.

INFRASTRUCTURE DEPARTMENT INTERVIEWS AUDITED

AVIATION DEPARTMENT

771

FLEET MANAGEMENT

92

GENERAL SERVICES

105

STREETS AND SANITATION

394

TRANSPORTATION

86

WATER MANAGEMENT

776

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENT INTERVIEWS AUDITED

Administrative Hearings

4

Department of Buildings

75

Children & Youth Serv.

15

Construction & Permits

17

Cultural Affairs

12

Finance

30

Health Department

41

Human Resources

26

Inspector General Office

12

Library

3

Off. Emer. Manag. & Comm. 77

Planning

10

Procurement

35

Treasurer

4

Department on Aging

4

Business Aff. & Lic.

29

City Clerk’s Office

31

Consumer Services

13

Environment

25

Fire Department

11

Housing Department

27

Human Services

5

Law

11

Mayor’s Off. Spec. Events

8

O’Hare Modernization Prog.

32

Police

161

Revenue

34

Zoning

18

1 The Monitor has recently requested, but not required, that she be provided one week notice of any interviews scheduled.
4

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 55 ooff 2211
The auditors help ensure that there is no collusion in scoring; that rating sheets are filled out individually; and that each applicant is treated fairly and questioned consistently. The auditors collect the rating sheets and copy them immediately after the interview has concluded so that there can be no change to them after the conclusion of the interview process. These documents are kept in the Monitor’s files. The auditors also assist in ensuring that each applicant meets the minimum requirements for the position as stated on the “A” form. The auditors do not question applicants, nor do they advise the interviewing panel on how they should score the applicants.
After each interview, the auditors draft a memo on the hiring sequence and include any questions which were directed to them by the interview panels. The auditors attach the appropriate paperwork for the hire, including the A form, referral list and rating sheets to the memorandum, which are circulated to the Monitor and her staff and kept in a file at the Monitor’s office. Each week, the auditing team meets with the Monitor and her counsel to discuss the week’s work and to discuss any problems which have occurred and to discuss possible solutions which have included, from time to time, a new set of interviews. Beginning recently, the auditor at DHR has also prepared a weekly memorandum reporting the status of those hires which have been questioned by members of the Monitor’s staff. In this way, the Monitor can track DHR’s response to issues raised. The Monitor and her counsel report problematic hiring sequences to the City.
Hiring sequences where the interviews are not actively audited are also reviewed. Specifically, the Monitor’s DHR auditor reviews and tracks every “A” form (request for hire) and each referral list. Before a candidate’s hire can be processed, the auditor reviews the entire “hire packet” including the referral list, the A form hiring criteria, the interview scoring sheets and the application or resume. If any of the steps in the hiring sequence are suspect, the auditor notifies both the Monitor and DHR and the hire is not processed until it can be further reviewed.
The auditors are an integral and necessary component of the Monitor’s work. Their presence helps to prevent the practices which occurred in the past and which violated the decree. Their efforts, and those of DHR and new personnel in the departments responsible for hiring, have resulted in a much fairer and open hiring process. In fact, the hiring practices which were the subject of the federal prosecutions have been largely dismantled through these efforts. Although hiring errors still occur and institutional and other barriers persist, the presence of the auditors has done much to prevent further violations of the decree.
C. Complaint Investigations
As noted in the Monitor’s First Report, a significant deficiency in the City’s employment system is the absence of an effective and credible internal City process for responding to complaints of unlawful politically-based employment practices. Beginning in September of 2005, the Monitor was tasked with investigating such complaints, with the agreement of both parties. Based on the Monitor’s initial recommendations, the City also designated a new “Shakman Complaint Officer” in DHR to receive Shakman-related
5

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 66 ooff 2211
complaints. Complaints received by the City’s Shakman Complaint Officer are promptly forwarded to the Monitor’s office for investigation. Current City employees have been notified about this new avenue for registering complaints. Complaints may also be submitted through email via the Monitor’s website at www.ShakmanMonitor.com. Finally, complaints often come directly to the Monitor’s office. As part of the investigation process, the Monitor’s office has implemented a comprehensive system for receiving, tracking, reviewing and responding to any complaints received regarding current or recent alleged Shakman violations in City employment.
To date, the Monitor’s office has received more than 440 complaints for review. Not all complaints received by the Monitor fall within her jurisdiction. For an investigation to be undertaken, a complaint must allege specific conduct that: (1) relates to employment actions based on improper political factors; (2) is believed to have occurred since the Monitor’s appointment on August 2, 2005; and (3) directly involves the City of Chicago and its departments. Over 175 complaints are currently under active investigation by the Monitor’s staff. Files are assigned by department to an attorney on the Monitor’s staff who directs the investigation. Paralegals assist in the investigative process. Investigations typically involve detailed interviews of the complainant, other witnesses, and other appropriate City personnel. Additionally, any relevant records related to the job action at issue are evaluated, along with any other available information or documents. The attorneys and staff involved in these investigations meet on a regular basis to discuss the status and progress of the investigations and to share information that may be useful in identifying and addressing systemic problems.
In certain cases the file is shared with the City’s Inspector General Office. Typically, the Monitor’s office prepares the complaint and its investigative results and then meets with a representative from the Inspector General. If the complaint is one that the Inspector General’s Office believes is within its jurisdiction and is sufficiently timely, the Inspector General’s Office assumes responsibility for investigating that complaint and the Monitor’s investigation ceases. This work sharing agreement allows the Inspector General to recommend appropriate discipline where applicable and prevents duplication of efforts by both offices.
Significant benefits have been obtained as a direct result of this complaint process. As an initial matter, the City has been able to improve its on-going compliance with the Shakman Decrees and the Detailed Hiring Plan in the immediate short-term. In numerous cases where there has been an adequate basis to conclude that a complaint is well-founded, the Monitor has requested the City to take specific corrective action, as discussed below. Moreover, systemic problems have been identified and addressed.
D. Development and Implementation of Reforms
1. SYSTEMIC REFORMS
Information learned through auditing activities and complaint investigations has led to broad-based reforms in the City’s employment practices. Key examples include
6

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 77 ooff 2211
reforms to the hiring process for Motor Truck Drivers (“MTDs”), reforms in the hiring process for laborers, reform of an informal promotion practice known as “acting up,” and implementation of a City-wide system that identifies individuals previously terminated “for cause” by the City if or when such individuals reapply.
a. Elimination of Interviews for MTD Positions/MTD Pools
The City employs MTDs across several City departments. MTD drivers are needed at different times by different departments and are generally qualified to work in several departments. The City has also employed “seasonal truck drivers.” Some of these seasonal MTDs are hired for snow removal work, for example, and are laid off after the winter season. This has created a patchwork of different MTD positions within the different departments which employ MTDs.
A number of complaints regarding the hiring and promotion of MTDs have been brought to the Monitor’s attention. Complainants alleged that seasonal MTDs were promoted to permanent career service positions based on political connections rather than merit. Complainants have also alleged that the interview process for MTDs was used to hire “clouted” individuals over others, regardless of skill and/or experience.
The Monitor’s office raised these concerns with the City. The City, in turn, had been in the process of negotiating a new kind of MTD position: cross-departmental pool MTDs who could be utilized in four of the main departments which use MTDs as the needs of the City’s departments changed. These departments are Aviation, Transportation, Water Management and Streets and Sanitation. The pool concept would allow the City to dispense with hiring of seasonal MTDs who would be laid off and rehired yearly and instead (with certain limited exceptions), have qualified MTDs move from one department to another based on need.
Although the pool concept should eliminate many of the complaints regarding promotion from “seasonal” to permanent career service positions, it does not address the allegations of manipulation of the interview process. When the City conducted MTD interviews for the Department of Water Management in April of 2006, the Monitor formally requested that the City abolish interviewing for entry level MTDs. This request was prompted by a number of factors, including observations by the auditors of widely disparate scoring of candidates and the use of scoring criteria (such as “oral communication skills”) that were unrelated to the actual work performed by MTDs. In addition, a disproportionate number of selected candidates had very recent seniority dates with the City which were after December 2005. Finally, the Teamsters Union raised concerns that the City was violating its members’ seniority rights, but also that certain of the successful applicants were, in fact, political hires.
The Monitor concluded that there were enough “red flags” to require disposing of the list that had been generated from the interview process. None of the successful bidders had been notified about the results, thus redoing the hiring sequence should not have caused any disruption to these employees. The Monitor recommended that the City
7

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 88 ooff 2211
agree to a process which would eliminate the need for interviews, but would focus on previous driving and work experience as a way of gauging qualifications for the job.
The newly agreed upon hiring process for MTDs is as follows. Internal applicants for the position will be ordered into a list by seniority. These bidders will then take a pass/fail driving test. The successful applicants’ work histories then will be examined to determine whether their attendance is adequate by a pre-determined formula and whether they have been suspended from work based on discipline records. The successful applicants will then be selected in seniority order.2 External pool applicants will be assessed similarly, but the list of those with the required licensure will be randomized (instead of ordered by seniority). These applicants also take a past/fail driving test and those who pass will be selected for open positions by lottery order. The elimination of the interview process in favor of more objective measures will decrease the likelihood of manipulating the MTD hire process in the future.
b. Creation of Lottery for Laborer Positions in City
Among various recommendations made by the Monitor and agreed to by the City was the recommendation that the City purge all existing eligibility lists and referral lists that had been created by the City prior to January 1, 2004. See Appendix B. Such a purge was recommended due to significant concerns about the integrity of these lists. On May 3, 2006, the City’s Corporation Counsel contacted the Monitor’s office to advise that the City had actually not purged all eligibility lists as previously agreed. Specifically, the Monitor was advised that the City’s eligibility list for the title of “Laborer” had not been purged. The Laborer eligibility list had been created more than six years earlier and contained approximately 20,000 names of job applicants who had applied for the title at that time.
The City alerted the Monitor that in attempting to fill approximately 60 “Hand Laborer” positions within the Department of Streets and Sanitation in the spring of 2006, the City had been using the unpurged Laborer eligibility list. Many of the individuals on this list were no longer viable job candidates, either because they could not be reached at their stated address or phone number, or they were no longer interested in or available for the job.
Based on numerous complaints of improprieties in filling Laborer positions in Streets and Sanitation, the Monitor concluded that the City’s request to continue using the unpurged list must be brought to the attention of the Court and the Plaintiffs. The Monitor filed a motion related to this issue on May 4, 2006. See Appendix D. As a result, the parties entered into an agreement for filling these 60 Laborer openings that permitted filling the slots as expeditiously as possible, with adequate oversight. The Agreed Order entered by the Court on May 5, 2006 provided that the City would be allowed to utilize the unpurged eligibility list only for the purpose of filling those 60
2 Eventually, the City would like to also use previous work performance as part of the hiring criteria, but, until more objective and verifiable means are developed to determine performance, the Monitor’s view is that this is inadvisable.
8

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 99 ooff 2211
Hand Laborer openings in Streets and Sanitation, as long as the list was randomized anew in a manner that was open and transparent and that permitted review by the Court and the Monitor. See Appendix E.
Upon completion of these 60 hires, however, the City had to purge the list. In order to fill any future Laborer vacancies, the City was required to create a current eligibility list, so these vacancies could be filled expeditiously and fairly. The City proceeded with creation of a new eligibility list for the Laborer titles, with direct oversight from the Monitor’s office. First, the City informed all affected individuals about the recently purged list. Purge notifications were sent by the City to the entire list of applicants on the old eligibility list advising the applicants of the need to reapply and of the new application period and locations. A Job Announcement for the Laborer title was prepared and the position was opened for application from May 14, 2006 through May 27, 2006. The City also used press announcements to publicize the opening of the title, in addition to using its normal job posting processes.
Over 15,000 individuals submitted new job applications for the Laborer title. The City, with oversight from the Monitor, used a lottery process to randomize the list of job applicants. Since the creation of the new Laborer lists3 each of the Infrastructure Departments have hired Laborers from these lists, with the oversight of the Monitor. Although certain complaints regarding the hire of specific laborers have continued to be lodged with the Monitor, investigations conducted thus far indicate that these hires were completed pursuant to the lotterized list and were subject to political manipulation. Thus, although complaints will likely continue to be made regarding these coveted positions, both the City and the Monitor are now equipped to investigate quickly whether any improper influence occurred in any particular hiring sequence.
c. Reforms to the City’s “Acting-Up” Practice
“Acting Up” refers to the discretionary selection of certain City employees to perform higher level and/or higher paid positions. This City practice was particularly problematic because it violated the Shakman Decree’s Detailed Hiring Plan. Significant numbers of employees had historically been hand-picked by supervisors to “act up” for extended periods of time, sometimes as long as several years, without any formal selection process or the use of any objective criteria. The Monitor received dozens of complaints alleging that certain employees had been selected to “act up” based on unlawful political considerations. Employees complained that individuals with greater seniority and better qualifications had been passed over for “acting up” assignments in favor of less qualified politically connected individuals. Union employees that are “acting up” receive additional pay for their work. Although non-union employees “acting up” may not receive additional compensation, they do gain valuable experience that can provide a decided advantage in permanently obtaining the higher position at a later date.
3 There are six different “Laborer” lists to account for the different Laborer titles.
9

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 1100 ooff 2211

The inherent problems with this informal promotion practice are clear. Managers and supervisors “promote” employees into these positions with unfettered discretion in this non-competitive selection process. As the following table demonstrates, between January 1, 2006 and October 15, 2006 at least 1,000 different employees within the City’s six infrastructure departments held “acting up” positions. These employees received additional pay and experience in the title as a result.

Department General Services Fleet Streets & Sanitation CDOT Aviation Water

Total # People Acting Up 86
100 402
13 91 373

Total Payment Acting Up $342,586.58 $140,399.06 $576,893.79 $20,012.32 $83,501.91 $145,211.39

Totals for Infrastructure

1,065

$1,308,605.05

Thus, in a period of ten (10) months the City paid over one million dollars for individuals that “acted up” into promotions for which they did not have to compete.

There are, however, benefits in allowing some form of “acting up” to be available in the City. In certain cases the ability to quickly select an employee to “act up” into a position may be critical for the City’s legitimate operational needs. For example, a position may need to be filled temporarily, as when an employee is selected to “act up” during an incumbent’s medical leave of absence.

After carefully studying the City’s existing “acting up” practice, the Monitor recommended certain reforms. As a result, the City recently agreed to and implemented a new City-wide “Procedure for Use of Acting Up.” See Appendix F. The key features of the new policy include: (1) limiting the total time any individual may be selected to act up within any given year; (2) providing employees notice of the anticipated “acting up” assignment and equal opportunity to express interest in the assignment; (3) requiring the use of objective and specific criteria for selecting employees who “act up”; (4) requiring employees “acting up” for more than ninety days as of November 24, 2006 to be removed from their “acting up” assignment; and (5) requiring the selected employee, all those involved in his or her selection and the respective commissioner or department head to complete Shakman certifications as part of the selection process. These reforms are intended to minimize the potential abuse of “acting up” while providing the City the flexibility to meet its operational needs. The City has begun educating departments on the new “Procedure for Use of Acting Up.” The Monitor intends to work cooperatively with the City to ensure on-going compliance with the new policy.

d. Reform to DHR’s Screening Protocol

The Monitor received a complaint alleging Shakman violations following a hiring sequence for Aviation Motor Truck Drivers in the fall of 2005, prior to the elimination of

10

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 1111 ooff 2211
interviews for these positions, discussed above. The complainant alleged that several individuals hired as MTDs had previously been terminated “for cause” by the City. The complainant asserted that these individuals were being favored for political reasons. During this investigation, it was determined that DHR had no system for identifying applicants who had been previously terminated for cause by the City if or when such individual reapplied to the City. Although individual departments often were aware of previous “for cause” terminations, that information was not shared with other departments. Thus, a person fired from Streets and Sanitation could be rehired in Aviation.
The Monitor investigated this complaint and obtained a list of all Aviation MTDs hired in the fall of 2005 who had previously been terminated by the City (i.e., before they were hired in the fall of 2005). The list contained seven individuals whose employment histories indicated that each had been terminated by the City for disciplinary reasons (marked under Termination Reason as “Termination – Disciplinary” or “Discharge”) and hired into Aviation in the fall of 2005. (These hires were distinct from MTDs who were previously “laid off” and designated as “terminated”-- but not for disciplinary reasons.) The Monitor’s office also interviewed individuals involved in that hiring sequence who confirmed that a manager had raised objections to the rehire of certain individuals and had brought those objections to a more senior hiring official. The more senior hiring official instructed the manager to process the questioned hires. (The more “senior hiring official” has since been removed from her position and reassigned to a position with no personnel responsibility.)
As a result of this investigation, the Monitor recommended that DHR implement a system whereby any individual previously terminated for cause could be identified before that individual was rehired by the City. DHR informed the Monitor that it had also recently identified this deficiency and had been working with the Inspector General’s Office to implement such a system. Further, the Monitor has recommended that any individual previously terminated for cause not be eligible for rehire with the City.
2. SPECIFIC CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
Where possible, the Monitor’s office has made specific recommendations for discreet corrective action to avert or promptly correct possible Shakman violations discovered via monitoring or investigating complaints, especially when the hiring sequence at issue has not been completed. Thus, the violation, if there is one, can be averted before it actually happens. In some instances, these recommendations have involved specific adjustments in particular job actions.
Additionally, the Monitor has recently instituted a practice of preparing memos to the City outlining complaints and/or problems with recent or ongoing hiring sequences. In response, the City is given an opportunity to promptly review and correct problematic hiring decisions or sequences. In many instances, the City freezes the hiring sequence until remedial or corrective action, if appropriate, can be decided upon. For example, in approximately twenty different hiring sequences, the City has ordered that the entire
11

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 1122 ooff 2211
interview process be repeated. Often, where interviews are repeated, the City has mandated that different individuals conduct the new interviews to eliminate any potential impropriety. In other instances, referral lists have been corrected, and hiring decisions have been revisited. Similarly, information brought to the attention of the City by the Monitor has resulted in counseling and/or training of individuals involved in City hiring regarding proper procedures and, in other instances, the City has removed certain individuals from having any personnel decision-making authority. In still other instances, the City and the Monitor have agreed to postpone filling certain positions until appropriate remedial action can be agreed upon.
Some examples where corrective actions for discrete violations include a few instances where the Monitor discovered and notified the City that interviewers had altered their scores for specific candidates after the Monitor’s auditor collected the original rating sheet. In response to one such instance, the City demoted one individual and provided training to another. In response to another such instance (where the alterations were minor and did not impact the candidate selected), the City counseled the individual. On one occasion, the Monitor discovered that interviewers altered the rating sheets for all candidates. The altered scores resulted in the selection of a different candidate than the one who had initially been deemed most qualified. Upon investigation by the City, the offending individual admitted that he and the other interviewer collaborated on their scores and altered the rating sheets. The City ordered that the hiring sequence be repeated. Although that interview sequence will be repeated, the failure by the City to discipline the offending individuals constitutes an inadequate response to the investigation. Thus, the Monitor has continued to investigate this matter.
Similarly, although the City is often willing to repeat interview sequences identified as problematic, it is reluctant to conclude that any substantive Shakman violation has occurred based on circumstantial evidence. Thus, without an admission from an employee that he or she explicitly relied upon prohibited political factors in taking an employment action, the City will not conclude that a substantive Shakman violation has occurred. This reluctance impedes the City’s ability to ensure continuing and increased compliance in the future.
3. CHANGES TO HIRING BY THE IGO, CPL AND DHR
In an effort to assist certain departments with extraordinary and/or unusual hiring needs and in response to requests by the City, including the Inspector General’s Office and the Chicago Public Library, the Monitor’s office provided direct assistance with screening and hiring and in obtaining Court approval to modify prior Orders in order to expedite hiring.
For example, the Inspector General contacted the Monitor in late 2005 seeking assistance in formulating a specialized hiring process that would both ensure expedited hiring capabilities and maintain independence for his office. Consequently, the Monitor facilitated an agreement between the parties on a new hiring process for the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) to meet that office’s specific needs. See Appendix G. Under that
12

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 1133 ooff 2211
plan, the IGO can recruit candidates directly, receive applications at their office, screen candidates independently, and conduct Hiring Committee meetings to discuss the candidates’ qualifications after the interviewers have evaluated each candidate independently. As a result, the IGO’s office has hired approximately thirty (30) new employees since late 2005.
The Monitor is permitted to sit in on all IGO Hiring Committee meetings at which candidates are discussed and reviews all paperwork related to the IGO hires. The Monitor also reviews all completed Hiring Files and retains this documentation. This collaboration has ensured that the IGO has the opportunity to fill its hiring needs in a prompt and efficient manner while protecting the integrity of the Shakman decree and its goals.
In late May of 2006, representatives from the Monitor’s office were asked to meet with officials of the Chicago Public Libraries (“CPL”) to discuss CPL’s concerns about the City’s process for screening job applicants for certain positions. CPL’s primary concerns related to their need to fill numerous existing “Librarian” and “Library Associate” vacancies throughout the City’s libraries before the close of the school year and the on-set of the summer reading season. Specifically, CPL officials had concerns that the referral lists generated by the Department of Human Resources (formerly known as the Department of Personnel) for interview purposes would not yield viable candidates for hiring purposes in a timely fashion because: (1) these referral lists have historically been outdated and have included job applicants who were no longer available or interested in the position to which they had applied; and/or (2) in the past, these referral lists have sometimes contained few or no viable candidates because the applications had not been properly screened for specific requirements for different positions.
After discussions with CPL and City officials including representatives from the City’s Law Department, the Department of Human Resources, and the Mayor’s Office, and with the agreement of the Plaintiffs, the Monitor’s office agreed to assist CPL meet its hiring needs expeditiously by screening applicants for various Library Associate and Librarian I through Librarian IV vacancies for a limited period beginning in May of 2006 to the present. As part of this process, the Monitor’s office reviewed all current on-line and paper applications and resumes of candidates for these positions and compiled referral lists of candidates for interviews for various vacant positions. To date, the Monitor’s Office, with the full cooperation of the Department of Human Resources and CPL, has successfully created referral lists for numerous vacancies in the following vacant positions: Librarian I (Cataloguing), Librarian II (Cataloguing), Librarian III (Branch Manager), Librarian IV (Branch Manager) and Children’s Library Associate. As a result, CPL has been able to interview, select and hire well-qualified candidates for numerous vacancies in a timely manner. The Court was advised of the parties’ agreement to have the Monitor play this role.
13

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 1144 ooff 2211
E. Additional Activities of Monitor
In addition to the foregoing work, the Monitor and her counsel were actively involved in the attempted resolution of motions and petitions filed in the case. Specifically, at the request of the Court and with agreement of the parties, the Monitor and her counsel engaged in substantive legal and mediation work in attempts to reach agreement between the parties on a number of disputed issues. Finally, the Monitor and her staff have also engaged in other activities, including:
• Requiring that the Department of Human Resources (DHR) conduct all scoring and screening for all Shakman covered positions;
• Ensuring that notice of the City’s purging of applications submitted prior to January of 2004 was disseminated;
• Auditing of the Shakman Exempt position list and eliminating the City’s former practice of moving Shakman Exempt positions from one department to another in violation of then existing Court orders;
• Auditing of the newly required Shakman certifications signed by each individual involved in each stage of hiring for Shakman covered positions and requiring the City to obtain the missing certifications where necessary;
• Maintaining a Shakman Monitor website for collecting and disseminating information about City employment practices;
• Providing training on Shakman principles to all Department Commissioners, personnel liaisons, DHR employees, the Mayor’s Office and the City of Chicago Aldermen;
• Establishing a protocol for sharing information with the Inspector General’s office regarding information and complaints received by the Monitor’s office;
• Brokering agreements between the parties resulting in Agreed Orders presented to the Court.
III. ADDITIONAL REFORMS UNDER CONSIDERATION
A. Shakman Exempt Positions/Senior Management Hires
In her Initial Report to the court, the Monitor stated that she would further examine how the City was implementing its Shakman exempt list. She preliminarily concluded in her first Report that there were many titles included in the list which did not seem to meet the standard articulated in Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S 507, 518 (1980) which disallows political affiliation from consideration in employment unless it is an
14

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 1155 ooff 2211
appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the job positions. Her further review of the list revealed that there were many titles which in one department would be “exempt” from the requirements of the Shakman decree, but in another department would be covered. Further, the list had been amended so many times that the City had substantial difficulty producing a list which actually reflected the reality “on the ground” in the departments. Although the City was required to maintain such a list under the decree, the only list which could be generated was, in fact, highly inaccurate. To correct this, the plaintiffs agreed that the City could file an amended list with the Court which accurately set forth those positions filled in the City (or would be filled) which currently were Shakman exempt. The City filed such a list with the Court.
One reason that the Shakman list has been such a patchwork of titles is that the exemptions had been used by the City to allow managers maximum discretion to pick senior hires. That is, these applicants are not picked for their political affiliation per se, or because political affiliation is necessary to accomplish the job duties, but because the managers hiring them wanted discretion to pick whom they believed was best suited for the position without going through the requirements of the Detailed Hiring Plan.
The Monitor and the City, with substantial feedback from the Plaintiffs, began to work toward a plan which would allow managers to exercise discretion in picking the City’s senior management team, but would still provide enough safeguards (which then could be audited) to ensure that political factors were not guiding the hire. In that way, the Shakman exempt slots would be used for those positions which are truly political, and not simply to avoid the Detailed Hiring Plan.
The Monitor first drafted a proposal for Senior Manager Hires and a revised Shakman Exempt list in January 2006 which it presented to the City and Plaintiffs. Both sides offered revisions to these proposals. In March, the City and Plaintiffs, under the Court’s supervision, began to negotiate a settlement of the Plaintiffs’ claims against the City which would include an agreed Shakman exempt list, as well as a list of senior management hires to which a less restrictive hiring process would apply.
B. Hire Process for Foremen in Infrastructure Departments
In addition to the reforms in hiring MTDs, the City has taken the lead in reforming and standardizing the process for hiring MTD foremen. Although this process is still being formalized, the City plans on using a combination of testing (written and oral) and interviews to select appropriate foremen for MTDs. The City has shared its proposed written testing materials with the Monitor and her counsel for comment. In addition, the City, the Monitor and her counsel and the affected unions have met regarding the implementation of the tests and to address fairness concerns. The City intends to roll out its MTD Foremen testing by the end of the year. The MTD Foremen testing is intended to be a pilot for using the same type of testing in other Foremen positions within the Infrastructure departments. The new testing proposed by the City for the Foremen positions, with proper oversight, will result in a significant improvement over the interview process currently in use.
15

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 1166 ooff 2211
C. Fire and Police Potential Reforms
The Monitor has received several complaints alleging political discrimination in the Police and Fire departments. In the Fire Department, the complaints have centered on the testing procedures for fire battalion chiefs and other supervisory positions. Complainants allege that the Fire Department has failed to promote certain disfavored candidates on the battalion chief promotion list. The allegations asserted that although the Fire Department needed additional battalion chiefs, it elected to pay overtime to existing chiefs in order to avoid awarding any promotions. In 2005 the City paid $2.9 million in overtime to existing fire battalion chiefs. In the spring of 2005, the Fire Department held a new exam for battalion chiefs which generated a new rank order list for that position. For that test, the oral component of the examination was weighted the same as the written test and seniority/experience for the first time, but the answers given by applicants were not recorded in any way. Complainants allege that the oral examination is deliberately scored higher for favored candidates to ensure a place on the promotion list even though their written test scores are not as high as other candidates. Because the oral test answers for candidates are not preserved, there is no way to test this allegation. Accordingly, the Monitor has recommended to the City that these oral examinations be recorded and preserved in the future.
With respect to the Police Department, almost all of the complaints that the Monitor has received deal with Merit Promotions. In the usual promotion process, sworn police officers seeking promotion up the ranks take a civil service exam (except for promotions to Captain for which the civil service exam has been abolished). Applicants do not receive the results of their exam but do receive their ranking on the promotion list, which is based on their exam score and on their seniority. Generally, promotions are subsequently made in the rank order.
The Merit Promotion system, however, allows 30% of promotions to occur outside the testing process and without regard to an individual’s rank order. Thus, applicants at the bottom of the rank order list can jump ahead to the top. The rationale for this process is to reward those officers who do not test well, but nonetheless have proven to be commendable officers in the field. The Merit Promotion selections are made by exempt rank personnel (Commanders, Deputy Superintendents, and Deputy Chiefs). Their picks are reviewed by a Merit Board (comprised of the deputy superintendents) which narrows down the list and forwards it to the Superintendent who makes the final selections for merit promotions.
In response to complaints regarding the Merit System selection process, the Monitor discovered that there are no Shakman safeguards to ensure these selections are not politically motivated. Complainants allege that some individuals are promoted not based on ability but due to their relationship with the Superintendent’s office, the Mayor or an alderman. One retired Commander reported that he received phone calls from an Alderman requesting that he nominate someone for a Merit Promotion. There is nothing, per se, improper about an Alderman recommending an individual for a Merit Promotion. In fact, many Aldermen may know the officers that work in their Wards and may be
16

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 1177 ooff 2211
making recommendations based on their observations and familiarity with that officer’s work.
Notably, the Monitor is not aware of any actual Shakman violation with respect to the Merit Promotion system. Rather, she has merely received complaints of such violations. Nonetheless, because of the lack of Shakman-type safeguards with respect to the Merit Promotion system, she would recommend that the City review the process and institute such safeguards for future promotions.
D. Chicago Public Library Hiring Plan
The Chicago Public Library has proposed a hiring plan to centralize hiring within the Library itself for certain professional titles. The plan calls for more detailed bid forms and job postings, more targeted recruitment efforts, and for CPL’s own human resources department to take over the screening of candidates and creation of referral lists for certain positions in order to expedite the hiring process and meet CPL’s business needs. The proposed plan is under review and has not been finalized.
E. Development of Standardized Procedures
The City has recognized many of the problems which are outlined below in Section IV and has begun to address them with the Monitor’s input. One important step in this direction is the development of uniform standards for the use of lack of attendance statistics and discipline data in promotion decisions which, until this development, had been applied differently throughout City departments. Similarly, the City has also developed written guidelines for conducting interviews which will improve the process and make it more uniform and fair throughout the City. Finally, the City has begun to use controlled testing in the infrastructure departments to assess skills required for certain titles.
IV. ONGOING COMPLIANCE BARRIERS
A. Interview Procedures
Despite the Monitor’s oversight of interviews and hiring sequences, certain areas of potential abuse remain in the City’s current interview procedures. These areas permit potential manipulation of the interview process for prohibited purposes. The following issues continue to present compliance barriers and should be examined.
1. Interview Bias
The current interview process does little to prevent an interviewer from “assisting” a preferred candidate by steering the applicant to appropriate interview question responses. Additionally, it is not difficult for an interviewer to score a particular applicant very highly to skew the result in the applicant’s favor.
17

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 1188 ooff 2211
2. Use of One Name Referral Lists
On occasion, DHR will have only one qualified applicant or bidder apply for a position. When DHR provides a department with a “one name” referral list, the Monitor attempts to closely review the hiring sequence. In some instances, there are benign explanations for the one name referral list. However, a one name referral list might also be the product of the failure to adequately post the position in order to reduce the number of individuals competing against a favored applicant. Where there is an indication of such impropriety, the hiring sequence is redone.
3. Manipulation of Job Criteria
Qualifying and hiring criteria for a given position are drafted by the departments where the vacancy exists. No mechanism currently prevents departments from manipulating the critieria in order to favor a particular applicant or provides any safeguards on this front. In cases where the qualifying or hiring criteria are suspect, Monitor has required a review of the criteria to help ensure that the criteria are not being improperly sued to eliminate or reduce real competition for the position.
4. Manipulation of Referral Lists
Another practice that can improperly influence the hiring process occurs when a department strikes a candidate from consideration for an interview. Currently, the department has the ability to review the referral list provided by DHR and to strike candidates from consideration, provided a justification is given. The auditors have encountered instances when candidates were stricken from the interview list though they appear qualified for the position based on their applications. In these cases, the justification for striking the applicant has been closely reviewed.
5. Interview Questions
There are virtually no existing safeguards within the City designed to ensure that interview questions are appropriate and reflect the actual criteria for the positions. When departments rely on outdated or immaterial interview questions to evaluate applicants, the interview is ineffective and open to potential manipulation. For example, the City continues to subjectively rate applicants on interview questions that relate to a basic objective job requirements. Sometimes these questions are as basic as “do you live in Chicago?” and “do you have a valid license?” Subjectively rating candidates based on answers to such questions is inefficient and subject to abuse.
6. Discord Between Interview Questions and Rating Criteria
A related problem in the City’s current interview procedures is that the hiring criteria used to rate an applicant’s interview does not correlate to the information solicited by the interview questions. For example, applicants are often rated on their writing skills, without any method of measurement. Similarly, interviewers often assess
18

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 1199 ooff 2211
and score hiring criteria such as “previous satisfactory performance in positions involving similar duties within the City” even if the interviewer is unfamiliar with an applicant’s prior performance. Consequently, this provides an avenue for manipulating an applicant’s interview score.
B. Aldermanic Recommendations
Another problematic area in ensuring on-going compliance with Shakman involves Aldermanic recommendations for employment actions. A number of the City’s Aldermen have raised concerns about their ability to recommend applicants and employees for hire or promotion at the City. During Shakman training provided to the Aldermen and in conversations with various Aldermen, the Monitor has consistently informed the Aldermen that recommendations based on personal knowledge of an individual’s job-related skills, work experience, or other job-related qualifications are permissible. Recommendations based on political activities, associations and/or views, however, are clearly prohibited from being considered for Shakman covered positions.
In order to eliminate even the appearance of impropriety, the Monitor has suggested (although not required) that Aldermen submit job recommendations in writing. Despite all of this, however, certain Aldermen continue to make job recommendations that are not in writing and/or that do not appear to be based on relevant job-related factors. For example, in one case, an Alderman recommended an employee for transfer based on the employee’s purported “excellent work record” even though that employee had just received a disciplinary suspension. Another Alderman simply instructed the Department of Streets and Sanitation to promote a recently hired Motor Truck Driver from “seasonal” to “permanent” (a highly coveted promotion) without any justification at all. In another instance, an Alderman requested the rehire of a recently laid off employee based on the employee’s status as a “good employee” despite the fact that the employee had received two separate disciplinary suspensions within the prior six months. Thus, despite Shakman compliance by the vast majority of Aldermen in the practice of recommending hires and promotions, there must be a system in place to audit Aldermanic recommendations which may improperly interfere with a hiring sequence.
C. City’s Compliance with Agreements
A recurring difficulty in monitoring City hiring arises from a lack of cohesiveness in the City. Thus, although the Monitor may reach agreements with the Mayor’s Office, DHR and the Law Department, those agreements are not always adhered to by all departments within the City. For example, despite repeated directives from the Mayor’s Office to each department that notice of any interviews must be given to the Monitor at least 48 hours in advance, some departments still fail to comply with this agreement. Similarly, despite the City’s agreement that all interviews will be conducted by more than one individual and that all rating sheets will be individually and contemporaneously completed, some departments continue to conduct interviews with one only interviewer and/or fail to contemporaneously complete the rating sheets. In fact, on a few occasions, despite explicit instructions from the Mayor’s Office, DHR and/or the Law Department,
19

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 2200 ooff 2211
interviewers have altered scores for particular candidates after the Monitor collected the original rating sheets.
The City also failed to honor an agreement reached between members of the Mayor’s Office, the Law Department and the Monitor. As described above, after numerous concerns were raised regarding the Water Department’s interviews for career service Motor Truck Drivers in April of 2006, the Monitor requested and the City agreed to eliminate interviews from the hiring process for MTDs and rely instead, upon testing and other objective factors. That agreement was explicitly intended to apply to those Water Department MTD hires in April of 2006. After these MTDs were hired and notified of the hire, it was discovered that the City had, despite the agreement with the Monitor, relied upon the suspect interview scores in making the MTD hires. As a result, those hires had to be rescinded causing significant disruption to the workers who believed they were selected for the MTD positions.
There have also been breaches of agreements that have been formalized in different Court Orders. For example, despite the Order that all applications and lists from before 2004 be purged, the City failed to purge the Laborer’s list discussed above. As a result, there was a delay in hiring and need to modify the Court’s order. This also resulted in a substantial amount of additional work on the part of the Monitor’s office. Similarly, as discussed in the Monitor’s Status Report of March 23, 2006, the City also initially failed to comply with the requirement that Shakman Certifications be signed prior to the hiring of any individual. As a result, the Monitor’s office and the City were required expend hundreds of hours reviewing Shakman Certifications to identify and obtain missing or incomplete certifications. Thus, the Monitor’s role has included not simply making recommendations and reaching agreements with the City on reforms in hiring, but has also required auditing compliance with even these agreements.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
• ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE ANTI-PATRONAGE POLICY • ON-GOING OVERSIGHT OF HIRING PROCESS • IMPROVEMENTS IN JOB APPLICATION PROCESS • COMPREHENSIVE SHAKMAN TRAINING FOR PERSONNEL EMPLOYEES • INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PERSONNEL EMPLOYEES • COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT OF HIRING CRITERIA AND JOB POSITIONS • IMPROVEMENTS IN INTERVIEW PROCESS • INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE • PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR DHR • REGULAR TRAINING FOR ALL EMPLOYEES ON SHAKMAN PRINCIPLES • ELIMINATION OF INTERVIEWS FOR “WILLING AND ABLE” POSITIONS • IMPROVEMENTS IN DHR’S SCREENING
20

CCaassee 11::6699--ccvv--0022114455 DDooccuummeenntt 757299--21 FFiilleedd 1122//0148//22000067 PPaaggee 2211 ooff 2211
Respectfully submitted this 4th day of December, 2006
___/s/ Noelle C. Brennan_______ Noelle C. Brennan Monitor Brennan & Monte Ltd. 20 S. Clark St. Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001
__/s/ Ines M. Monte___________ Ines M. Monte Counsel to the Monitor Brennan & Monte Ltd. 20 S. Clark St. Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001
__/s/ Susan E. Cox____________ Susan E. Cox Counsel to the Monitor The Law Offices of Susan E. Cox, Ltd. 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 663-3764
21

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779-3 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779-3 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779-4 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779-4 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:69-cv-02145 Document 779-4 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 3 of 3

 
 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 2203 Filed: 04/29/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:15280

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN and

)

PAUL M. LURIE, et al. ,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION )

OF COOK COUNTY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

No. 69 C 2145 Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier

ORDER 1. The Shakman Decree Compliance Monitor ("Monitor) has requested confirmation of the Monitor's authority to investigate City employees and employment practices that came to public attention as a result of federal criminal prosecutions that led to the convictions of a number of City employees, and guilty pleas by others, for conduct related to City hiring and promotion practices. See United States v. Sorich, et al., 523 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2008). These matters led directly to, and were cited by the plaintiffs as reasons for, the plaintiffs' application in July 2005 for the appointment of a special master to oversee City compliance with its orders. That motion led to the appointment ofthe Monitor, to the negotiation of the Agreed Settlement Order and Accord (the " Accord"), which was entered by the Court pursuant to the agreement ofthe City ofChicago on May 31,2007, (doc.# 624). The Monitor has requested confirmation ofher authority to investigate such matters, and to make recommendations to the City and the Court on those matters.

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 2203 Filed: 04/29/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:15281
2. The Court finds that this authority is within the scope ofthe Monitor's duties, among others, to monitor the City' s compliance with the Accord (Accord,§ I.D. ), and to report to the Court her opinion on whether the Accord should be terminated because the City has achieved substantial compliance (Jd., § I.G.3.).
3. To further .the discharge of those duties, we reaffirm the Monitor's authority is reaffirmed to conduct investigations ofthe City's efforts to obtain substantial compliance, including investigating whether and to what extent the City has addressed and remedied the employment practices brought to light as a result of the Sarich case. The Monitor may investigate those employment practices, including the conduct of current and past City employees who engaged in, or have been alleged to have engaged in, assisted or accepted those employment practices. The Monitor may make such recommendations to the City and to the Court as the Monitor deems appropriate as a result of such investigations.
4. The Monitor shall advise the City's Inspector General of the investigations she undertakes hereunder, either prior to undertaking such investigations or within a reasonable time thereafter, so as to minimize the possibility of dual investigations, unnecessary expense and inconsistent recommendations. This Order shall not limit the discretion ofthe Inspector General to undertake such investigations and make such recommendations as the Inspector General deems appropriate, or limit the ability ofthe Monitor to investigate matters that the Inspector General is also investigating. The Monitor shall confer with the Inspector General to attempt to resolve any issues that arise from such concu1Tent investigations, and either the Monitor or the Inspector General may present to the Court any requests related thereto if they are unable to resolve differences that may arise.
2

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 2203 Filed: 04/29/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:15282

5.

The City and its employees shall continue to cooperate fully with the Monitor's

investigations by, among other things, promptly providing any and all requested documents and

information and providing access to all requested documents and records. In the course of

performance of these investigations, the Monitor may also interview present or former City

employees under oath, cause stenographic records to be made ofsuch interviews, and -to the extent

information cannot be obtained voluntarily- cause subpoenas for documents and testimony to be

issued. The City and the plaintiffs shall be advised ofthe issuance ofsuch subpoenas; the Court will

resolve any objections to the subpoenas. The Monitor may, in her discretion, conduct interviews and

take testimony, ex parte; the Monitor shall make a complete record of any such interviews and

testimony. Prior to each interview, the Monitor will inform the interviewee that the Monitor wishes

to interview the individual as part ofan investigation into past employment actions disclosed in the

Sarich case. The Monitor will also notify the interviewee that he or she may bring a union

representative and/or attorney to the interview.

6.

In the event the Monitor makes recommendations to the City as a result of

investigations conducted under this order, any such recommendations shall include a detailed

statement ofthe basis for the Monitor's conclusions, a summary ofthe information relied upon, and

specific recommendations for corrective action to be instituted by the City. Such report shall be sent

to the Mayor's Office, the Law Depa1iment, applicable department heads, plaintiffs' counsel and the

Inspector General. If requested by any of the foregoing, the Monitor shall provide the complete

evidentiary record upon which the Monitor's recommendations are based.

3

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 2203 Filed: 04/29/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:15283
7. Under the Accord, City employees or officials are prohibited from retaliating against, punishing or penalizing anyjob applicant, City employee or City official for cooperating or assisting with the Monitor's investigations.
8. The Monitor shall determine whether and to what extent all or any part of the record of individual investigations shall be treated as confidential, and shall inform the City and the plaintiffs' counsel ofthe Monitor's decision in writing. Either the City or plaintiffs may seek review by the Court ofthe Monitor's designation ofmaterial as confidential, or failure to so designate. The material shall be maintained in confidence until the Court rules on any such motion, which shall be brought by the party seeking to alter the Monitor's determination. The burden of establishing confidentiality shall be borne by whoever seeks confidential treatment, and shall be decided under applicable law.
9. Within 30 days of receipt of a Monitor's report with respect to an investigation or investigations, the City shall respond in writing to the Monitor and the plaintiffs' counsel, stating whether and to what extent it will implement the Monitor's recommendations, implement an alternative corrective plan or action, and/or dispute the Monitor's conclusions and/or recommendations. The City's written response shall state the basis for the decision that the City makes in connection with a Monitor's report, and shall provide all supporting data for that decision. If the City requires more than thirty days to consider any Monitor's report, it shall ask the Monitor for additional time in writing; the written request shall state why additional time is needed, and the amount of additional time that is sought. Unless altered by the Court upon motion, the City's request for additional time shall be deemed granted.
4

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 2203 Filed: 04/29/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:15284
10. The Monitor shall provide quarterly reports- within 30 days after the completion of each calendar quarter - to the Court, the City, the plaintiffs' counsel listing the number of investigations underway pursuant to this Order, the period of time each has been underway, and providing a description of the general nature of the investigations. In the event the City objects to an investigation, the City may request the Monitor to terminate or limit the investigation, and if the Monitor does not agree, the City may present a motion to the Court with regard to any such investigation.
11. Payment offees and expenses ofthe Monitor incurred pursuant to this Order shall be governed by the Accord. The Monitor shall submit invoices therefore to the Corporation Counsel on a monthly basis. Invoices may be redacted or edited to eliminate material the Monitor deems sensitive.
12. This Order does not change, reduce or limit the terms or conditions of the Accord, including but not limited to provisions dealing with the Monitor's powers or plaintiffs' or the City's rights and responsibilities, the definition of substantial compliance, the sunset procedures, or the City's right to seek to terminate the Accord as provided therein. The Monitor's authority under this Order will terminate when the Accord terminates, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
13. As with the other activities undertaken by the Monitor pursuant to the Agreed Order entered August 8, 2005 and the Accord, the Monitor and her counsel carries out her duties under this Order as an agent of the Court and have the same immunity from suit as does the Court.
5

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 2203 Filed: 04/29/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:15285 14. The Court may amend this Order from time to time for good cause upon the motion
of the Monitor or any party. It is so ordered. ENTER:
Dated: Apri129, 2011
6

 
 Case 1:69-cv-021

Document 491 Filed 08/28/20C Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK

)

COUNTY, THE CITY OF CHICAGO, RICHARD

)

M. DALEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MAYOR

)

OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, REpUBLICAN

)

STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF ILLINOIS,

)

REpUBLICAN COUNTY CENTRAL

)

COMMITTEE OF COOK COUNTY, et aI,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 69 C 2145
Judge Andersen Magistrate Judge Schenkier

PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO HOLD COOK COUNTY AND CERTAIN NAMED INDIVIDUALS IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATION OF COURT ORDERS
Plaintiffs Michael L. Shakman, Paul M. Lurie and the Independent Voters of Illinois respectfully move for a rule to show cause why the County of Cook and responsible County personnel should not be held in civil contempt for repeated and systematic violations of this Court's Judgment of January 7, 1994 (the "Judgment"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Judgment prohibits patronage hiring and employment practices. Upon a finding of such violation, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter appropriate relief, including the following:
A. Appointment of a Monitor to review and monitor County hiring practices to assure compliance with the Judgment.
B. Implementation of reporting and disclosure procedures to prevent future violations of the Judgment.

Case 1:69-cv-021·

Document 491 Filed 08/28/200. Page 2 of 7

C. Implementation of a remedial program, including payment of damages, for job applicants and job holders who were denied positions or, if county employees, were denied benefits of employment, in violation of the Judgment.
D. Substantiai financiai assessments against individuals found to have violated or pariicipated in vioiation of the Judgment, such assessment to be for the purpose of paying a portion of the remedial expenses and to deter future violations.
E. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate to Insure future compliance by the County and its responsible personnel with the Judgment.
In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs state as follows: 1. It has become clear that the Cook County has engaged in substantial,
illegal patronage hiring and promotion of non-exempt employees in violation of the Judgment.
2. On August 21, 2006, the Chicago Sun-Times published an article, a copy of which IS attached here to as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference (the "August 21 Article").
3. The August 21 Article identifies Gerald Nichols, a County official, as the director of patronage hiring for Cook County. It states that "County department heads and commissioners have told the Sun-Times for years that Nichols serves as patronage chief. He tells department heads to place people in jobs - both high-level policy jobs that can be political and low-level jobs required under the Shakman court order to go to

2

Case 1:69-cv-021~ Document 491 Filed 08/28/200l Page 3 of 7

candidates with the highest test scores." The August 21 Article describes in detail

Nichols' actions to require the hiring of individuals based on political sponsorship, and to

override efforts by county personnel to evaluate and hire Cook County personnel on the

basis of merit.

4. Others identified by the August 21 Article as participating in the illegal

patronage hiring practices are \Villiam Krystiniak, the personnel director of the County

Highway Department. The August 21 Article describes actions by Krystiniak to conduct

"dummy interviews" for hiring of County personnel in which the person to be selected

has previously been chosen on the basis of political sponsorship. The August 21 Article

describes examples of hiring for non-exempt positions in which Krystiniak has given

unjustified high grades to unqualified individuals who were politically sponsored. The August 21 Article describes a pattern of conduct in which individuals from the 8th Ward

of the City of Chicago - the ward of former Cook County Board President John Stroger

and of his son, Todd Stroger, the Democratic candidate for President of the County Board

selected by the Democratic ward and township committeemen in Cook County - were

given preferential treatment in hiring.

5. The August 21 article describes Dwayne Robinson, a County employee and 8th ward political worker, who was hired by the County as a road equipment operator

even though he was not qualified and was not recommended by the person conducting the

evaluation. According to the August 21 Article, Nichols ordered the hiring of Robinson.

6.

Upon information and belief, Nichols, Krystiniak and Robinson engaged

in hiring practices in violation of the Judgment. A Rule To Show Cause should issue to

each to show why each should not be held in civil contempt.

3

Case 1:69-cv-0214 Document 491 Filed 08/28/200l Page 4 of 7
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a Chicago Sun-Times article of July 31, 2005 (the "July 31 Article"), which is incorporated herein by reference. It describes a socalled "Clout List" reportedly maintained by employees of Cook County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado. According to the July 31 Article, the Maldonado Clout List indicates, for example, that public employees who did not cooperate by working on election day would be punished by being placed in a "tough shift" on the job. The Maldonado Clout List also reportedly indicates that certain individuals should be supported for County hiring because of their political work. The article reports that County supervisory personnel told the Sun-Times that Maldonado periodically asked for jobs for his supporters.
8. Upon information and belief, Maldonado engaged in hiring practices in violation of the Judgment. A Rule to Show Cause should issue to Maldonado to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.
9. Plaintiffs request authorization to take discovery concerning the matters described in this Motion and in the August 21 and July 31 Articles.
10. Upon information and belief, other County personnel have been and are engaged in the operation of a County patronage system in violation of the Judgment. Upon information and belief, the patronage hiring system described above has been made a part of Cook County policy and practice, and has been implemented at the direction with the approval of responsible Cook County officials. Without discovery, plaintiffs will be unable to identify such individuals and seek appropriate relief against them.
4

Case 1:69-cv-021 L, Document 491 Filed 08/28/200l Page 5 of 7
11. After discovery, plaintiffs should be allowed to supplement this Motion to identify other individuals who should be held in civil contempt for violation of the Judgment.
12. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court as follows:
A. To issue Rules to Show Cause directed to Nichols, Krystiniak and Robinson to show cause why each should not be held in civil contempt for violation of the Judgment.
B. To authorize discovery concerning the matters described in this Motion and the filing of additional Rules to Show Cause as warranted by such discovery.
C. To find the County of Cook in contempt for failure to comply with the Judgment.
D. After a hearing, to grant relief that includes: (i) Appointment of a Monitor to review and monitor County hiring practices to assure compliance with the Judgment. Oi) Implementation of reporting and disclosure procedures to prevent future violations of the Judgment. (iii) Implementation of a remedial program, including payment of damages, for job applicants and job holders who were denied positions or, if county employees, were denied benefits of employment, in violation of the Judgment. (iv) Substantial financial assessments against individuals found to have violated or participated in violation of the Judgment, such
5

Case 1:69-cv-021,-. Document 491 Filed 08/28/200, Page 6 of 7
assessment to be for the purpose of paying a portion of the remedial expenses and to deter future violations. (v) Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate to insure future compliance by the County and its responsible personnel with the Judgment.
Respectfully submitted
/s/ Fredrick E. Vars
Dated: August 28, 2006 Michael L. Shakman Edward W. Feldman Fredrick E. Vars Roger 1. Perlstadt Miller, Shakman & Beem LLP 180 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 606001 312-263-3700 Roger R. Fross
Brian r. Hays
Lord Bissell & Brook III S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL. 60606 312-443-1800 William T. Huyck 122 S. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60603 312-427-7500
6

Case 1:69-cv-021· Document 491 Filed 08/28/200 Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on August 28, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Application to Hold Cook County and Certain Named Individuals in Civil Contempt for Violation of Court Orders was served in accordance with the Administrative Procedures for the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of Illinois.
/s/ Fredrick E. Vars
7

 
 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 1 of 49 PageID #:2139

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN, PAUL M. LURIE, KENNETH §

AYERS, ANN M. KING, INDEPENDENT VOTERS OF §

ILLINOIS-INDEPENDENT PRECINCT ORGANIZATION, §

MICHAEL SULLIVAN, DARRYN JONES, STUART

§

MAJERCZYK, RICHARD GRAMAROSSA and CONNIE §

GRAMAROSSA, et al.

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

§

DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK COUNTY, §

THE CITY OF CHICAGO, RICHARD M. DALEY,

§

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF

§

CHICAGO, REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL

§

COMMITTEE OF ILLINOIS, REPUBLICAN COUNTY

§

CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF COOK COUNTY, et al, §

§

Defendants.

§

Case No. 69 C 2145 Judge Andersen

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT For their complaint, plaintiffs allege eleven counts set forth below. Counts I through VI are unchanged from the First Amended Complaint. Counts VII and VIII, which added the Republican patronage defendants in 1972, are also unchanged. Final judgments have been entered on Counts I-VIII as to the City and at various times to other defendants in the form of the Consent Orders entered in 1972 and 1983. Count IX, which joined IVI-IPO in 1991 as a plaintiff against the Cook County defendants, is also unchanged since its filing, since it is subject to a final judgment contained in a Consent Order with the County Defendants. Count X, which begins on page 49, is a supplement to Counts I-IX and concerns events occurring after entry of the judgment orders in this case. It consists of allegations concerning the eight Additional Plaintiffs (as defined in that Count), who sought to be joined as plaintiffs in this action in November 2005. Count XI , which begins on page

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 2 of 49 PageID #:2140
81, consists of the Application to Hold the City of Chicago and Its Mayor in Civil Contempt for Violation of the Court Orders, filed on July 26, 2005 by original plaintiffs Shakman and Lurie as a result of the widespread violations of the Consent Orders entered in this case in 1972 and 1983. These Counts are combined in this single, omnibus pleading pursuant to the Court’s directions at a hearing held December 15, 2005.
COUNT I
1. (a) Counts I and IV are brought by plaintiff Michael L. Shakman as a candidate and prospective future candidate for public office. Counts II and V are brought by both original plaintiffs, Mr. Shakman and Paul Lurie, as voters. Counts III and VI are brought by both plaintiffs as taxpayers. Counts VII and VIII are brought by plaintiff Shakman as a prospective future candidate and by both original plaintiffs as voters and taxpayers.
(b) Jurisdiction for this action lies under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. PLAINTIFF
2. Plaintiff Shakman is, and for more than the past five years has been, a resident, registered voter and taxpayer in the 24th State Senatorial District (the “District”) in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
3. Mr. Shakman was one of the four candidates for the two positions as Delegates from the District to the Illinois Constitutional Convention (the “Convention”) in the election held on November 18, 1969. Mr. Shakman ran in said election as an independent candidate, by which is meant that he was not the candidate of a political party.
4. Numerous of the candidates for positions as such Delegates from State Senatorial Districts located in whole or in part within Cook County ran in said election as such independent
2

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 3 of 49 PageID #:2141
candidates. Plaintiff Shakman brings this count on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other candidates similarly situated, by which is meant all of the other independent candidates referred to above in this paragraph 4 and all independent candidates (meaning candidates who are not the candidates of a political party or, in the case of party primary elections or so-called nonpartisan elections, are not the candidates of the “regular” organization of a political party) in all elections held in whole or in part within Cook County, Illinois, at which candidates for any federal, state, county, city or other public office are or were elected or nominated subsequent to October 19, 1969 (the date this suit was commenced), including all elections held subsequent to the date hereof.
(a) Each of the classes covered by this complaint is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each of such classes. There are questions of law and fact common to each of such classes. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of each such class. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the classes would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members of the classes which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants. The defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the classes, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to each of the classes as a whole. The common questions of law and fact predominate over any question affecting only individual members of the classes. (All references hereinafter to “the class herein” or “the classes herein” mean the class or classes represented by the plaintiffs in the particular count.)
DEFENDANTS 5. Defendant The Democratic Organization of Cook County (the “Cook County Democratic Organization”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Illinois governing corporations not for profit.
3

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 4 of 49 PageID #:2142
6. Defendant Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County (the “Central Committee”) is, for Cook County, the Democratic Party County Central Committee provided for by Chapter 46, Section 7-7 et seq. of the Illinois Revised Statutes. It is comprised of all of the Democratic Party Committeemen of (a) each of the fifty wards in the City of Chicago and (b) each of the thirty townships in Cook County. Almost all of the members of the Central Committee are members, and some of them are officers, of the Cook County Democratic Organization. In addition to performing the functions and exercising the prerogatives vested in and given to it by the aforesaid Illinois statutes, the Central Committee performs numerous other important political functions and acts on behalf of the Democratic Party in the Cook County area.
7. Defendant City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation. Said defendant is situated within defendant The County of Cook (“Cook County”).
8. Defendant Richard J. Daley is the President of the Cook County Democratic Organization. He is also Chairman of the Central Committee. He is also Mayor of the City of Chicago. Mr. Daley has been such President, Chairman and Mayor for more than the past ten years. As such President he is the chief officer of the Cook County Democratic Organization. As such Chairman he is the chief officer of the Central Committee. As such Mayor he is the chief executive officer of the City of Chicago. Mr. Daley is also the Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Eleventh Ward of the City of Chicago. Mr. Daley is sued individually and in his capacities as such President, Chairman, Mayor and Ward Committeeman.
9. Defendant Matthew Bieszczat is the Secretary of the Cook County Democratic Organization. He is also the Secretary of the Central Committee. He has been Secretary of the two said defendant Democratic organizations for more than the past two years. Mr. Bieszczat is also the Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Twenty-Sixth Ward of the City of Chicago. He is
4

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 5 of 49 PageID #:2143
also a member of the Board of County Commissioners of Cook County. Mr. Bieszczat is sued individually and in both his aforesaid Secretary capacities and in his capacities as a member of the Board of County Commissioners of Cook County and Ward Committeeman.
10. Defendant Claude W. B. Holman is the Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Fourth Ward of the City of Chicago. Part of the Fourth Ward is located within the District. Mr. Holman is sued individually and in his capacity as Ward Committeeman. Mr. Holman is also the elected Alderman of the City of Chicago for the Fourth Ward.
11. Defendant Marshall Korshak was the elected City Treasurer of the City of Chicago and the Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Fifth Ward of the City of Chicago at the time this suit was commenced. He is no longer such Treasurer but he continues to be such Ward Committeeman. All of the Fifth Ward is located within the District. Mr. Korshak is sued individually and in his capacity as Ward Committeeman.
12. Defendant James Ronan is the Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Seventh Ward of the City of Chicago. Part of the Seventh Ward is located within the District. Mr. Ronan is sued individually and in his capacity as Ward Committeeman.
13. Defendant Kenneth Campbell was the Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Twentieth Ward of the City of Chicago at the time this suit was commenced. Part of the Twentieth Ward is located within the District. Mr. Campbell was sued individually and in his capacity as Ward Committeeman. Mr. Campbell was also the elected Alderman of the City of Chicago for the Twentieth Ward. Mr. Campbell died subsequent to November 81, 1969. He has been succeeded as Ward Committeeman for the Twentieth Ward of the City of Chicago by defendant Cecil Partee. Mr. Partee is sued individually and in his capacity as Ward Committeeman.
5

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 6 of 49 PageID #:2144
14. Defendant George W. Dunne is President of the Board of County Commissioners of Cook County. As such he is also the President of defendant Forest Preserve District of Cook County, a municipal corporation. He is also the Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Forty-Second Ward of the City of Chicago. Mr. Dunne is sued individually and in both of his capacities as such President and as Ward Committeeman.
15. Defendant P. J. Cullerton is, and for more than the past five years he has been, the elected County Assessor of Cook County. He is also the Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Thirty-Eighth Ward of the City of Chicago. Mr. Cullerton is sued individually and in his capacities as such Assessor and Ward Committeeman.
16. Defendant Edward J. Barrett is, and for more than the past five years he has been, the elected County Clerk of Cook County. He was also the Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Forty-Fourth Ward of the City of Chicago at the time this suit was commenced, but he is no longer such Committeeman. Mr. Barrett is sued individually and in his capacities as such Clerk and former Ward Committeeman.
17. Defendant Matthew J. Danaher is the elected Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mr. Danaher is sued individually and in his capacity as such Clerk. Prior to becoming such Clerk, Mr. Danaher was the elected Alderman of the City of Chicago for the Eleventh Ward.
(a) Defendant Richard J. Elrod is the elected Sheriff of Cook County, having been elected to that office in November 1970. Mr. Elrod is sued individually and in his capacity as such Sheriff.
(b) Defendant Bernard Korzen is the elected Treasurer of Cook County, having been elected to that office in November 1970. Mr. Korzen is sued individually and in his capacity as such Treasurer.
6

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 7 of 49 PageID #:2145
©) Defendant The Chicago Park District is a municipal corporation. Defendant Daniel Shannon is the President of The Chicago Park District. Mr. Shannon is sued individually and in his capacity as such President.
(d) Defendant Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago is a municipal corporation. Defendant John E. Egan is President of the Board of Trustees of said municipal corporation. Mr. Egan is sued individually and in his capacity as such President. 18. In addition to all of the above-stated capacities in which the defendants are sued, defendants Daley and Bieszczat are sued as the representatives of all officials and members of the Cook County Democratic Organization, and the Central Committee and all of the defendant Ward Committeemen are sued as the representatives of all members of the Central Committee.
THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION IN CHICAGO AND COOK COUNTY
19. The Cook County Democratic Organization is, and for many years has been, what is commonly known as the “regular” Democratic Party organization in and for Cook County. Its authority, power or influence extend to and include, but are not limited to, (a) virtually all of the political affairs of the regular Democratic Party within Cook County, (b) many of the political affairs of the regular Democratic Party outside Cook County and within the State of Illinois, ©) virtually all aspects of government of the City of Chicago, (d) most aspects of government outside the City of Chicago and within Cook County, including the numerous townships and other political entities within Cook County, and (e) many aspects of state government of the State of Illinois.
20. The Democratic Party is, and for the past thirty years or more has been, the overwhelmingly dominant political party in the City of Chicago. During that period, no candidate for city-wide office of the City of Chicago who has not had the support of the Cook County
7

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 8 of 49 PageID #:2146
Democratic Organization has been elected. Also during that period, the City Council of the City of Chicago, which is presided over by the Mayor, has been overwhelmingly dominated by Aldermen who are members and/or supporters of the Cook County Democratic Organization
21. The Democratic Party is, and for many years past usually has been, the dominant political party in Cook County. During that period, most candidates for county-wide office of Cook County who had not had the support of the Cook County Democratic Organization have been defeated.
22. As a result of the facts alleged above, (a) virtually all of the governmental departments, boards and agencies of the City of Chicago, (b) most of the governmental departments, boards and agencies of Cook County and ©) many of the other governmental entities within Cook County are headed and controlled by officials who are members and/or supporters of the Cook County Democratic Organization. This fact, together with the other facts alleged above, has resulted in the Cook County Democratic Organization, the Central Committee and their officials and members presently having and exercising great authority, power and influence with respect to the operations of said governmental departments, boards, agencies and entities, including their employment practices. Indeed, the Democratic Party’s political organization is so pervasive in and intermeshed with the government of the City of Chicago and many other governmental operations within Cook County that it is frequently difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish one from the other in day-to-day functions and activities.
23. The facts alleged in paragraph 22 have existed substantially for the past thirty years or more.
8

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 9 of 49 PageID #:2147
THE DEMOCRATS’ PATRONAGE SYSTEM 24. One of the consequences of the facts alleged in paragraphs 19 through 23 – and at the same time one of the principal reasons for the existence of those facts – is the Democratic Party political patronage system in Chicago and Cook County. 25. As a result of the facts alleged in paragraphs 19 through 23, for more than thirty years there have been, and there are now, employed by the City of Chicago and by many of the governmental departments, boards and agencies of Cook County and by other governmental entities within Cook County, thousands of Democratic Party political patronage employees (“Democratic Patronage Employees”). As used in this complaint, Democratic Patronage Employee means a person who
(a) is hired for or continued in such employment on the basis of said person’s political “sponsorship” of the type referred to in paragraph 26 hereof and/or said person’s political support, or promise of support, of the Cook County Democratic Organization, or a sub-unit, parent, affiliate or official thereof, and the political policies, programs and candidates for public office such organizations or officials endorse and/or support, and
(b) is not protected by civil service or similar laws against arbitrary discharge from such employment. Many of these employees, numbering in the thousands, are hired on an even more precarious basis, namely, as so-called “temporary” employees. Under this practice, which has existed for many years, the employee is hired as a “temporary” employee, for from 60 to 180 days, at the end of which his employment must be “renewed” by his or her employer if the employee is to retain the employment. A large number of these present employees have worked for years, some for twenty-five years or more, as such “temporary” employees.
9

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 10 of 49 PageID #:2148
26. Most Democratic Patronage Employees are required, as a condition of obtaining and keeping their patronage job, to obtain and maintain the recommendation, called “sponsorship,” of an official or member of the Cook County Democratic Organization or Central Committee or some other politically influential person connected with said organizations or with another element of the Democratic Party. Loss of sponsorship usually subjects the employee to dismissal from his or her patronage job or, in the case of the aforesaid “temporary” employee, non-renewal of his or her employment, or other punishment or discipline in his or her public employment.
27. There are between 8,000 and 40,000 Democratic Patronage Employees within Cook County. The efforts of the defendants and others allied with them to conceal the facts concerning said employees make it impossible to state a more precise figure. Said employees pervade virtually the entire executive, judicial and legislative branches of governments of the City of Chicago and Cook County. Many of said employees are employed in jobs of a clerical, ministerial or labor nature. The facts alleged in this paragraph 27 have existed for many years.
28. Between $50,000,000 and $250,000,000 of public funds, derived from taxes paid by the public, has been and will be used to pay the salaries of the Democratic Patronage Employees for each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971. Billions of dollars of public funds, derived from taxes paid by the public, have been used to pay the salaries of Democratic Patronage Employees during the past thirty years. The City of Chicago and The County of Cook each employ thousands of Democratic Patronage Employees. The office of the County Clerk, the office of the County Assessor, the office of the County Sheriff, the office of the County Treasurer, The Chicago Park District, the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, the Forest Preserve District of Cook County and the office of Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County each employ very large numbers of such employees, as do the Board of County Commissioners of Cook County and the various departments,
10

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 11 of 49 PageID #:2149
agencies and other governmental operations under its control. The City of Chicago and the other municipal corporations referred to herein, The County of Cook and the offices and Board just referred to are among the largest employers of Democratic Patronage Employees.
29. It is, and for many years has been, the practice that most of the Democratic Patronage Employees are and have been required, as a condition to keeping their patronage jobs or in order to prevent punishment or discipline in their jobs, to
(a) contribute money to the Cook County Democratic Organization, or to their ward or township organization, or to a sub-unit or affiliate thereof, or to another organization of or connection with the Democratic Party, or to candidates endorsed and/or supported by such organizations, and
(b) do political work for and on behalf of such organizations and candidates. The candidates referred to include candidates for all offices, federal, state, county, city and other.
30. Various devices and subterfuges are, and for many years have been, used in order to conceal the facts and true nature of the aforesaid coerced contributions. However, regardless of how or to whom the said coerced contributions are made, much of said money is, and for many years has been, used for the purpose of promoting the political policies, programs and candidates referred to in paragraph 25(a).
31. It is, and for many years has been, the practice that many Democratic Patronage Employees are and have been required, as a condition to keeping their patronage jobs or in order to prevent punishment or discipline in their jobs, (a) to take time off from their jobs to do political work of the type referred to in paragraph 29(b), and (b) to perform such political work during the regular working hours of their patronage jobs, for which they are paid with public funds. The practice referred to in (a) of the preceding sentence is, and for many years has been, frequently
11

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 12 of 49 PageID #:2150
accomplished by requiring the employees to use paid vacation time, sick leave time, personal leave time or accrued overtime entitlement, or some other such employee benefit, to do such political work. Other improper practices have also been used for this purpose. The practices referred to in this paragraph take place, and for many years have taken place, on and in connection with various occasions and events. The practice of forcing Democratic Patronage Employees to take time off from their jobs to do political work has most frequently taken place on election days.
32. Most of the patronage practices alleged in this complaint have been widely known and publicized for many years.
PATRONAGE EMPLOYEES AND THE ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 18, 1969 33. Many of the political sponsorships for patronage jobs are by Democratic Party Ward Committeemen. Each of the defendant Committeemen presently sponsors 100 or more Democratic Patronage Employees. The total number of Democratic Patronage Employees residing in the District who are sponsored by one or more of said defendant Committeemen (“District Patronage Employees”) exceeds 1,000. Each of defendant Committeemen Holman, Korshak, Ronan and Partee regularly sponsors (as did defendant Campbell) residents of the District as such Democratic Patronage Employees, and each of them and their predecessors have done so for many years. 34. As is stated above, plaintiff Michael L. Shakman ran as an independent candidate for Delegate from the District to the Convention. The Democratic Party is and for many years has been the majority political party in the District. The Cook County Democratic Organization actively supported its two candidates for Delegate from the District to the Convention: Miss Odas Nicholson and Mrs. Attye Belle McGee. Each of defendant Committeemen Holman, Korshak, Ronan and
12

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 13 of 49 PageID #:2151
Campbell actively supported the two said Democratic Organization candidates and each, as well as the Cook County Democratic Organization and other defendants, urged the defeat of Mr. Shakman.
35. Funds for use in election campaigns are usually, and in the case of the aforesaid District election on November 18, 1969 were, of major importance to the outcome of the election. Also of great importance to success in the said election, as is true in elections generally, were workers to conduct voter canvasses, solicit voter support, act as poll watchers, put up posters, answer telephones, induce voter supporters of the candidate actually to vote on election day, and do numerous other kinds of political work for the candidate. The factors referred to above in this paragraph are especially important to independent candidates facing candidates supported by one of the established political parties. Much of the money which was used in the campaigns to elect Miss Nicholson and Mrs. McGee as Delegates to the Convention was raised by and through the practices referred to in paragraphs 29(a) and 30, and many of the persons who did the political work on behalf of Miss Nicholson and/or Mrs. McGee did so as a result of the practices complained of in paragraphs 29(b) and 31. Most of the persons required to make such financial contributions and to do such work were District Patronage Employees who were so required, by threat of loss of or punishment or discipline in their patronage jobs, principally by their respective Ward Committeemen, namely, defendants Holman, Korshak, Ronan and Campbell.
36. On election days most Democratic Patronage Employees are usually required, by the same kinds of threats, to do political work in the precincts, for the principal purposes of getting their voters to vote and working in and near polling places, but also do to a myriad of other political tasks relating to the election. Many such employees, during the hours they should have been working on and at their patronage jobs, did such political work in the precincts of the District on September 23, 1969, the day of the primary election for electing the candidates to run in the election on November
13

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 14 of 49 PageID #:2152
18, and also on November 18. Many such employees also did such political work in other districts within the City of Chicago and Cook County on the said days, also during the hours they should have been working on and at their patronage jobs. Many such employees also did such political work throughout the City of Chicago and the County of Cook on other election days subsequent to November 18, 1969. Most of such employees do such political work only because they are required to do so under the threat and risk of losing their patronage jobs or otherwise being punished or disciplined in their jobs. Indeed, it is and for many years has been the practice that Democratic Patronage Employees suffer such loss of jobs, punishment or discipline even if they do perform such work but fail to produce a vote result in their precinct, ward or other assigned area which is satisfactory to their Democratic Party superiors. Many of such employees were, for the foregoing reasons, forced to do such political work in the District on September 23 and November 18, 1969 on behalf of Miss Nicholson and Mrs. McGee and on behalf of defendants’ candidates opposing other independent candidates in those and subsequent elections, to the great detriment of plaintiff Shakman and other independent candidates.
(a) Plaintiff Shakman placed third in the November 18 election. He received 623 fewer votes than did Miss Odas Nicholson (a candidate of the Cook County Democratic Organization), who was elected. Over 24,000 votes were cast in the election in the said electoral district. Mr. Shakman’s defeat was caused by the patronage acts and practices complained of in this count. Other independent candidates were defeated in the election on September 23 or in the election on November 18 as a result of similar acts and practices. 37. All of the acts and practices complained of in this complaint were and are being performed, induced, aided, abetted, participated in and encouraged by the defendants and others allied with them, and by their predecessors, while acting under color of the statutes, ordinances,
14

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 15 of 49 PageID #:2153
regulations, customs and usages of the City of Chicago, The County of Cook and the State of Illinois.
VIOLATIONS CHARGED 38. The acts and practices complained of in this complaint violated plaintiff Shakman’s rights, as a candidate for public office, to equal protection of the law, freedom of association, freedom of speech and due process, in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and of 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988, in the following ways among others:
(a) There is and has been created, by improper use of public employment and public funds, an army of political workers and a giant political treasury for the use and benefit of the Cook County Democratic Organization, the Central Committee, the individual defendants, and their political allies and associates, and particularly for the candidates they endorse and/or support, including Mr. Shakman’s two above-named opponents, Miss Nicholson and Mrs. McGee, and also defendants’ candidates opposing other independent candidates.
(b) The votes and political support of thousands of citizens, namely, Democratic Patronage Employees and persons who may desire to obtain such employment, were in effect purchased or coerced for defendants’ candidates, including those referred to in paragraph 38(a), for the reason that such employees are both rewarded and punished by the use and misuse of public employment.
©) Democratic Patronage Employees and persons who may desire to obtain such employment, who otherwise would have done political work or contributed money to support Mr. Shakman’s candidacy – and the candidacies of other independent candidates –
15

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 16 of 49 PageID #:2154
were deterred from doing so because of their fear of losing their jobs or being otherwise penalized in their public employment, or of losing the opportunity for future such employment.
(d) Mr. Shakman and other independent candidates were prevented from even expressing anything about their candidacies, political policies, programs and beliefs through Democratic Patronage Employees and persons who desired to obtain such employment, who would do so but for the fear just referred to.
(e) All members of the public who pay taxes were in effect compelled to involuntarily contribute funds to support defendants, their political policies, programs and candidates, even though a great many such persons, including plaintiffs, oppose defendants and many of their political policies, programs and candidates; and even those who do support such organization, policies, programs or candidates were not given the choice of not making such contributions.
(f) All of the foregoing wrongs are gravely exacerbated by the fact that said acts and practices cause the present situation to be self-perpetuating, for the reason that the improper use of public employment and public funds perpetuates defendants’ political domination of the City of Chicago and other areas of Cook County – which said political domination permits defendants to continue to dominate the governmental practices of the City of Chicago and other governmental operations in Cook County – which said governmental domination permits defendants to continue to make the same improper use of public employment and public funds. This accounts for defendants’ (and their predecessors’) complete control over all city-wide and many other offices of the City of Chicago, and various other offices within Cook County, for over thirty years. For the
16

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 17 of 49 PageID #:2155
reasons set forth above, said control and the acts and practices complained of are virtually impossible to eliminate by the electoral process. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have no practical opportunities for exerting their political weight to correct this situation. No such elimination or correction can be accomplished within the foreseeable future without the aid of this court. The foregoing (1) constituted gross and invidious discrimination against plaintiff Shakman as a candidate for public office and others similarly situated; (2) deprived him and his supporters, and others similarly situated, of the right to associate with other persons, namely Democratic Patronage Employees and persons who may desire to obtain such employment, for the advancement of political beliefs; (3) deprived him, the qualified voters who support his candidacy, and others similarly situated, of the right to cast their votes effectively and to have the election determined on the basis of votes so cast; (4) diluted and debased the votes of plaintiffs and other qualified voters who support his candidacy, and others similarly situated; (5) forced him and his supporters, and others similarly situated, to support and contribute to the promotion of political organizations, policies, programs and candidates to which they are opposed, and deprived them of their right not to support or contribute to a political organization, policy, program or candidate; (6) deprived him and the qualified voters who supported his candidacy, and others similarly situated, of their right to, with respect to the votes of Democratic Patronage Employees, have the election determined by votes freely cast for the candidate of one’s choice; (7) deprived him and his supporters, and others similarly situated, of their right to express and espouse a political candidacy, policies, programs and beliefs through Democratic Patronage Employees; (8) deprived him and the qualified voters who support him, and others similarly situated, of their right to an electoral process which is
17

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 18 of 49 PageID #:2156
rudimentarily fair and free of substantial partisan interference – all of which violated the constitutional and statutory provisions referred to at the outset of this paragraph.
39. In addition, the foregoing violates the rights of Democratic Patronage Employees to equal protection of the law, freedom of association, freedom of speech and due process, in violation of the constitutional and statutory provisions referred to at the outset of paragraph 38, for the reason that the acts and practices complained of in this complaint effectively deprive them of their rights to (a) associate with plaintiff Shakman, his political supporters and others similarly situated, for the advancement of political beliefs or even to speak in support of the political candidacy, policies, programs, or beliefs of any such person; (b) to vote freely for the candidate of their choice, ©) to not support or contribute to a political organization candidate, policy, program or belief. Said Democratic Patronage Employees, as the allegations of this complaint make clear, are not free to assert these rights themselves, since they believe that to do so will lead to the loss of their patronage jobs or other punishment in said jobs.
RELIEF REQUESTED 40. (a) The acts and practices complained of above have continued to the present date and have been repeated in connection with elections subsequent to November 18, 1969 and continue to violate rights as described herein of plaintiff Shakman and other members of the classes of plaintiffs. Unless enjoined by this court, the acts and practices complained of above will continue indefinitely hereafter. Moreover, the political requirements imposed by defendants, as described above, with respect to Democratic Patronage Employees are and have been also imposed on many other governmental employees, and the rights of plaintiffs with respect to those employees and the rights of such employees themselves are and have been also violated thereby.
18

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 19 of 49 PageID #:2157
(b) In perpetuation of these acts and practices, defendants Elrod and Korzen, since their election in November 1970 as Cook County Sheriff and Treasurer respectively, have unlawfully fired hundreds of employees of those two offices for the sole reason that the employees did not have Democratic “sponsorship” of the type referred to in paragraph 26 hereof and so that these jobs could be obtained for Democratic Patronage Employees. These fired employees have been replaced by Democratic Patronage Employees. Other defendants herein participated in, aided and cooperated with these firings and replacements.
41. Plaintiff Shakman’s own interest in and injury from said acts and practices will not be confined to his loss of the election of November 18, 1969, but will continue hereafter. Mr. Shakman intends to be an independent candidate for public office in the future, at which time, unless enjoined by this court, the said acts and practices will continue to greatly injure him and his supporters in the respects alleged above and in other respects. Many other independent candidates will also be greatly injured by future repetitions of said acts and practices, as independent candidates have been in the past on numerous occasions. In addition, Mr. Shakman frequently actively supports and votes for independent candidates and intends to do so in the future.
42. Plaintiff Shakman has already been permanently and irreparably injured by defendants’ said acts and practices and he and other members of the classes herein will be further permanently and irreparably injured unless said acts and practices are promptly enjoined by this court. Although Mr. Shakman has suffered money damages in excess of $10,000 as a result of said acts and practices (including but not limited to expenditures made in behalf of his said candidacy which would not have been made except for said acts and practices and the loss of contributions of money from and valuable political work of Democratic Patronage Employees), no amount of money
19

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 20 of 49 PageID #:2158
damages can compensate Mr. Shakman for said further injury, and he, his political supporters and other members of the classes herein have no adequate remedy at law.
43. The matter in controversy in this action exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
(a) Except where the contrary is expressly shown hereinabove, all of the facts alleged hereinabove were true on October 19, 1969 (the date this suit was commenced) and they have been true at all times since that date.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Shakman, on behalf of himself and the class herein, asks that this Court grant the relief requested in the prayer for relief at the conclusion of this complaint.
COUNT II 1-3. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 3 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 3 of this Count II. 3. (a) Plaintiff Paul M. Lurie is, and for more than the past five years has been, a resident, registered voter and taxpayer in the District.
(b) Plaintiff Lurie is and for years has been a political supporter of plaintiff Shakman and voted for him in the elections on September 23 and November 18, 1969. Each of the plaintiffs was and is qualified to vote in the said elections and all other elections – state, county, city, federal and others – covering their voting residences.
©) The plaintiffs herein bring this count as qualified voters on behalf of themselves and all other independent voters (meaning voters who vote for or otherwise support independent candidates) in Cook County on October 19, 1969 and subsequent thereto, including subsequent to the date hereof.
20

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 21 of 49 PageID #:2159
4-37. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 4 (except the last sentence thereof) through 37 of Count I as paragraphs 4 through 37 of this Count II.
38. The acts and practices complained of in this complaint violated plaintiffs’ rights, as voters, to equal protection of the law, freedom of association, freedom of speech and due process, in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988, in the ways, among others, set forth in subparagraphs (a) through (f) of paragraph 38 of Count I. Each of said subparagraphs are hereby realleged here as subparagraphs (a) through (f) of this paragraph 38.
The foregoing (1) constituted gross and invidious discrimination against plaintiffs as qualified voters supporting the candidacy of Mr. Shakman, and others similarly situated; (2) deprived plaintiffs and others similarly situated of the right to association with other persons, namely Democratic Patronage Employees and persons who desired to obtain such employment, for the advancement of political beliefs; (3) deprived plaintiffs and other qualified voters who supported plaintiff Shakman’s candidacy, and others similarly situated, of the right to cast their votes effectively and to have the election on November 18 and other elections determined on the basis of votes so cast; (4) diluted and debased the votes of plaintiffs and other qualified voters who supported Mr. Shakman’s candidacy, and others similarly situated; (5) forced plaintiffs and others who supported Mr. Shakman’s candidacy, and others similarly situated, to support and contribute to the promotion of political organizations, policies, programs and candidates to which they are opposed and deprived them of their right not to support or contribute to a political organization, policy, program or candidate; (6) deprived plaintiffs and other qualified voters, and others similarly situated, of their right to, with respect to the votes of Democratic Patronage Employees, have the election determined by votes freely cast for the candidate of one’s choice; (7) deprived plaintiffs and other
21

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 22 of 49 PageID #:2160
supporters of Mr. Shakman’s candidacy, and others similarly situated, or their right to express and espouse a political candidacy, policies, programs and beliefs through Democratic Patronage Employees; (8) deprived plaintiffs and other qualified voters who supported Mr. Shakman’s candidacy, and others similarly situated, of their right to an electoral process which is rudimentarily fair and free of substantial partisan governmental interference – all of which violated the constitutional and statutory provisions referred to at the outset of this paragraph 38.
39-40. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 39 and 40 of Count I as paragraphs 39 and 40 of this Count II.
41. Plaintiff’s interest in and injury from said acts and practices will not be confined to Mr. Shakman’s loss of the election of November 18 but will continue thereafter. Mr. Shakman intends to be an independent candidate for public office in the future, at which time plaintiff Lurie intends to support and vote for him, but, unless enjoined by this court, said acts and practices will continue then to greatly injure them and other members of the class herein. In addition, plaintiffs and other members of the class herein frequently actively support and vote for independent candidates, and plaintiffs and many other qualified voters intend to do so in the future.
42. Plaintiffs have already been permanently and irreparably injured by defendants’ said acts and practices, and they and other members of the class herein will be further permanently and irreparably injured unless said acts and practices are enjoined by this court. Although plaintiffs have suffered money damage in excess of $10,000 as a result of said acts and practices, no amount of money damages can compensate plaintiffs for said further injury, and they and other members of the class herein have no adequate remedy at law.
43-43(a). Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 43 and 43(a) of Count I as paragraphs 43 and 43(a) of this Count II.
22

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 23 of 49 PageID #:2161
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs ask, on behalf of themselves and the class herein, that this court grant the relief requested in the prayer for relief at the conclusion of this complaint.
COUNT III 1-3. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 3 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 3 of this Count III. 3(a)-3(b). Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of Count II as paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of this Count III. 3©) Plaintiffs bring this count as taxpayers on behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers in Cook County on October 19, 1969 and subsequent thereto, including subsequent to the date hereof. 4-37. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 4 through 37 of Count I as paragraphs 4 through 37 of this Count III. 38. Plaintiffs reallege paragraph 38 of Count II as paragraph 38 of this Count III, except only that the words “as taxpayers” are substituted for the words “as voters” in the first sentence thereof. Plaintiffs allege, in addition, that all of the violations of plaintiffs’ rights as voters in paragraph 38 of Count II are equally violations of plaintiffs’ same rights as taxpayers and of the rights of all other members of the class herein. 39-40. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 39 and 40 of Count I as paragraphs 39 and 40 of this Count III. 41. Plaintiffs reallege paragraph 41 of Count II as paragraph 41 of this Count III. 42. Plaintiffs have already been permanently and irreparably injured by defendants’ said acts and practices, and they and other members of the class herein will be permanently and irreparably injured unless said acts and practices are enjoined by this court. Unless such injunctive
23

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 24 of 49 PageID #:2162

relief is granted defendants will continue in the future to misuse and misapply millions of dollars

of public funds in the continuation of said acts and practices. No amount of money damages can

compensate plaintiffs for said further injury, and they and other members of the class herein have

no adequate remedy at law.

43-43(a). Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 43 and 43(a) of Count I as paragraphs 43 and 43(a)

of this Count III.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class herein, ask that this court

grant the relief requested in the prayer for relief at the conclusion of this complaint.

COUNT IV

1-43(a).

Plaintiff Michael L. Shakman realleges paragraphs 1 through 43(a) of Count

I as paragraphs 1 through 43(a) of this Count IV.

44. The wrongful acts and practices alleged above were done pursuant to a conspiracy

among the defendants and others to deprive plaintiff Shakman, his supporters and others similarly

situated of their constitutional and other rights set forth in paragraphs 38 and 39.

45. Prior to and at the time of said wrongful acts and practices, all of the defendants knew

that said wrongs were about to be committed and, notwithstanding the fact that they had the power

to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of said wrongs, neglected or refused to do so.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Shakman, on behalf of himself and the class herein, asks that this

court grant the relief requested in the prayer for relief at the conclusion of this complaint.

COUNT V

1-43(a). Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 43(a) of Count II (including all paragraphs

incorporated therein by reference to Count I) as paragraphs 1 through 43(a) of this Count V.

24

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 25 of 49 PageID #:2163

44-45. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 44 and 45 of Count IV as paragraphs 44 and 45 of this

Count V.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs ask, on behalf of themselves and the class herein, that this court

grant the relief requested in the prayer for relief at the conclusion of this complaint.

COUNT VI

1-43(a).

Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 43(a) of Count III (including all

paragraphs incorporated therein by reference to Count I or Count II) as paragraphs 1 through 43(a)

of this Count VI.

44-45. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 44 and 45 of Count IV as paragraphs 44 and 45 of this

Count VI.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs ask, on behalf of themselves and the class herein, that this court

grant the relief requested in the prayer for relief at the conclusion of this complaint.

COUNT VII

1-6. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 3 and paragraph 4(a) of Count I, and

paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of Count II, as paragraphs 1 through 6 of this Count VII.

7. (a) Plaintiff Shakman brings this count on behalf of himself and on behalf of all

other independent candidates (meaning candidates who are not the candidates of a political party

or, in the case of party primary elections or so-called nonpartisan elections, are not the candidates

of the “regular” organization of a political party) in all future elections held in whole or in part

within the Northern District of Illinois at which candidates for any federal, state, county, city or

other public office are elected or nominated.

(b) In addition, both plaintiffs also bring this count on behalf of themselves and

(1) all other present and future independent voters (meaning voters who vote for or otherwise

25

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 26 of 49 PageID #:2164
support independent candidates) in the Northern District of Illinois (“Northern District”) and (2) all other taxpayers in the Northern District.
DEFENDANTS 8. Defendant Richard B. Ogilvie is the Governor of the State of Illinois and head of the Republican Party of Illinois. He is sued individually and in his capacities as Governor and head of the Republic Party. 9. Defendant William J. Scott is the Attorney General of the State of Illinois. He is sued individually and in his capacity as Attorney General. 10. Defendant John W. Lewis is the Acting Secretary of State of Illinois. He is sued individually and in his capacity as Acting Secretary of State. 11. (a) Defendant Republican State Central Committee of Illinois is the Republican Party State Central Committee provided for by Chapter 46, §7-7 et seq. of the Illinois Revised Statutes. In addition to performing the functions and exercising the prerogatives vested in and given to it by the aforesaid Illinois statutes, said defendant performs numerous other important political functions and acts on behalf of the Republican Party in the State of Illinois.
(b) Defendants Republican County Central Committee of Cook County, Republican County Central Committee of DuPage County, Republican County Central Committee of Kane County, Republican County Central Committee of LaSalle County, Republican County Central Committee of McHenry County, Republic County Central Committee of Winnebago County, Republican County Central Committee of Lake County and Republic County Central Committee of Will County are the Republican Party County Central Committees for the counties of their respective titles provided for by Chapter 46, §7-7 et seq. of the Illinois Revised Statutes. In addition to performing the functions and exercising the prerogatives vested in and given to them
26

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 27 of 49 PageID #:2165
by Illinois law, each of such defendants performs numerous other important political functions and acts on behalf of the Republican Party in the county for which it is such Central Committee.
12. (a) Defendant Victor L. Smith is the Chairman, and defendant William F. Scannell is the Secretary, of defendant Republican State Central Committee. Mr. Smith and Mr. Scannell are sued individually and in their capacities as such Chairman and Secretary respectively. They and defendant Edmund J. Kucharski are also sued as the representatives of the said State Central Committee and all members thereof.
(b) Defendant Edmund J. Kucharski is the Chairman of defendant Republican County Central Committee of Cook County. He is also the Republican Ward Committeeman for the Thirteenth Ward of the City of Chicago, a member of defendant Republican State Central Committee and Assistant Secretary of State of Illinois. Mr. Kucharski is sued individually and in his capacities as such member, Chairman, Ward Committeeman and Assistant Secretary of State. He and defendants Evert C. Schultz and Timothy Sheehan are also sued as representatives of the said Republican County Central Committee of Cook County and all members thereof.
©) Defendant Evert C. Schultz is the Secretary of defendant Republican County Central Committee of Cook County. He is also the Republican Township Committeeman for Thornton Township. Mr. Schultz is sued individually and in his capacities as such Secretary and Township Committeeman. Defendant Timothy Sheehan is the Republican Committeeman for the Forty-First Ward of the City of Chicago and is sued individually and as such Committeeman.
(d) Defendant James Philip is the Chairman, and defendant Ray W. McDonald is the Secretary, of defendant Republican County Central Committee of DuPage County. Mr. Philip is also the Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Ninety-Fourth Precinct of York Township,
27

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 28 of 49 PageID #:2166
and Mr. McDonald is also the Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Second Precinct of Wayne Township.
Mr. McDonald is also the elected County Clerk of the County of DuPage (“DuPage County”).
Mr. Philip and Mr. McDonald are sued individually and in their capacities as such Chairman and Secretary, respectively, and as such Precinct Committeemen. Mr. McDonald is also sued as the County Clerk of DuPage County.
(e) Defendant Thomas Feehan is the Chairman of the Republican County Central Committee of Will County. Mr. Feehan is also the Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Twelfth Precinct of Joliet Township. Mr. Feehan is sued individually and in his capacities as such Chairman and Precinct Committeeman.
(f) Defendant J. Frederick Baker is the Chairman of the Republican County Central Committee of LaSalle County. Mr. Baker is also the Republican Precinct Committeeman for Adams Township. Mr. Baker is sued individually and in his capacities as such Chairman and Precinct Committeeman.
(g) Defendant Albert M. Jourdan is the Chairman of the Republican County Central Committee of McHenry County. Mr. Jourdan is also the Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Sixteenth Precinct of McHenry Township. Mr. Jourdan is sued individually and in his capacities as such Chairman and Precinct Committeeman.
(h) Defendant Ralph C. Glans is the Chairman of the Republican County Central Committee of Winnebago County. Mr. Glans is also the Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Eighth Precinct of the First Ward of the City of Rockford. He is sued individually and in his capacities as such Chairman and Precinct Committeeman.
28

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 29 of 49 PageID #:2167
(I) Defendant Robert J. Milton is the Chairman of the Republican County Central Committee for Lake County. He is also Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Fifth Precinct of Shields Township. He is sued individually and in his capacities as such Chairman and Precinct Committeeman.
(j) Defendant William Wake is the Chairman of the Republican County Central Committee for Kane County. He is also Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Sixty-Fourth Precinct of the City of Aurora. He is sued individually and in his capacities as such Chairman and Precinct Committeeman.
13. (a) Defendants Wayne Shimp, Joseph Doring, James A. Callahan, Gerald R. Pratt and Orville Clavey are the elected Sheriffs respectively of DuPage, Kane, LaSalle, Winnebago and Lake Counties. Mr. Shimp is also the Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Fourth Precinct of Naperville Township. They are each sued individually and in their capacities as such Sheriffs and Mr. Shimp is also sued as such Precinct Committeeman.
(b) Defendants James H. Clark, James H. Fitzgerald, Roy Rathbun, Audrey Walgenbach and Robert G. Skidmore are the elected Treasurers respectively of DuPage, Kane, LaSalle, McHenry and Lake Counties. Mr. Clark is also the Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Sixty-Seventh Precinct of Milton Township. They are sued individually and in their capacities as such Treasurers and Mr. Clark is also sued as such Precinct Committeeman.
©) Defendants Robert M. Haenisch, Jan E. Carlson, Margaret O’Neil, Anthony M. Colletti and Stephanie Sulthin are the elected Clerks of the Circuit Court respectively for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of DuPage County, for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Kane County, for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of McHenry County, for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Winnebago County, and for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Lake County. They are sued
29

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 30 of 49 PageID #:2168
individually and in their capacities as such Clerks of the Circuit Court. Mr. Colletti is also Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Seventh Precinct, Fifth Ward of the City of Rockford and is also sued in that capacity.
(d) Defendants William A. Vollrath, George L. Hunter, Vernon W. Kays and Clara Hartley Woodard are the elected County Clerks respectively of Kane, LaSalle, McHenry and Will Counties. Mr. Vollrath is also the Republican Precinct Committeeman for the Thirty-Fourth Precinct of Elgin Township. They are sued individually and in their capacities as such County Clerks and Mr. Vollrath is also sued as such Precinct Committeeman.
(e) Defendants Jack M. Weidner, Theron J. Ehorn, Collins Y. Sundberg, Oscar A. Lind and Willard G. Blood are the elected Coroners respectively of Kane, McHenry, Winnebago, Lake and Will Counties. They are sued individually and in their capacities as such Coroners.
(f) Defendants Floyd Fulle, Joseph Woods, Charles J. Grupp and William N. Erickson are Commissioners of Cook County and are sued individually and as such Commissioners. Defendants Fulle, Grupp and Erickson are the Republican Committeeman respectively for Maine, Bloom and Evanston Townships, Cook County, and are also sued as such Committeemen.
(g) Defendants Eugene Leonard, William E. Kane and Bernard Pederson are both the Township Assessors and Republican Committeemen respectively for Bremen, Orland and Palatine Townships. Defendant John J. Nimrod is the Niles Township Supervisor. Defendant John F. Kimbark is the Clerk both of the Town of Cicero and Cicero Township. Defendant Elmer Conti is the President of the Village of Elmwood Park. Defendant Frank A. Bella is the Calumet Township Collector. Defendants Nimrod, Kimbark, Conti and Bella are the Republican Committeemen respectively for Niles, Cicero, Leyden and Calumet Townships. All said defendants are sued individually and as both such public officials and Committeemen.
30

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 31 of 49 PageID #:2169
15. Each of the foregoing defendant Republican Precinct Committeemen is a member of a defendant Republican County Central Committee. In addition to all of the above-stated capacities in which said defendant Precinct Committeemen are sued, they are sued as the representatives of the County Central Committee of which they are members, all members thereof, all Republican Precinct Committeemen of such County, and all officials and members of the County Republican Organization for such County.
16. All of the defendants herein, in addition to all of the above-stated capacities in which they are sued, are sued as the representatives of all persons and organizations involved in the implementation or administration of Republican patronage, or any part thereof, in the Northern District.
THE REPUBLICAN ORGANIZATION IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 17. The Republican Party is, and for the past thirty years or more has been, the overwhelmingly dominant political party in the Northern District outside of the City of Chicago. Its authority, power or influence extend to and include, but are not limited to, virtually all aspects of government in said district outside of Chicago, including the numerous townships and other political entities within said area, and many aspects of state government of the State of Illinois. During the many years of the Republican Party’s said dominance, most candidates for public office who had not had the support of the Republican Party have fared badly in the Northern District outside Chicago. For example, since the time of the Civil War virtually no candidates for countywide office of the County of DuPage who have not had the support of the DuPage County Republican Organization have been elected. Indeed, plaintiffs believe that the only exception
31

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 32 of 49 PageID #:2170
occurred over thirty years ago when a Democrat was elected to a county-wide office in DuPage County.
18. As a result of the facts alleged above, most of the township and many other lower level governmental entities within the Northern District outside Chicago are headed and controlled by officials who are members and/or supporters of the Republican Party. This is also true of most county agencies outside of Cook County. At times this has also been true of various agencies of Cook County. These facts, together with the other facts alleged herein, have resulted in various officials and elements of the Republican Party, including the defendants herein, having and exercising great authority, power and influence with respect to the operations, including employment practices, of many governmental departments, boards, agencies and entities in the Northern District, especially outside of Cook County. Indeed, the Republican Party’s political organization is so pervasive in and intermeshed with many of these county, township and other governments and governmental operations that it is frequently difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish one from the other in day-to-day functions and activities.
19. The facts alleged in paragraph 18 have existed substantially for the past thirty years or more.
THE REPUBLICAN PATRONAGE SYSTEM 20. One of the consequences of the facts alleged in paragraphs 17 through 19 – and at the same time one of the principal reasons for the existence of those facts – is the Republican Party political patronage system in the Northern District. 21. As a result of the facts alleged in paragraphs 17 through 19, for more than thirty years there have been, and there are now, employed by many of the State of Illinois and other governmental entities, departments, boards and agencies within the Northern District, thousands of
32

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 33 of 49 PageID #:2171
Republican Party political patronage employees (“Republican Patronage Employees”). As used in this complaint, Republican Patronage Employee means a person who
(a) is hired or continued in such employment on the basis of such person’s political “sponsorship” of the type referred to in paragraph 22 hereof and/or such person’s political support, or promise of support, of the Republican Party of Illinois, or a sub-unit or affiliate or official thereof, and the political policies, programs and candidates for public office such organizations or officials endorse and/or support, and
(b) is not protected by civil service or similar laws against arbitrary discharge from such employment.
22. Most Republican Patronage Employees are required, as a condition of obtaining and keeping their patronage job, to obtain and maintain the recommendation, called “sponsorship,” of an official or member of defendant Republican State Central Committee or an official or member of one of the defendant Republican County Central Committees or some other politically influential person connected with said organizations or with another element of the Republican Party. Loss of sponsorship usually subjects the employee to dismissal from his or her patronage job or other punishment or discipline in his or her public employment.
23. There are between 8,000 and 30,000 Republican Patronage Employees in the Northern District. The efforts of the defendants and others allied with them to conceal the facts concerning said employees make it impossible to state a more precise figure. Said employees pervade virtually the entire executive, judicial and legislative branches of the governments of many of the municipal entities, townships and counties in the Northern District. Many of said employees are employed in jobs of a clerical, ministerial or labor nature. The facts alleged in this paragraph 23 have existed for many years.
33

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 34 of 49 PageID #:2172
24. Each of the defendants herein is and has been actively involved in the implementation and administration of the Republican patronage system in the Northern District and the acts and practices complained of herein. Each of the government officials who are defendants herein employs a substantial number of Republican Patronage Employees in the Northern District, either directly or through the various governmental departments, boards, agencies and entities under such official’s control. The number of Republican Patronage Employees in the Northern District has been greatly increased by the vast number of state jobs which are controlled by defendants Ogilvie, Scott and Lewis in their capacities as Governor, Attorney General and Acting Secretary of State. Said defendants employ thousands of Republican Patronage Employees in the Northern District.
25. The jobs of most of the Republican Patronage Employees referred to in the immediately preceding sentence were obtained for such employees by defendants in an unlawful manner. The unlawful manner in which these jobs have been and are obtained for Republican Patronage Employees is illustrated by the patronage practices engaged in by defendant Lewis. Defendant Ogilvie, as Governor, appointed defendant Lewis Acting Secretary of State in October 1970, to replace the deceased Democratic incumbent of that office, Paul Powell. Mr. Lewis thereupon undertook a program of mass firings, in which thousands of employees of the office of Secretary of State were unlawfully discharged for the reason that they did not have Republican “sponsorship” of the type referred to in paragraph 22 hereof and so that these jobs could be obtained for Republican Patronage Employees. These fired employees have been replaced by Republican Patronage Employees. Defendant Ogilvie and other defendants herein participated in, aided and cooperated with these firings and replacements.
26. Many millions of dollars of public funds, derived from taxes paid by the public, have been and will be used to pay the salaries of the Republican Patronage Employees for the year 1971
34

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 35 of 49 PageID #:2173
and for each year thereafter. Billions of dollars of public funds, derived from taxes paid by the public, have been used to pay the salaries of Republican Patronage Employees during the past thirty years.
27. It is, and for many years has been, the practice that most of the Republican Patronage Employees are and have been required, as a condition to keeping their patronage jobs or in order to prevent punishment or discipline in their jobs, to
(a) contribute money to their county, ward or township organization, or to a subunit or affiliate thereof, or to another organization of or connected with the Republican Party, or to candidates endorsed and/or supported by such organizations, and
(b) do political work for and on behalf of such organizations and candidates. The candidates referred to include candidates for all offices, federal, state, county, city and other.
28. Various devices and subterfuges are, and for many years have been, used in order to conceal the facts and true nature of the aforesaid coerced contributions. However, regardless of how or to whom the said coerced contributions are made, much of said money is, and for many years has been, used for the purpose of promoting the political policies, programs and candidates referred to in paragraph 21(a).
29. It is, and for many years has been, the practice that many Republican Patronage Employees are and have been required, as a condition to keeping their patronage jobs or in order to prevent punishment or discipline in their jobs, (a) to take time off from their jobs to do political work of the type referred to in paragraph 21(b), and (b) to perform such political work during the regular working hours of their patronage jobs, for which they are paid with public funds. The practice referred to in (a) of the preceding sentence is, and for many years has been, frequently accomplished by requiring the employees to use paid vacation time, sick leave time, personal leave
35

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 36 of 49 PageID #:2174
time or accrued overtime entitlement, or some other such employee benefit, to do such political work. Other improper practices have also been used for this purpose. The practices referred to in the paragraph take place, and for many years have taken place on and in connection with various occasions and events. The practice of forcing Republican Patronage Employees to take time off from their jobs to do political work has most frequently taken place on election days.
30. Most of the patronage practices alleged in this count have been widely known and publicized for many years.
31. Funds for use in election campaigns are usually of major importance to the outcome of the election. Also of great importance to success in elections generally are workers to conduct voter canvasses, solicit voter support, act as poll watchers, put up posters, answer telephones, induce voter supporters of the candidate actually to vote on election day, and do numerous other kinds of political work for the candidate. The factors referred to above in this paragraph are especially important to independent candidates facing candidates supported by one of the established political parties.
32. On election day most Republican Patronage Employees are usually required, by threat of loss of or punishment or discipline in their patronage jobs, to do political work in the precincts, for the principal purposes of getting their voters to vote and working in and near polling places, but also to do a myriad of other political tasks relating to the election. Many such employees, during the hours they should have been working on and at their patronage jobs, were doing such political work in precincts of the Northern District of Illinois on September 23, 1969, the day of the primary election for electing the candidates to run in the election on November 18, 1969, often working against independent candidates. Most of such employees do such political work only because they are required to do so under the threat and risk of losing their patronage jobs
36

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 37 of 49 PageID #:2175
or otherwise being punished or disciplined in their jobs. Indeed, it is and for many years has been the practice that Republic Patronage Employees suffer such loss of jobs, punishment or discipline even if they do perform such work but fail to produce a vote result in their precinct, ward or other assigned area which is satisfactory to their Republican Party superiors.
33. All of the acts and practices complained of in this complaint were and are being performed, induced, aided, abetted, participated in and encourage by the defendants and others allied with them and by their predecessors, while acting under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the counties, townships, cities, villages and other governmental entities within the Northern District of Illinois and of the State of Illinois.
VIOLATIONS CHARGED 34. The acts and practices complained of in this count violate plaintiffs’ rights as a prospective candidate, voters and taxpayers, and the rights of the classes plaintiffs represent, to equal protection of the law, freedom of association, freedom of speech and due process, in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and of 42 U.S.C., §§1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988, in the following ways among others:
(a) There is and has been created, by improper use of public employment and public funds, an army of political workers and a giant political treasury for the use and benefit of the Republican Party of Illinois, its Central Committees and sub-units, the individual defendants, and their political allies and associates, and particularly for the candidates they endorse and/or support, including defendants’ candidates opposing independent candidates.
(b) The votes and political support of thousands of citizens, namely, Republican Patronage Employees and persons who may desire to obtain such employment, are in effect purchased or coerced for defendants’ candidates, including those referred to in paragraph 34(a), for
37

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 38 of 49 PageID #:2176
the reason that such employees are both rewarded and punished by the use and misuse of public employment.
©) Republican Patronage Employees and persons who may desire to obtain such employment, who otherwise would do political work or contribute money to support the candidacies of independent candidates are deterred from doing so because of their fear of losing their jobs or being otherwise penalized in their public employment, or of losing the opportunity for future such employment.
(d) Independent candidates are prevented from even expressing anything about their candidacies, political policies, programs and belief through Republican Patronage Employees and persons who may desire to obtain such employment, who would do so but for the fear just referred to.
(e) All members of the public who pay taxes are in effect compelled to involuntarily contribute funds to support defendants, their political policies, programs and candidates, even though a great many such persons, including plaintiffs, oppose defendants and many of their political policies, programs and candidates; and even those who do support such organization, policies, programs or candidates are not given the choice of not making such contributions.
(f) All of the foregoing wrongs are gravely exacerbated by the fact that said acts and practices cause the present situation to be self-perpetuating, for the reason that the improper use of public employment and public funds perpetuates defendants’ political domination of most of the area of the Northern District of Illinois outside of Chicago – which said political domination permits defendants to continue to dominate the governmental practices of many governmental entities and other governmental operations in said area – which said governmental domination permits
38

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 39 of 49 PageID #:2177
defendants to continue to make the same improper use of public employment and public funds. This accounts for defendants’ (and their predecessors’) complete control over so many governmental offices in the said area over such a long period of time. For the reasons set forth above, said control and the acts and practices complained of are virtually impossible to eliminate by the electoral process. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have no practical opportunities for exerting their political weight to correct this situation. No such elimination or correction can be accomplished within the foreseeable future without the aid of this court.
The foregoing (1) constitutes gross and invidious discrimination against plaintiff Shakman as a prospective independent candidate for public office and others similarly situated and against both plaintiffs and others similarly situated as qualified voters supporting such independent candidates and against both plaintiffs as taxpayers; (2) deprives plaintiffs, as candidates, voters, and taxpayers, and others similarly situated, of the right to associate with other persons, namely Republican Patronage Employees and persons who may desire to obtain such employment, for the advancement of political beliefs; (3) deprives plaintiffs as candidates, voters and taxpayers, and others similarly situated, of the right to cast their votes effectively and to have the election determined on the basis of votes so cast; (4) dilutes and debases the votes of plaintiffs and others similarly situated; (5) forces plaintiffs as candidates, voters and taxpayers, and others similarly situated, to support and contribute to the promotion of political organizations, policies, programs and candidates to which they are opposed, and deprives them of their right not to support or contribute to a political organization, policy, program and candidate; (6) deprives plaintiffs as candidates, voters and taxpayers, and others similarly situated, of their right with respect to the votes of Republican Patronage Employees, to have the election determined by votes freely cast for the candidate of one’s choice; (7) deprives plaintiffs as candidates, voters and taxpayers, and others
39

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 40 of 49 PageID #:2178
similarly situated, of their right to express and espouse a political candidacy, policies, programs and beliefs through Republican Patronage Employees; (8) deprives plaintiffs as candidates, voters and taxpayers, and others similarly situated, of their right to an electoral process which is rudimentarily fair and free of substantial partisan interference – all of which violate the constitutional and statutory provisions referred to at the outset of this paragraph.
35. In addition, the foregoing violates the rights of Republican Patronage Employees to equal protection of the law, freedom of association, freedom of speech and due process, in violation of the constitutional and statutory provisions referred to at the outset of paragraph 34, for the reason that the acts and practices complained of in this complaint effectively deprive them of their rights to (a) associate with plaintiff Shakman, his political supporters and others similarly situated, for the advancement of political beliefs or even to speak in support of the political candidacy, policies, programs, or beliefs of any such person; (b) to vote freely for the candidate of their choice, ©) to not support or contribute to a political organization, candidate, policy, program or belief. Said Republican Patronage Employees, as the allegations of this complaint make clear, are not free to asset these rights themselves, since they believe that to do so will lead to the loss of their patronage jobs or other punishment in said jobs.
36. Plaintiff Shakman placed third in the November 18, 1969 election. He received 623 fewer votes than did Miss Odas Nicholson (a candidate of the Democratic Party), who was elected. Over 24,000 votes were cast in the election in the said electoral district. Mr. Shakman’s defeat was caused by patronage acts and practices of the type complained of in this court. Other independent candidates in the Northern District were defeated in the election on September 23, 1969 or in the election on November 18 as a result of similar acts and practices committed by the defendants herein.
40

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 41 of 49 PageID #:2179
37. The acts and practices complained of above have continued to the present date and have been replaced by the defendants herein in connection with elections subsequent to November 18, 1969. Unless enjoined by this court, the acts and practices complained of above will continue indefinitely hereafter, to the great injury of plaintiffs and other members of the classes herein. Moreover, the political requirements imposed by defendants, as described above, with respect to Democratic Patronage Employees are and have been also imposed on many other governmental employees, and the rights of plaintiffs with respect to those employees are and have been also violated thereby.
38. Plaintiff Shakman intends to be an independent candidate for public office in the future, at which time plaintiff Lurie intends to support and vote for him, but, unless enjoined by this court, said acts and practices will continue then to greatly injure them and other members of the classes herein. In addition, plaintiffs and other members of the classes herein frequently actively support and vote for independent candidates, and plaintiffs and many other qualified voters intend to do so in the future.
39. Plaintiffs and other members of the classes herein have already been permanently and irreparably injured by defendants’ said acts and practices, and they will be further permanently and irreparably injured unless said acts and practices are promptly enjoined by this court. They have suffered money damage in excess of $10,000 as a result of said acts and practices, but no amount of money damages can compensate them for said further injury, and they have no adequate remedy at law.
40. The matter in controversy in this action exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
41

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 42 of 49 PageID #:2180
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the classes herein, ask that this court grant the relief requested in the prayer for relief at the conclusion of this complaint.
COUNT VIII 1-40. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 40 of Count VII as paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Count VIII. 41. The wrongful acts and practices alleged above were done pursuant to a conspiracy among the defendants and others to deprive plaintiffs and other members of the classes herein of their constitutional and other rights set forth in paragraphs 34 and 35. 42. Prior to and at the time of said wrongful acts and practices, defendants knew that said wrongs were about to be committed and, notwithstanding the fact that they had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of said wrongs, neglected or refused so to do. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court: A. Enter a declaratory judgment declaring that the constitutional and other federal rights of the plaintiffs and of other members of the classes herein, as set forth above in this complaint, and of both the Democratic Patronage Employees and the Republican Patronage Employees, are, have been and, unless enjoined by this Court will be violated by:
(1) the acts and practices, and other facts, alleged in this complaint. (2) The conditioning, determining, or basing of employment, or of any term or aspect of employment, by the City of Chicago, the County of Cook, any township within the County of Cook or by any state, county or other local government entity or any department, board, agency or office thereof within the County of Cook upon an employee’s or prospective employee’s present or future political support of (including financial contributions to, political work for, or loyalty or allegiance to) the Democratic Party, or any official, unit or affiliate of the Democratic Party or to
42

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 43 of 49 PageID #:2181
another organization of or connected with the Democratic Party, or any candidate for public office endorsed or supported by the Democratic Party or by any such official, unit, organization or affiliate thereof.
(3) The conditioning, determining or basing of employment, or of any term or aspect of employment, within the Northern District of Illinois by the State of Illinois, or by any county, township or other local government entity, or by any board, department, agency or office thereof upon an employee’s or prospective employee’s present or future political support of (including financial contributions to, political work for, or loyalty or allegiance to) the Republican Party, or any official, unit or affiliate of the Republican Party or to another organization of or connected with the Republican Party or any candidate for public office endorsed or supported by the Republican Party or by any such official, unit, organization or affiliate thereof.
(4) Causing or permitting Democratic Patronage Employees or Republican Patronage Employees to do political work not a part of their lawful employment duties during such employees’ regular working hours.
(5) Using public funds to pay such employees for time spent doing such political work or for other private political purposes.
B. Grant a preliminary injunction, thereafter to be made permanent, against the defendants and each of them, their respective officers, members, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them:
(1) enjoining each and all of them from, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part (a) conditioning, basing, prejudicing or affecting any employment covered by paragraphs A(2) and A(3) hereof, or any term or aspect of such employment, upon or because of an employee’s or prospective employee’s present or future political support of either the Democratic Party or the
43

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 44 of 49 PageID #:2182
Republican Party or of another organization of or connected with either of said Parties, or any candidate for public office endorsed or supported by the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or by any such official, unit, affiliate or other organization thereof or upon or because of any other political reason or factor; (b) taking or threatening to take any action of a punitive nature or effect against any such employee or prospective employee, relating to his or her said employment, continuance of employment or prospective employment, based upon such employee’s or prospective employee’s political beliefs or lawful political activity; ©) causing or permitting any such employee to do any political work not a part of his or her lawful employment during the regular working hours of his or her public employment; (d) using public funds to pay any such employee for time spent doing such political work or for any private political purpose; and (e) performing, inducing, aiding, abetting, participating in, cooperating with or encouraging any act which is prescribed by this paragraph B(1).
(2) Ordering each and all of them promptly to post court-approved notices in each of the governmental and/or Democratic and Republican Party departments, boards, agencies and offices under their control informing all employees and other persons therein of the provisions of this paragraph B, and to take such other court-approved acts as are necessary to insure that all persons covered by this paragraph B are promptly and adequately informed of said provisions.
C. Grant an additional preliminary injunction, thereafter to be made permanent, against defendants Richard J. Elrod, Bernard Korzen and John W. Lewis, and each of them, their respective officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, enjoining each of them from failing immediately to reinstate each of those employees unlawfully discharged by said defendants, as alleged in paragraph 40(b) of Count I and paragraph 25 of Count VII, in their governmental employment from which they were discharged, with full
44

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 45 of 49 PageID #:2183
back-pay and without prejudice or loss of position, status or benefits; and from failing to pay any such discharged employees who decline such reinstatement their actual damages incurred as a result of their discharge.
D. Award plaintiffs compensatory damages of $11,000 and judgment be entered against defendants in that amount.
E. Because of the importance of the constitutional issues involved in this case and to assure that the grave constitutional violations complained of here will not be repeated in the future, plaintiffs be awarded exemplary or punitive damages in the amount of $100,000 and judgment be entered against defendants in that amount.
F. Such additional relief as may be necessary or proper. COUNT IX
1. Jurisdiction for this Count lies under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 2. Plaintiff Independent Voters of Illinois - Independent Precinct Organization (“IVIIPO”) is an Illinois political organization which endorses and supports candidates for public office both in party primary and general elections, especially in Cook County, Illinois. Nearly all members of IVI-IPO are members of the plaintiff class of independent voters in this case. 3. Defendant George Dunne is President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, Illinois, and President of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. He is also a member of the Central Committee, as described in paragraph 14 of Count I of the First Amended Complaint. He is sued in this Count individually and in his capacity as holders of those public and party offices. 4. Defendant Stanley Kusper is Clerk of Cook County, Illinois. He is sued in this Count individually and in his capacity as Clerk.
45

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 46 of 49 PageID #:2184
5. Defendant Thomas Hynes is Assessor of Cook County, Illinois. He is sued in this Count individually and in his capacity as Assessor.
6. Defendant Cook County is a political subdivision of the State of Illinois. 7. Defendant Forest Preserve District of Cook County is an Illinois municipal corporation. It is an alter ego of Cook County, having identical boundaries with Cook County and being governed by the corporate authorities of Cook County. 8. The dominant faction of the Democratic Party in Cook County, Illinois, is the Cook County Regular Democratic Organization (“RDO”) which is composed of “regular” party organizations in the various wards and townships in the County. The RDO in most wards and townships is headed by the Democratic Party County Central Committeeman. (In some wards where the Committeeman is not aligned with the RDO there is a separate RDO leader who acts as a de facto Committeeman for purposes of the patronage employment system described in this Count.) 9. Defendants Dunne, Kusper and Hynes are members and supporters of the RDO. The government of Cook County and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County is politically controlled and dominated by the RDQ. 10. There are approximately 25,000 jobs with the defendant Cook County and approximately 2,000 jobs with the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (together, “Cook County Jobs”). 11. Hiring for the majority of Cook County Jobs is and long has been conditioned on the applicant being an active political supporter of and obtaining the political sponsorship of ward or township RDO officials, including members of the Central Committee. Without such political sponsorship, it is not possible to obtain those jobs. To obtain such political sponsorship, it is usually
46

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 47 of 49 PageID #:2185
necessary to promise and to make political financial contributions to the RDO and promise to do political work on its behalf and on behalf of its candidates for public office. Persons who oppose the RDO and its candidates and policies are excluded from attaining its political sponsorship.
12. IVI-IPO frequently endorses and supports candidates in Democratic Party primary elections and in elections which are formally non-partisan in nature, who are opposed to candidates of the RDO.
13. To advance its political activities, the IVI-IPO depends on volunteer campaign work and financial contributions. IVI-IPO has no patronage jobs to dispense to its supporters.
14. Many members and supporters of IVI-IPO are excluded from being hired or even considered for most Cook County Jobs for which they otherwise would be hired because they are not supporters of the RDO and its candidates but instead are supporters of IVI-IPO, consequently being excluded from being sponsored by the RDO. These members and supporters would otherwise be hired for Cook County Jobs.
15. IVI-IPO members and supporters have each also been denied the opportunity to apply for Cook County Jobs for which they would be qualified because defendants keep the availability of Cook County Jobs a secret except from the RPO.
16. The practices described in this Count IX deprive members and supporters of IVI-IPO of Cook County Jobs solely because of their political affiliation, support and beliefs. This infringes on their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to freedom of speech and association, to due process and to equal protection of the law, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988.
47

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 48 of 49 PageID #:2186
17. IVI-IPO brings this Count IX on behalf of its members and supporters whose constitutional rights to affiliate with and support IVI-IPO and to support or refrain from supporting the RDO continue to be violated as a result of the practices described in this Count.
18. IVI-IPO also brings this Count on its own behalf as a political membership organization. The practices described in this Count seriously injure IVI-IPO by making it more difficult for it to attract members, by reducing the amount of membership dues and other political support it can attract and by reducing its political effectiveness. This is one of the purposes of the defendants’ patronage hiring system described in this Count.
19. The practices described in this Count pressure persons holding and applying for Cook County Jobs to pledge political allegiance to a political faction with which they prefer not to associate, to work for the election of candidates they do not support and to contribute money to be used to further policies with which they do not agree. The practices also constrain employees and applicants from joining, working for or contributing to the political party and candidates of their own choice.
20. The patronage employment system described in this Count works not only at the partisan election stage but also, and most significantly, at the stage of the electoral process involving contests for party endorsement. Defendants use their control over patronage jobs to compel political support and contribution for candidates of the RDO for Democratic Party endorsement. Persons who seek to retain RDO sponsorship are not free to urge the adoption of political positions contrary to those of the RDO. To the contrary, in order to obtain or maintain RDO sponsorship, employees and applicants are prohibited from supporting candidates for party endorsement who are opposed to the RDO candidates or the political positions which they take.
48

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 49 of 49 PageID #:2187
21. The acts and practices complained of in this Count were and are being performed, induced, aided, abetted, participated in and encouraged by the defendants while acting under color of law. These acts and practices are and have long been the policy of defendant Cook County and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County.
22. The matter in controversy in this Count for each plaintiff exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
23. Plaintiffs are permanently and irreparably injured by defendants’ continuing acts and practices and will continue to be permanently and irreparably impaired unless those acts and practices are promptly enjoined by this Court. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for those injuries.
24. Defendants have conspired to establish and implement the patronage employment system described in this Count.
25. Unless enjoined by the Court, the acts and practices complained of in this Count will continue to injure IVI-IPO and its present and future members and supporters in their exercise of rights of speech and association, and to deny the equal protection and due process of law.
26. Accordingly, plaintiffs ask the Court to enter injunctive relief to ensure that hiring for Cook County Jobs will not be based upon or affected by political reasons or factors, and to award plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
49

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 1 of 46 PageID #:2074
COUNT X Plaintiffs submit this Count X as set forth below to describe continuing violations of plaintiffs’ rights as independent voters and candidates, and to add additional plaintiffs. The additional plaintiffs are applicants for jobs with the City of Chicago and current City of Chicago employees whose constitutional rights have been violated by the patronage system maintained and operated by the City of Chicago, its Mayor and other persons and organizations acting in concert with them, as more fully set forth herein. (Plaintiff IVI-IPO is already a party to this case, having asserted in Count IX claims on behalf of its members and a class of applicants and employees against the Cook County defendants.) The City and the Mayor have violated the constitutional rights of the original and additional plaintiffs, and this Court’s prior orders of May 5, 1972 (the “1972 Order”) and June 20, 1983 (the “1983 Order”), directly contrary to said defendants’ repeated representations to this Court. These serious and continuing violations underscore the need for this Court to continue to exercise jurisdiction to remedy the illegal and contemptuous patronage hiring and employment system operated by defendants.
Summary of Count X 1. After plaintiffs filed their First Supplement to Amended Complaint in November, 1990 to add IVI-IPO as an additional party and to make additional allegations, very serious and widespread violations of this Court’s 1972 and 1983 Orders, and of plaintiffs’ rights, have become known because of criminal proceedings filed by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (The “Federal Criminal Cases,” which are defined below). Defendants have engaged in a massive conspiracy to defraud, and have in fact defrauded, this Court, plaintiffs and the general public. They have implemented an illegal hiring and advancement system in violation of this Court’s Orders. A systematic pattern of violations by the City and high level personnel has been
50

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 2 of 46 PageID #:2075
established by ensuing guilty pleas and plea agreements in the Federal Criminal Cases against City of Chicago personnel. The types of violations described in the Federal Criminal Cases are confirmed and amplified by the additional plaintiffs (“Additional Plaintiffs”) who join in this Count X. The Additional Plaintiffs have experienced such violations as applicants for employment and as job holders with the City of Chicago.
2. While widespread violations of this Court’s orders have been on-going for years, the City of Chicago, its Mayor and City officials have repeatedly assured this Court and the public that the City did not engage in political hiring and did not condition, influence or affect the employment of City employees because of political factors or considerations. Those statements were untrue and, upon information and belief, were known by many responsible City officials to be untrue.
3. Plaintiffs seek relief with respect to the City’s and Mayor’s violations of the 1972 and 1983 Court Orders by this Count X and by their pending Application to Hold the City of Chicago and Its Mayor in Civil Contempt for Violation of the Court Orders (the “Contempt Application”), filed on July 26, 2005. The Contempt Application is set forth in full as Count XI below, and is incorporated in this Count X by reference. The Federal Criminal Cases are identified in the Contempt Application in pars. 28-31, 40-47. In addition, the Federal Criminal Cases include a Plea Agreement between the United States and Daniel Katalinic, entered November 15, 2005, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein (“Katalinic Guilty Plea”). Katalanic was Deputy Commissioner of Street Operations for the City’s Department of Streets and Sanitation, who engaged in illegal patronage hiring and promotion practices as more fully described in the Katalanic Guilty Plea.
4. As is made clear from each of the Additional Plaintiffs’ allegations, despite Supreme Court decisions and Orders of this Court outlawing them, illegal patronage practices continue to play
51

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 3 of 46 PageID #:2076
a substantial role in Chicago City government. Hiring, promotion, and assignment decisions are regularly and customarily based on political sponsorship and on the applicant’s or employee’s political activities for particular candidates or organizations. One supervisor, when questioned about the legality of these practices, declared, “the Shakman decree is dead.”
5. Defendants Daley and City of Chicago knew or recklessly disregarded the widespread political patronage system as described in this Count that was and is operated with the assistance of certain Ward Committeemen, Ward Superintendents, high-ranking personnel of various City Departments (including Department Commissioners), personnel in the Mayor’s office, and political organizations such as the 11th Ward Democratic Organization, the Regular Democratic Organization, the Hispanic Democratic Organization, and the Citizens for a Better West Side, all of which are closely allied with the Mayor and are run by people close to the Mayor personally and politically, such as John Daley, Timothy Degnan, and Robert Sorich (“Patronage Front Organizations”). Collectively and individually, these persons have acted and conspired to violate this Court’s orders and to implement the illegal patronage system described in this Count and in the Federal Criminal Cases.
6. Such practices inflict injuries on a wide range of individuals and corrupt the operation of democracy in Chicago. They violate the applicant’s and employees’ rights, inter alia, to freedom of speech and association. They violate candidates’ rights to a fair, competitive chance in the election process. And they violate voters’ rights to have their votes counted, undiluted by a tainted system caused by patronage practices.
7. Moreover, the public is injured in another respect: politically favored employees often get away with misconduct that would never be tolerated if they did not have political sponsorship or “clout.” Such misconduct deprives the citizens of honest government and squanders
52

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 4 of 46 PageID #:2077
tax dollars. As described below, favored employees have been promoted despite being suspended or having poor work records, have been permitted to perform political work on City time, or have been paid for work when in fact they were not working at all. This breeds incompetence, arrogance, and a culture of corruption and disregard for public service, leading one City employee to tell his supervisor, who wanted to assign the employee to outdoor work duties, “[expletive deleted] you, I don’t work for you. I work for John Daley.” John Daley, the Mayor’s brother, is the 11th Ward Democratic Committeeman; he is one of the individuals who provided the “clout” responsible for illegal and contemptuous hiring and promotion of certain City employees.
Additional Plaintiffs Plaintiff Kenneth Ayers
8. Plaintiff Kenneth Ayers worked for the City of Chicago from 1993 to 2002 as a full time, year-round “seasonal” laborer. Ayers has attended college but does not have a degree. He also served in the Illinois National Guard and was honorably discharged. Ayers would like to apply for employment with the City again, but has been deterred from applying, so long as the patronage system described below remains in effect.
9. When he was hired by the City, Ayers was told that he could advance to a career service position with the City within a year and would have job security thereafter. That never happened.
10. As a seasonal laborer, Ayers was at the bottom in terms of job assignment with the Department of Streets and Sanitation. As a result, he was assigned from Ward to Ward. He was repeatedly told by supervisors that in order to advance he had to join a political organization and have clout.
53

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 5 of 46 PageID #:2078
11. While working as a laborer in the 29th Ward he was told by Thomas Johnson, the Ward Superintendent, that if he wanted to advance his career he should join Johnson’s political organization, the Citizens for a Better West Side. Johnson said that by joining “it would really help you out. If you don’t have protection [from a political organization] you can get fired at any time. It can really get ugly for you.” Johnson told Ayers that if he joined Johnson’s organization he would have to knock on doors and do other campaign work. He would also have to make monthly payments to the organization. Ayers declined.
12. Johnson was later promoted from ward superintendent, a position in which he directed laborers like Ayers in a single ward, to a position as supervisor of one of five City districts of the Department of Streets and Sanitation. In 2002, Johnson caused Ayers to be fired without any reason being given. Ayers is not aware of any valid reason to fire him.
13. In addition to working under Johnson’s supervision in the 29th Ward, Ayers worked under the direction of ward superintendents Leo Sanchez in the 25th Ward and Raoul Montes in the 22nd Ward. In late 2001 or early 2002 Sanchez told him that unless Ayers “went the political route” his days were numbered. Sanchez said words substantially as follows: “We all got ours from clout. If you don’t want to play the game, why do you come to work?” Montes told Ayers substantially the same thing.
14. A fellow laborer told Ayers “you aren’t a bad guy, but that is the way it is. You won’t get ahead without clout.” Another said “you are taboo, you have a tag on you.” A coordinator of employees in the 37th Ward told Ayers “everybody out here knocked on doors to get this position. Who do you think you are? I got here because I used my clout. You have to go along or you are not going to last. All of us came in with clout.”
54

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 6 of 46 PageID #:2079
15. Ayers also learned that several other employees had to join the Hispanic Democratic Organization (“HDO”) in order to get their jobs. Some of these employees even had criminal records, but HDO support enabled them to get jobs with the Department. One employee started out working in parking, then became a coordinator and ultimately obtained a management job, all because of his clout. Ayers asked this employee what his clout was, and the employee said HDO did it all for him.
16. On one occasion, Ayers wrote Cathy Torres, an employee in the Department of Streets and Sanitation’s personnel department, stating that he was being harassed for political reasons. She told him never to write her a letter like that again. She took no action to correct the harassment.
17. Ayers also complained to his union representative, who was sympathetic but was unable to do anything about the City’s misuse of political influence on the City employment system.
18. Ayers spoke with Walter Thompson, the 24th Ward superintendent, who urged him to join the 24th Ward organization of Alderman Michael D. Chandler. Ayers went to a ward organizational meeting and was told that “we need foot soldiers and we need money.” Thompson told Ayers that if he got into the organization he would be protected. Thompson also told Ayers “You got to get a Chinaman.” “Chinaman” in Chicago political parlance has long meant a ward committeeman, alderman or someone with political clout who could cause an employee to get benefits in his job assignments and promotions in return for political work.
19. Ayers asked Thompson about the “Shakman Decree,” referring to one of the orders in this case that prohibited political considerations in hiring and advancement. Thompson told Ayers “the Shakman decree is dead. That is not the way it happens. No one gets a job here unless he is connected with the organization.”
55

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 7 of 46 PageID #:2080
20. Ayers is interested in working for the City but has been deterred from doing so because of the widespread patronage practices he witnessed. He wishes to do so if he can be free of City officials or political groups dictating his political affiliations or loyalties. Plaintiff Michael Sullivan
21. Plaintiff Michael Sullivan is a construction laborer with the Bureau of Electricity of the Department of Streets and Sanitation of the City of Chicago. He has been employed by the City for 16 years and has been employed as a laborer in his present position since 1993. Sullivan and other laborers are eligible for overtime work. However, overtime assignments, which can generate as much as $5,000 per year per employee in additional compensation, are assigned on the basis of clout. Sullivan lacks clout and, therefore, has been denied significant overtime work that has been provided to others who have clout. Overtime assignments in the job title that Sullivan holds are largely provided to employees with 11th Ward political connections. The 11th Ward is the former home of Mayor Richard M. Daley. John Daley, brother of Richard M. Daley, is the Democratic Party Committeeman of the 11th ward and its political boss. As more fully described herein, John Daley operates a portion of the City’s illegal patronage system.
22. In addition to overtime assignments, work assignments in Sullivan’s job category are made on the basis of clout. Employees with clout are assigned relatively light duty work, while Sullivan and others without clout receive more arduous assignments, such as street excavation and reconstruction. John Daley, Robert Sorich or Patrick Slattery have called personnel at the Bureau of Electricity and requested that Bureau employees associated with the 11th Ward organization receive light duty in-door assignments while other employees without clout, like Sullivan, receive the less desirable assignments. Upon information and belief, Sorich and Slattery are close associates of John Daley and of his 11th Ward political organization. Both Sorich and Slattery have been
56

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 8 of 46 PageID #:2081
charged with crimes by the United States Attorney for engaging in fraudulent conduct regarding patronage hiring practices. Such charges are part of the Federal Criminal Cases.
23. On occasion, Bureau employees with clout have told their supervisor that John Daley wanted them to receive indoor assignments and not to be assigned to work “on the street.” When given an assignment to which he objected, one employee told his supervisor “[expletive deleted] you, I don’t work for you. I work for John Daley.” An employee with 11th Ward clout has been seen to sign in and then leave work while remaining on the payroll to spend the day at his family’s private business. Supervisors have acknowledged to Sullivan that they could not control such people because they are associated with the 11th Ward Daley organization and had clout. As described more fully below, the inability of honest City supervisors to get an honest day’s work from City employees is a by-product of the City’s patronage system. This deprives the public of honest and efficient government.
24. Upon information and belief, interviewing sessions for employment positions with the Department of Streets and Sanitation are rigged for illegal patronage reasons. For example, in connection with one such session one of the participants told Sullivan that instructions had come from Slattery not to fill in the scores on interview forms that were to be filled out by the interviewers, because “City Hall will fill in the forms.” This is consistent with allegations in the government’s charges in the Criminal Complaint in United States v. Sorich, 05 CR 644, and the Criminal Complaint in United States v. Slattery, 05 CR 646, both of which are Federal Criminal Cases.
25. Advancement in the Department of Streets and Sanitation is also dependent on clout. In 2003 promotions to the general foreman’s position were influenced by clout. One individual who was employed as a lineman but had clout was double promoted to foreman over people with 20
57

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 9 of 46 PageID #:2082
years or more of experience. On another occasion, an individual who was related to former mayoral aide Timothy Degnan, who is also a long-standing member of John Daley’s 11th Ward organization, was promoted from laborer to assistant superintendent, while more experienced and qualified persons without clout were passed over.
26. Hiring and promotion in the Department of Streets and Sanitation is well-known to employees like Sullivan to be customarily based on clout. That fact has a demoralizing impact on honest employees and discourages able potential job applicants from applying for jobs or for advancement.
27. Sullivan has attempted to report these matters to Ronald Huberman, the Mayor Daley’s chief of staff, and to others. His calls have not been returned. Plaintiffs Richard and Connie Gramarossa
28. Plaintiff Richard Gramarossa has been employed in the Bureau of Forestry for the Department of Streets and Sanitation since April 1981. He began as a “Tree Trimmer 1,” advancing in 1993 to “Tree Trimmer 2” after 12 years of service because of a union grievance he filed when he learned that co-workers with less than five years of service had received the promotion ahead of him due to clout. These less senior workers who benefitted from clout were John McBride (whose clout came from John Daley and the 11th Ward Democratic Organization) and Pat Pagaluco (phonetic). Since that time John McBride has received two additional promotions due to clout and currently serves as a Forestry Superintendent.
29. Mr. Grammarosa has applied at least thirteen times for promotions or higher paying positions. These positions included: District tree foreman, Laborer (electricity) (two times), Assistant Superintendent, Assistant Forestry Supervisor, Forestry Supervisor, Motor Truck Driver,
58

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 10 of 46 PageID #:2083
Supervisor of lot cleaning, General Foreman of Laborers, District Supervisor of rodent control,
Lamp maintenance, Asphalt Helper, and File Vehicle Inspector.
30. Despite having seniority and being well-qualified for such promotions or other City
positions, each time he was passed over, and notified of the denial via a letter informing him he was
qualified for the position. Each time another employee with clout was placed in the position ahead
of him. Mr. Gramarossa remains interested, if the process is free from clout, in applying for a
promotion within the Forestry Bureau or a higher-paying position with the City for which he is
qualified.
31. Mr. Grammarosa has also been repeatedly harassed and retaliated against because
he complained about his not being promoted and about other improprieties described below. The
harassment and retaliation included, without limitation, the following:
a. He has been repeatedly denied overtime assignments. Such assignments, which can substantially increase a worker’s annual income, customarily went to Forestry workers who performed campaign and other work, mostly for Alderman Edward Burke’s 14th Ward Regular Democratic Organization. Only in the last six months or so, since the federal indictments started occurring, has overtime been offered on a more equitable basis.
b. He has been repeatedly given the more unpleasant job assignments. For example, during the winter of 2002, he and another worker were dispatched to pick bagworms from trees in arctic cold weather. The other worker, Benny Hernandez, had formerly performed political work for the 14th Ward Regular Democratic Organization, but had since refused to do so, resulting in the punitive job assignment with Mr. Gramarossa. As another example, despite his seniority in his division, Mr. Gramarossa has been repeatedly transferred from the far north side division to the far south side division as punishment. When he asked why he was being transferred, he was told by supervisors Timothy Vaughan (General Superintendent) and Bruno Bertucci (Superintendent), whose own promotions were based on clout from the 14th Ward Democratic Organization, that the transfers would help Mr. Gramarossa “learn to play ball.”
c. Beginning in or about 2001 until 2003 Mr. Gramarossa worked as a Forestry Inspector (an untitled position) that generally is assigned to more senior, experienced employees. At that time Timothy Vaughan abruptly replaced Mr. Gramarossa with
59

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 11 of 46 PageID #:2084
Richard Lontka, who had approximately nine years less seniority, because Lontka performs political work for the 14th Ward Organization. When Mr. Gramarossa questioned the change, Vaughan replied, “I told you that if it was the last thing I do in this department, you’re going on the street.” Vaughan retired shortly thereafter. d. He has been disciplined unfairly and without justification in retaliation for his complaints and because he has no clout to protect him.
32. Based on his observations in the Forestry Bureau, clout-based promotions and favoritism have been the norm during the last 15 years. Virtually all of the more desirable indoor positions have been filled by workers with clout, primarily through the 14th Ward Regular Democratic Organization. During the 2003 election, Mr. Gramarossa observed that 27 “tree trimmers” with office assignments were absent from work on election day. Upon information and belief, they were performing political work on behalf of the 14th Ward Regular Democratic Organization or other political organizations.
33. In 2003, Mr. Gramarossa and his wife, Connie Gramarossa, were actively campaigning for Manny Flores, who defeated the incumbent 1st Ward Alderman, Jesse Granato. Granato had been supported by Mayor Daley and HDO. Mr. and Mrs. Gramarossa observed City employees allied with HDO actively working for Granato.
34. During that campaign, Mr. Gramarossa was contacted by and met with Rich Guidas [phonetic], who, upon information and belief, worked in the Mayor Daley’s office. Guidas told Mr. Gramarossa that it would “be to his benefit” to walk away from the Flores campaign and work for Granato instead. Mr. Gramarossa understood this as a threat.
35. Mr. and Mrs. Gramarossa (like the other Additional Plaintiffs) have been injured and, in the absence of continuing injunctive relief against patronage hiring, firing and promotional practices, will continue to be injured by the fact that public jobs and public rewards, via more
60

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 12 of 46 PageID #:2085
desirable work assignments, overtime and promotions, are being used to fund an army of workers campaigning against candidates the Gramarossas wish to campaign and vote for. Plaintiff Darryn Jones
36. Plaintiff Darryn Jones has been employed by the Department of Streets and Sanitation for 14 years, mostly as a laborer who works on City garbage trucks. He has applied repeatedly for a transfer to the more desirable and more highly paid job of graffiti remover, but has not been transferred despite the fact that he has repeatedly bid for and is qualified for such promotions or hirings. Jones has no clout.
37. Individuals with clout are able to obtain such positions and other more desirable jobs after only a few months working for the City. Jones has been told by co-employees who are members of the Hispanic Democratic Organization that they can get promoted quickly and easily, and he has seen that happen. Positions as coordinators of laborers are often filled on the basis of clout, without posting or bidding.
38. In 2005 Jones complained when a position for which he was eligible was filled without posting or permitting bidding. Upon information and belief, the position was awarded to someone who had political support from the Hispanic Democratic Organization. As a result of his complaint, the Department acknowledged to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to whom Jones had complained, that the job was improperly filled, and the person who had filled it was being removed from the position. Upon information and belief, the Department has subsequently filled the position with four employees and has done so without making the position availability known to Mr. Jones and other possible applicants.
61

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 13 of 46 PageID #:2086
Plaintiff Ann M. King 39. Ann M. King has worked for the Department of Streets and Sanitation since 2001 as
a seasonal junior laborer. She picks up garbage from lots, cleans up the streets after parades and special events and does similar work. Although she is designated a seasonal laborer, she has generally worked full-time until a recent on-the-job accident caused her to be given leave. Her designation as a seasonal laborer deprives her of certain benefits granted to career employees, including paid vacation, as well as a higher salary.
40. On occasion King has been assigned to work for Thomas Sajak, a supervisor associated with the 10th Ward Democratic organization. When he learned that King was bilingual in Spanish and English he asked her to do political work and told her that in return she would get promoted or hired as a career employee with full benefits. He told King that he was working with the Hispanic Democratic Organization and invited her to attend a meeting.
41. King did so, attending a meeting at the Crowbar tavern at Ave C. and 106th Street on the Southeast side of the City of Chicago. Al Sanchez, then the Commissioner of the Department of Streets and Sanitation and a high level HDO official, was present. From attending HDO meetings over the course of the next year, King learned that although Hispanic in name, HDO actually is divided into three separate racial/ethnic divisions: (I) a Black or African American Division, (ii) a white, non-Latino division, and (iii) an Hispanic or Latino division. Each had its own coordinators and assigned workers to areas of the city based on race and ethnicity.
42. The race and ethnic division in HDO was reflected directly in the interviewing process for advancement from seasonal laborer to higher permanent positions in the Department of Streets and Sanitation. In the interviews that King participated in at the Department’s Pershing Avenue location, interviewees were separated into Black, Hispanic and White to correspond to the
62

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 14 of 46 PageID #:2087
HDO supervisors who participated in the City’s promotion process. In that way, the Department assured that political evaluations from HDO supervisors would be brought to bear on applications for advancement in City jobs in the Department. On one occasion, King was placed in the “Black” group because of her name and then was redirected to an Hispanic interviewer when identified.
43. King performed extensive political work for HDO, often far from her home and her children, because she had been told and had observed that it was the only path to secure a promotion to a permanent position that would pay a substantially higher salary and improved benefits. King had no desire to support or associate with HDO nor any candidates for whom she campaigned, but did so only because she felt she had no choice if she wanted to be hired as a full-time City employee and advance with the City in position and remuneration.
44. As part of her HDO work, King was assigned to work on political campaigns for Alderman George A. Cardenas in the 12th Ward, for Iris Martinez for state representative, for Richard M. Daley for Mayor and for Rod Blagojevich for Governor. She had no desire to work for these candidates, but did so because directed by HDO and because she had been informed that such work was necessary to obtain a promotion to a career position, which would entail a substantial raise of approximately $10 per hour. She worked on election day, taking off from her City job for that purpose. Her absence from her City job so that she could work on election days was done with the support and cooperation of her supervisor, Joseph Chejnowski. Chejnowski asked King to provide him faxes identifying her HDO political coordinator and whom she would be working for in her election day work. King was always assigned to Hispanic areas to do political work.
45. King stopped doing political work when she asked but did not receive assistance from HDO in arranging for her to take days off from her City job so that she could attend to the health needs of a daughter who suffers from epilepsy. On one occasion, she wrote her supervisor,
63

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 15 of 46 PageID #:2088
Chejnowski, that it was odd that the City would allow her to take time off to do election work but not to take care of an ill child. King pursued the issue to the Department’s personnel department. As a result she fell out with HDO.
46. While she did not personally benefit from HDO when she asked for help, King is aware of many City employees who have. One employee who worked out of the 10th Ward was not politically connected until 2004, and then was promoted from the seasonal labor position, making $14.77 per hour, to a position making $24.62 per hour. Upon information and belief, this employee had joined HDO because she wanted to get promoted. The 10th Ward is the home ward of Al Sanchez of HDO, former Commissioner of the Department of Streets and Sanitation.
47. King is acquainted with another employee who was promoted from a seasonal laborer’s position in 2004 after working only 8 months. Other qualified employees without clout worked for years as seasonal laborers without promotions. King was told that Sanchez, when Commissioner of the Department, involved himself directly in seeing to it that persons associated with HDO were promoted. HDO’s political activity was known to Sanchez, including the names of City employees who did political work. King was also told that Jack Drumgold, then an official in the personnel section of the Department of Street and Sanitation, would rank candidates for promotion from seasonal laborer to a higher position based, first, on their political activity. In terms of importance, clout was first, followed by good attendance on the job and no suspensions. Clout trumps bad attendance or suspensions, as described below.
48. King was assigned at one time to work as a laborer in west side wards. At one time she worked with Melvin Hamilton, who had been suspended from his City job. Upon information and belief, his clout was Thomas Johnson of the 29th Ward. The employee told King “Tommy is going to hook me up because I have been doing political work for so long.” He told her that when
64

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 16 of 46 PageID #:2089
he was at home on suspension he received a letter from the City telling him that he had been promoted. Linda Young, with whom King was also acquainted, told her that she was expecting to be promoted (“pulled”) because she and her husband were working in Johnson’s political organization. She was subsequently promoted to career service with the City, a much more desirable position than seasonal laborer. She and her husband had been doing political work for years.
49. On another occasion, Tami Holiday, an employee with whom King was working, asked to borrow King’s cell phone. She explained that she had been approved for a promotion, but would not be eligible for it because she was subject to a suspension decision. In King’s presence she called someone from HDO and arranged for HDO to cause her suspension to be expunged so that she could be eligible for the promotion. Upon information and belief, Holiday’s suspension was expunged, and she was promoted shortly thereafter.
50. A similar event occurred after an occasion on which King got into an argument with a co-employee, Harriet McPherson, who had called King a “wetback.” King submitted a complaint against the employee and was told by a supervisor that he would terminate the offending employee. During a meeting with King about the proposed discipline, the supervisor received a call from George Escobar, a City employee who was also an influential person in HDO, who asked that the offending employee’s termination be reduced to a suspension. In Kings’ presence, the supervisor agreed to reduce the punishment to a 29 days’ suspension. Shortly thereafter King was again present while the same supervisor was speaking on a speaker phone with Escobar. In that conversation, Escobar said that the offending employee was working politically and the suspension should, therefore, be reduced. The following day King met with a City supervisory employee, and was told Escobar “stepped up for Harriet” and the suspension was reduced to two weeks.
65

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 17 of 46 PageID #:2090
51. In September 2005, King was assigned to a work group under a supervisor whose clout was the 45th Ward Democratic organization. While she and others were at work, the direct supervisor went to sleep in his car. Another supervisor arrived and took a photo of the sleeping supervisor, woke him up and treated it all as a joke. No action was taken against the supervisor who was asleep. King reported it to the City’s Inspector General.
52. King also learned that several City employees who had worked at the Chicago Skyway prior to its recent sale to private ownership benefitted from HDO clout. These former Skyway employees include Jose L. Reyes, Jose Rodriguez, Maria Rivera, Monica Mims, Jesus Aguilera, Freddie McFerren, Darlene Murphy, Nestor Riviera, Patricia Hernandez and Jonathan Lew. Upon information and belief, these employees were members of or otherwise favored by HDO for political reasons. Because of that clout, when they lost their Skyway jobs as a result of the sale of the Skyway, in or about February and April 2005 they were placed in other City jobs without any bidding or other process to make the jobs available to others without HDO clout.
53. King was unaware of the Shakman Decree for most of her tenure with the City. Indeed, she believed “no one was aware of the Shakman Decree.” Plaintiff Stuart Majerczyk
54. Plaintiff Stuart Majerczyk has worked as a laborer in the agency now known as the City of Chicago Department of Water Management, and formerly known as the Water Department. He is the only, or one of very few, laborers who is also a state licensed plumber. He has been unable to advance from the position of laborer to the more desirable position of caulker because he does not have clout.
66

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 18 of 46 PageID #:2091
55. Wayne Garrity is an 11th Ward precinct captain in John Daley’s organization. He has received promotions and desirable assignments as a result. Garrity has said to Majerczyk “when you are in, you are in” referring to his position with the 11th Ward.
56. After repeatedly applying for promotion and being passed over, Majerczyk stopped applying, although he would apply again if clout were removed as a basis for promotion.
57. Because of the patronage system in effect in the City’s Department of Water Management, qualified applicants like Majerczyk have been discouraged from applying for promotions, which are allocated on the basis of clout. Plaintiff Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization
58. Plaintiff Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization (“IVIIPO”), is an Illinois political organization that endorses and supports candidates for public office both in party primary and general elections, especially in Chicago and Cook County, Illinois. Nearly all members of IVI-IPO are members of the plaintiff class of independent voters in this case.
59. IVI-IPO frequently endorses and supports candidates in Party primary elections, including the Democratic Party primary elections, and in elections which are formally non-partisan in nature, who are opposed by the Patronage Front Organizations, such as the Regular Democratic Organization (“RDO”) and affiliated entities such as the Hispanic Democratic Organization or Citizens for a Better West Side.
60. To advance its political activities, IVI-IPO depends on volunteer campaign work and financial contributions. IVI-IPO has no patronage jobs to dispense to its supporters.
61. Many members and supporters of IVI-IPO are excluded from being hired or even considered for most City of Chicago jobs for which they otherwise would be hired because they are not supporters of the RDO or Patronage Front Organizations and their candidates.
67

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 19 of 46 PageID #:2092
62. IVI-IPO members and supporters have each also been denied the opportunity to apply for City of Chicago jobs for which they would be qualified because in some instances defendants have kept the availability of such jobs secret except from the RDO or Patronage Front Organizations.
63. The practices described in this Count deprive members and supporters of IVI-IPO of City of Chicago jobs solely because of their political affiliation, support and beliefs.
64. IVI-IPO brings this Count X on behalf of its members and supporters whose constitutional rights to affiliate with and support IVI-IPO and to support or refrain from supporting the RDO, and Patronage Front Organizations, continue to be violated as a result of the practices described in this Count.
65. IVI-IPO also brings this Count on its own behalf as a political membership organization. The practices described in this count seriously injure IVI-IPO by making it more difficult for it to attract members, by reducing the amount of membership dues and other political support it can attract and by reducing its political effectiveness. This is one of the purposes of the defendants’ patronage system described in this Count.
66. The two departments for which the individual Additional Plaintiffs work, the Department of Streets and Sanitation and the Department of Water, in 2005 employed 5,467 workers out of the City's total work force of 35,117, according to the City of Chicago 2006 Budget, p. 84. The employment practices of those two departments alone, therefore, represent a substantial portion of the employment practices of the City of Chicago. The Department of Streets and Sanitation is allocated the largest share of the City's total corporate appropriation, after the Fire and Police Departments, for 2006. The City projects approximately $356 million in expenditures by the Department of Streets and Sanitation in 2006. City of Chicago 2006 Budget, p. 67.
68

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 20 of 46 PageID #:2093
67. The patronage employment practices described by the Additional Plaintiffs are typical of the experiences described by a much larger number of persons who have contacted original plaintiff Shakman in the last several months. Many of those individuals have stated that they work for City of Chicago departments other than the Departments of Streets and Sanitation and Water, including the Department of Aviation, the Personnel Department, the Department of Human Services, the Department of Revenue, the Department of Emergency Services and the Police Department. Many of these individuals report patronage practices in their departments consistent with the allegations made by the Additional Plaintiffs. A number of the persons reporting such practices have insisted that they remain anonymous or have declined to join as Additional Plaintiffs because they fear reprisals.
68. The practices described in this Supplement infringe on the rights of the Additional Plaintiffs, as well as the rights of the Original Plaintiffs, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to freedom of speech and association, to due process and to equal protection of the law.
Illustration of How Patronage Hiring and Firing Corrupts Elections and Prejudices Opposition Candidates. 69. The experiences of Additional Plaintiff Ann King while working on behalf of HDO illustrate how the illegal and contemptuous patronage practices complained of herein not only injure the Additional Plaintiffs, but injure candidates and voters through the use of City resources to buy votes and influence elections. 70. As alleged in paragraph 44 above, Ms. King was directed by HDO to work on several political campaigns, including that of George Cardenas in 2003 against two-term incumbent Alderman Ray Frias of the 12th Ward.
69

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 21 of 46 PageID #:2094
71. In that campaign, Ms. King was assigned to work under the direction of HDO member Gil Valdez, who directed her and the campaign activities of about twenty other individuals. Some were City employees. Many were not. Ms. King was told that the HDO workers who were not City employees were working on the campaign because HDO had promised them City jobs in exchange for their campaign work.
72. At the time he was directing Ms. King for HDO, Valdez was an employee of the Chicago Transit Authority. Upon information and belief, he had previously been employed as a bridge operator for the City, but was fired. HDO promptly secured him a job at the CTA, and he bragged to Ms. King about how HDO was able to protect him and place him in another public job after he lost the first one.
73. Valdez’s political workers were only one of several HDO teams campaigning on behalf of Cardenas, each directed by a different HDO operative. Upon information and belief, Ms. King’s experiences in the Cardenas campaign are typical of HDO’s efforts on behalf of Cardenas and other candidates it supported in other campaigns.
74. Valdez was very persistent in demanding that Ms. King and other HDO members work extremely hard on the Cardenas campaign. He repeatedly said, “We gotta win this one,” “We gotta get him [Ald. Frias] out of there,” because Al Sanchez and Victor Reyes were upset that Frias had “turned his back on HDO.”
75. Ms. King was ordered to campaign for Cardenas every day after work for a month, and on weekend days, which she did, despite the fact that she spent many evenings separated from her children, because HDO had promised her that she would be hired into a permanent City position as a result of working hard for HDO. She believed that if she did not obey Valdez and HDO she would not be hired into a permanent City position. She did not personally have an interest in this
70

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 22 of 46 PageID #:2095
election and would not have worked for either candidate if she had not been directed by HDO to do so.
76. Among the activities Ms. King was ordered to perform were the following: a. She went door-to-door to solicit signatures on nominating petitions for Cardenas.
Valdez ordered her not to sign the attestation at the bottom of the petitions, but instead to leave them blank. Ms. King believes that Valdez signed the petitions himself. b. She went door-to-door to residences and businesses to solicit votes for Cardenas. She and other HDO workers were instructed to offer residents and business owners City services in exchange for their campaign support (such as by display of Cardenas signs) and votes for Cardenas. Many voters accepted the offer. She personally filled out at least 15 requisition forms, provided to her by HDO, asking the Department of Streets and Sanitation, then headed by HDO boss Al Sanchez, to provide particular City services to residents or businesses to carry out the foregoing quid pro quo. These included tree trimming, streetlight installation, and provision of garbage cans. In each case, Ms. King observed that the requested City services were provided promptly, within a matter of days. Upon information and belief, many other HDO campaigners were filling out similar forms through which City services were requisitioned and promptly delivered to prospective voters in exchange for campaign support (e.g., agreements to place Cardenas signs on lawns or in windows) and/or votes for Cardenas. Thus, through its conspiracy with the City, control of the Department of Streets and Sanitation and control of City hiring, promotion, overtime,
71

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 23 of 46 PageID #:2096
discipline and firing, HDO was able to, and did, bribe voters for their votes in exchange for these City services. c. Ms. King and others were directed to badmouth Ald. Frias during their campaigning. They were told to inform voters that Frias was doing nothing for the community, while Cardenas could deliver services promptly. 77. Ms. King also witnessed HDO workers tearing down Frias campaign signs and replacing them with Cardenas signs. 78. Cardenas defeated Ald. Frias as a result of HDO’s patronage army, which upon information and belief numbered over one hundred workers (perhaps several hundred) and overwhelmed Frias’s volunteer support. 79. As alleged in paragraph 44 above, Ms. King worked on other campaigns at the direction of HDO. Similar tactics were used by HDO in those campaigns, including the offer and delivery of prompt City services in exchange for campaign support and votes.
Defendants 80. Defendant Richard M. Daley is the Mayor of the City of Chicago and its chief executive officer. He is sued in this Count in his individual and official capacities. 81. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation organized under Illinois law. 82. By custom and practice, the City has delegated to Mayor Daley final authority to make policy regarding personnel matters, not merely authority to hire, fire, promote or set conditions. Although the 1972 and 1983 Orders may reflect on paper the policy of the City regarding hiring and employment criteria, the actual de facto policy of the City is reflected by the widespread custom and practice of systematically violating those Orders through the use of political clout as described herein.
72

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 24 of 46 PageID #:2097
83. Richard M. Daley is ultimately responsible, through his staff and department Commissioners who report to him, for the hirings, promotions and firings of approximately 35,000 employees of the City of Chicago. All but a few hundred of such 35,000 or more jobs are subject to this Courts 1972 and 1983 orders barring political considerations in hiring, promotion and other terms and conditions of City employment (“City Jobs”). All of the individual Additional Plaintiffs applied for and/or held City Jobs, as so defined.
84. The City of Chicago’s patronage practices, as described herein and in the Federal Criminal Cases, including the Katalinic Guilty Plea, are so widespread and customary as to constitute City policy and have the force of law. The City’s policy is to use public employment to reward political friends and punish political enemies, even though other law, including the 1972 and 1983 Orders and decisions of the United States Supreme Court in cases such as Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), and Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990), prohibit such practices.
85. The widespread political patronage system as described in this Count was and is operated with the assistance of certain Ward Committeemen, Ward Superintendents, high-ranking personnel of various City Departments (including Department Commissioners), personnel in the Mayor Daley’s office, and Patronage Front Organizations such as the 11th Ward Democratic Organization, the Hispanic Democratic Organization, and the Citizens for a Better West Side, all of which are closely allied with Mayor Daley and are run by people close to Mayor Daley personally and politically, such as John Daley, Timothy Degnan, and Robert Sorich. Collectively and individually, these persons have acted and conspired to violate this Court’s orders and to implement the illegal patronage system described in this Count and in the Federal Criminal Cases.
73

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 25 of 46 PageID #:2098
86. Many of the practices described herein involved Ward Committeemen who, in Chicago, control political affairs in their Wards, including the Alderman in the Wards. Many aldermen benefitted from the illegal practices described herein in that they received campaign and electoral support.
87. Former City employees Slattery and Sorich are personally known to Richard M. Daley. Sorich worked directly for Daley as de facto patronage administrator and as de jure head of intergovernmental relations. When Slattery and Sorich were charged in 2005 by the United States Attorney’s office with federal crimes for the frauds committed in cheating job applicants out of a fair chance at City jobs, Daley publicly lamented that the charges had been brought and pointed out that they were “good family men.” He said nothing about the applicants for City jobs who had been scammed, which created at least the appearance that loyalty to Daley and the 11th Ward Democratic organization was more important than the harm done to the City by Slattery and Sorich’s criminal conduct. Daley has also repeatedly exaggerated in public statements the costs to the City of complying with this Court’s orders and has directed and supported the City’s legal efforts to cause this Court or the Court of Appeals to vacate the 1983 Order, while his high-ranking deputies and subordinates within his office were systematically violating that Order.
88. Richard M. Daley is liable in his individual capacity for the violations alleged herein. Upon information and belief, he acted knowingly or with reckless indifference regarding the patronage practices alleged herein: he either knew about the conduct and facilitated it, approved it, condoned it, or turned a blind eye toward it for fear of what he might see. He understood the general objectives of the patronage system described herein, accepted them, benefitted from their campaign assistance, and agreed, either explicitly or implicitly, to further them.
74

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 26 of 46 PageID #:2099
Violations Alleged 89. The facts described above and in the Federal Criminal Cases, establish that the City has regularly and systematically hired employees for City Jobs in violation of the 1983 Order and of plaintiffs’ rights of association and speech under the First Amendment and their rights to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. 90. The facts described above and in the Federal Criminal Cases also establish that agents and representatives of the City at a very high level have regularly and systematically promoted, assigned, granted overtime to and otherwise favored some City employees based on political factors and considerations, and prejudiced, discriminated against, and punished many other holders of City Jobs on the basis of their lack of such political support or clout. This policy and custom violates the 1972 Order, plaintiffs’ rights of association and speech under the First Amendment and their rights to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. 91. The facts described above and in the Federal Criminal Cases establish a close relationship between the violations of the 1972 Order dealing with existing City employees and the 1983 Order requiring non-political hiring. The ability of defendants and the Patronage Front Organizations through which they operate to hire politically in violation of the 1983 Order has led to a widespread policy, custom and practice of misuse of job assignments, promotions and other employment conditions with respect to persons who are already City employees, in direct violation also of the 1972 Order. Persons hired in violation of the 1983 Order are routinely granted promotions, overtime or more favorable work assignments ahead of qualified employees with more seniority but lacking in clout. Such violations of the 1972 Order are integrally related to and part of a common pattern of political hiring in violation of the 1983 Order.
75

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 27 of 46 PageID #:2100
92. The facts described above and in the Federal Criminal Cases also establish that agents and representatives of the City at a very high level have engaged in elaborate conspiracies and schemes to deceive the public and job applicants as to their true intentions with respect to political hiring and post-hiring employment practices, and as part of and in furtherance of such conspiracies to commit mail and wire fraud in violation of federal law to implement the illegal patronage hiring program.
93. The City of Chicago patronage system described in this Count is and has been intended by defendants to, and has had the effect of, putting illegal and unconstitutional pressure on persons holding or applying for City Jobs, or benefits in such jobs, to pledge political allegiance to a political organization or operation, such as the 11th Ward Democratic Organization, the Hispanic Democratic Organization, the Citizens for a Better West Side and similar Patronage Front Organizations that are loyal to Richard M. Daley, to take political instructions from him and his aides, and to work for the election of candidates he and such Organizations support.
94. The plaintiffs have no wish to associate with or to work for the election of candidates they do not support or to contribute money to be used to support candidates or organizations with whom they do not wish to associate, or to further policies with which they do not agree. The widespread and customary practices of the defendants and the Patronage Front Organizations also constrain employees and applicants from joining, working for or contributing to, or otherwise associating with, the political party, political organizations and candidates of their own choice.
95. The patronage employment system described in this Count works not only at the partisan election stage but also, and significantly, at the stage of the election process involving contests for party endorsement. Defendants and their Patronage Front Organizations use their control over patronage jobs to compel political support and contribution for candidates they and the
76

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 28 of 46 PageID #:2101
Patronage Front Organizations support for Democratic Party endorsement. Persons who seek to retain such sponsorship are not free to urge the adoption of political positions or the support of candidates contrary to those of the organizations. To the contrary, in order to obtain or maintain such sponsorship, employees and applicants are prohibited from supporting candidates for party endorsement who are opposed to the candidates or political positions taken by Patronage Front Organizations.
96. The acts and practices complained of in this Count were and are being performed, induced, aided, abetted, participated in and encouraged by the defendants, through and with the assistance of the Patronage Front Organizations, while acting under color of state law.
97. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the constitutional violations alleged herein.
98. Defendant Richard M. Daley is also liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for having the power, but failing to prevent the numerous constitutional violations alleged herein.
99. Defendants are also liable for violating the 1972 and 1983 Decrees. Jurisdiction and Venue
100. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged herein under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
101. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because the defendants reside in this judicial district and the events complained of herein occurred in this district.
Class Action Allegations 102. Plaintiffs Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie, and the class of independent voters and candidates that they represent, are referred to herein as the Original Plaintiffs.
77

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 29 of 46 PageID #:2102
103. Plaintiffs Ayers, Jones, Richard and Connie Gramarossa, King, Majerczyk, Sullivan, and IVI-IPO are referred to as the Additional Plaintiffs.
104. Plaintiffs Ayers, Jones, Richard Gramarossa, King, Majerczyk, Sullivan and IVI-IPO bring this Count on behalf of a class consisting of all applicants or prospective applicants for nonexempt positions with the City of Chicago (the “Applicant Class”).
105. Plaintiffs Jones, King, Richard Gramarossa, Majerczyk and Sullivan bring this Count on behalf of a class consisting of all present and future non-exempt employees of the City of Chicago (the “Employee Class”).
106. Each of the Additional Plaintiffs is already a member of the plaintiff class of independent voters, and seeks leave to serve as additional class representatives of that class (the “Existing Voter Class”).
107. The Applicant Class and Employee Class are each so numerous that joinder of all members is impractible.
108. There are questions of law or fact common to the Applicant Class and to the Employee Class.
109. The claims of the named plaintiffs in each Class are typical of the claims of each Class.
110. The named plaintiffs in each Class will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class in which he or she is member.
111. Certification of the Applicant Class and the Employee Class is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because the City has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to each Class as a whole.
78

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 30 of 46 PageID #:2103
112. Certification of the Applicant Class and the Employee Class is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because the questions of law or fact common to the members of each Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
Relief Requested in Count X 113. Plaintiffs are permanently and irreparably injured by defendants’ continuing acts and practices and will continue to be permanently and irreparably injured unless those acts and practices are promptly enjoined by this Court. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for those injuries. 114. Defendants have conspired with the Patronage Front Organizations and others to establish and implement the patronage employment system described in this Count and in the Federal Criminal Cases. 115. Unless enjoined by the Court, the acts and practices complained of in this Count and the Federal Criminal Cases will continue to injure the Existing Class, the Applicant Class and the Employee Class in their exercise of rights of speech and association, and to deny all of them equal protection and due process of law. 116. Accordingly, plaintiffs ask the Court to enter the following relief in Count X: A. A declaration that the acts and practices described herein violate plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the 1972 and 1983 Orders. B. Such further injunctive relief as is necessary and appropriate to enforce the 1972 and 1983 Orders and remedy defendants’ continuing violations of plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and otherwise to ensure that defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, be enjoined from:
79

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 31 of 46 PageID #:2104
(1) using or considering in any way political reasons, factors, loyalties, affiliations or activities as a criterion a. for hiring members of the Applicant Class for City Jobs; b. for promoting members of the Employee Class; c. for affecting the terms and conditions of employment of members of the Employee Class (including, without limitation, salary, overtime and work assignments); d. for restricting the persons who receive notice or disclosure of the availability of City Jobs, promotions, overtime or work assignments.
(2) conspiring, consulting or otherwise cooperating with the Patronage Front Organizations regarding the matters listed in subparagraph (1) above, or permitting such Organizations to control or influence in any way any decision regarding City Jobs.
(3) retaliating in any way against any member of the Employee Class for not agreeing to join or work for any Patronage Front Organization or any political candidate, for complaining about violations of the Court’s injunctive orders, or for asserting a claim or any rights under the Court’s injunctive orders.
C. Continue the Court’s prior appointment of a monitor (“Monitor”), to be compensated by the City, for a term of years to be determined by the Court, vested with such authority and powers as are needed to ensure that defendants comply with the 1972 and 1983 Orders and with any further injunctive relief entered by the Court and to report any violations of such relief to the Court.
D. Enjoin the City to provide full and reasonable cooperation with the Monitor.
80

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 32 of 46 PageID #:2105
E. Enjoin the City to create and implement a comprehensive education and training program, subject to review by the Monitor and the Court, that will, inter alia, notify and instruct City supervisors and employees as to the City’s obligations under this Court’s injunctive orders, and notify City employees of how to report violations of this Court’s injunctive orders.
F. Award members of the Employee Class and Applicant Class (on such reasonable terms to be determined following discovery) appropriate damages, including, without limitation, back pay (for lost wages, raises or overtime) or damages for the violations of their constitutional rights and for the violations of the 1972 and 1983 Orders.
G. Enjoin the City to give priority (on such reasonable terms to be determined following discovery), when job openings arise, to members of the Employee Class and Applicant Class who have previously applied for and been denied City Jobs or promotions.
H. Award plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. I. Grant plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Count XI For Count XI, Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie, on behalf of the Plaintiff Class of Voters and Candidates for Public Office (the “Plaintiffs”), incorporate and restate their Application to Hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor in Civil Contempt for Violations of the Court Orders, filed July 26, 2995, which applies to the Court to hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor, Richard M. Daley, in civil contempt for systemic, widespread violations of this Court’s judgments of May 5, 1972, and June 20, 1983, (collectively, the “Court Orders”).
Summary of Relief Sought 1. In recent weeks it has become clear that the City of Chicago and many high-ranking City officials have systematically and knowingly violated long-standing orders of this Court that
81

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 33 of 46 PageID #:2106
forbid political hiring and promotion and coerced political contributions. This Application, which Plaintiffs may supplement as appropriate, seeks relief in three areas:
A. Present and former City officials who knowingly violated this Court’s orders, or who knew of such violations and failed to take action within their power to prevent such violations, should be identified and held in civil contempt. They should be required to pay substantial civil fines to make them and other City personnel aware that compliance with orders of this Court is not optional.
B. The hundreds and perhaps thousands of honest citizens who have applied or been considered for City employment or promotions but who have been deprived by such violations of a fair chance to obtain public employment, or promotions or advancement in positions with the City, should be identified and given priority consideration for an appropriate City job, and their applications should be evaluated under non-political standards.
C. The rights of candidates for public office and their supporters that have been adversely affected by the use of City employment to create political work forces to support favored candidates also warrants relief. The individuals who were hired or advanced in violation of this Court’s orders, and any organizations, formal or informal, for whom they were required to do political work or provide financial contributions, should be identified. Responsible persons who directed coerced political work or financial contributions in violation of this Court’s orders, or who otherwise participated in the City’s violations of this Court’s orders, should be subjected to civil contempt proceedings and appropriately sanctioned.
82

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 34 of 46 PageID #:2107
2. To accomplish the foregoing, the Court should appoint a Special Master pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 from candidates proposed by the Plaintiffs. The Special Master should be authorized and directed to investigate the matters referred to in this Application and to identify the perpetrators and victims of the City’s illegal activities. The Special Master should have all the powers of the Court to obtain documents and testimony and to conduct hearings for the purposes authorized. The Special Master should from time to time as appropriate report to the Court concerning (a) individuals who should be subject to civil contempt proceedings and the grounds therefore, (b) applicants for employment and employees eligible for advancement who were discriminated against by the City’s illegal practices and methods to afford those individuals fair opportunities to be considered for the next available appropriate City position, ©) the identity of organizations and individuals who benefitted from the City’s violations of this Court’s orders, and individuals who should be subject to civil contempt proceedings as a result thereof.1
3. Plaintiffs’ counsel should be authorized and directed to review all proposals for modifications to the City’s existing hiring practices and procedures and to recommend appropriate modifications or alternative methods or protections to prevent a repetition of the violations described herein.
1 This Court is authorized to appoint a special master in these circumstances. See CHA v. Austin, 511 F.2d 82 at 83 (7th Cir. 1975)(authorizing special master to study and report on how enforcement of prior judgments of the court could be facilitated, and formulating a plan to implement prior judgments); Williams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 884 (7th Cir. 1988)(authorizing special master where defendants have “demonstrated a ‘continued and deliberate inattention to plaintiffs’ constitutional rights’ . . .” and where “non-compliance with the previous district court order was emphasized.”)
83

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 35 of 46 PageID #:2108
4. The Special Master should be authorized to retain counsel and investigators, whose fees and costs, as well as those of the Special Master and those of the Plaintiffs’ counsel in developing the above recommendations, should be paid by the City on a monthly basis.
5. The Special Master should consult with the Plaintiffs’ counsel and City personnel, advise the office of the United States Attorney of the Special Master’s activities, and when appropriate conduct public hearings. From time to time as appropriate the Special Master should issue interim reports. The City should be directed to fully cooperate with the Special Master.
6. The Special Master should be authorized to exercise all powers provided in Rule 53 with respect to matters referred to the Special Master. The Plaintiffs should be authorized to take discovery on an accelerated basis commencing immediately and continuing from time to time. Defendants should be directed to comply with accelerated discovery requests.
Nature of the Application 7. The City has engaged in systematic, widespread violations of the Court Orders by: (1) conditioning, basing, or knowingly prejudicing or affecting the hiring of any person as a governmental employee because of political reasons and factors; (2) conditioning, basing, or knowingly prejudicing or affecting terms and aspects of governmental employment of employees because of political reasons and factors; (3) causing or permitting employees to do partisan political work during the regular working hours of his or her governmental employment; and (4) coercing political payments. 8. Plaintiffs petition this Court to enforce its judgments of May 5, 1972 and June 20, 1983, by holding the City in contempt of court. The judgments entered by this Court prohibit the City from coercing political payments, requiring city employees to engage in political activity during normal working hours, rewarding or promoting employees based upon political work, or
84

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 36 of 46 PageID #:2109
hiring employees based upon political factors. The City has regularly and systematically violated the Court Orders by engaging in all of these activities.
9. Based on the City’s extensive and continued violations of the Court Orders, this Court should hold the City in contempt and impose additional obligations upon the City both as a remedy for the City’s past violations and to ensure future compliance with the Court Orders. The City’s course of behavior makes it evident that this Court must impose additional obligations upon the City to force the City to comply with its judgments.
10. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because it involves the enforcement of the Court Orders entered by this Court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
11. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391 because this Application is brought in the judicial district where the Defendants reside and violations of the Court Orders occurred.
Statement of Facts Applicable to Count XI 12. On October 17, 1969, Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie brought a lawsuit against the City alleging that the City had engaged in unconstitutional patronage practices in its methods of hiring and firing employees. 13. On May 5, 1972, the City entered into a consent judgment with the Plaintiffs which prohibits “coerced political financial contributions by any governmental employee, contractor or supplier, to any individual or organization . . . .” Shakman consent judgment entered May 5, 1972, ¶ D (the “1972 Court Order,” located at Appendix “A.”).2
2 A separate Appendix containing the documents cited and incorporated herein was filed concurrently with this Contempt Application in July 2005.
85

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 37 of 46 PageID #:2110
14. The 1972 Court Order also prohibits the City from: (1) conditioning, basing, or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect
of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor;
(2) knowingly causing or permitting any employee to do any partisan political work during the regular working hours of his or her governmental employment, or during time paid for by public funds. 1972 Court Order, ¶ E. 15. In 1983, the City entered into a second consent judgment in the Shakman litigation. This consent judgment (the “1983 Court Order,” located at Appendix “B”) extended the 1972 Court Order to include a prohibition against hiring based on political factors. 1983 Court Order, ¶ E. 16. Specifically, the 1983 Court Order enjoins the City from:
(1) conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting the hiring of any person as a Governmental Employee (other than for Exempt Positions), upon or because of any political reason or factor including, without limitation, any prospective employee’s political affiliation, political support or activity, political financial contributions, promises of such political support, activity or financial contributions, or such prospective employee’s political sponsorship or recommendation. Id. 17. As part of the 1983 Court Order, the City was required to submit a Plan of Compliance outlining the steps the City would take in hiring and promoting employees to ensure compliance with the Court Orders. The Plan of Compliance applies “to all hiring decisions concerning individuals who currently are not employed by the City as well as to transfer, demotion, promotion, and reclassification decisions involving current City employees.” Plan of Compliance, I-1 (located at Appendix “C”). 18. The City has an affirmative obligation to ensure that its employees comply with the Court Orders. When an employee of the City violates the Court Orders, the City is deemed to have violated the Court Orders. Wzorek v. City of Chicago, 906 F.2d 1180, 1183 (7th Cir. 1990)
86

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 38 of 46 PageID #:2111
(rejecting City’s argument that it should not be held in civil contempt when its “lower level supervisors” violate the 1972 Court Order).
19. Recently it has been discovered the City has routinely committed widespread, systematic violations of the Court Orders. These are described in paragraphs below and in Count X above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Holding the City in Contempt and Imposing Relief Is Necessary to Remedy Past Violations and to Ensure Compliance with the Court Orders 20. This Court’s ability to impose sanctions to punish disobedience of judicial orders is essential to ensure the judiciary’s ability to uphold its judgments. This Court has broad discretion to fashion a remedy specific to the nature of the harm resulting from disobeying a court order and to take into consideration the effects of alternative remedies. 21. Civil sanctions for contempt are designed to compel or coerce obedience to a court order and to compensate the parties for losses resulting from the contemnors’ non-compliance with a court order. 22. The Court Orders have for years set forth clear, unequivocal and well-known commands which the City has recently and repeatedly violated. 23. The coercive function of civil contempt is necessary to compel the City's compliance with the Court Orders. Although the two Court Orders have long been in place, the City continues to violate the constitutional rights of candidates, voters, employees, and job applicants on an ongoing and widespread basis. 24. A finding of contempt is necessary to hold the City accountable for its conduct and to send the City and its employees a message that the orders of this Court must be obeyed.
87

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 39 of 46 PageID #:2112
25. The prospective relief requested is necessary to ensure compliance and to protect the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff class members, as well as the rights of City employees and job applicants.
26. The actions described herein include repeated violations of Court Orders by City department heads and commissioners who report directly to Richard M. Daley, as Mayor of the City of Chicago. Richard M. Daley is a “hands-on” administrator who takes an active role in the activities pursued by subordinates. As the Mayor of the City of Chicago, Richard M. Daley has the responsibility for monitoring the activities of his department heads, commissioners and other ranking City officials. More importantly, he has the responsibility for setting the ethical standards and establishing a culture of compliance with the law for the entire City workforce. Because of the aforementioned extensive, continuing and deliberate violations of the Court Orders we are also seeking sanctions against the Mayor for civil contempt.
Count XI-A Violations of the 1972 Court Order Involving Coerced Political Contributions
27. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 26 as if set forth here in full. 28. On February 24, 2005, the United States of America brought an indictment against a number of high ranking City employees including, Gerald Wesolowski, Roger McMahon, and Flenory Barnes, for criminal activity arising out of the City’s Hired Truck Program. See Superseding Indictment (located at Appendix “D”). 29. A number of defendants in those criminal cases have pleaded guilty to their roles in the Hired Truck Program. See Wesolowski Plea Agreement, McMahon Plea Agreement and Barnes Plea Agreement located at Appendix “E”, Appendix “F”, and Appendix “G”.
88

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 40 of 46 PageID #:2113
30. The allegations in the Superseding Indictment and the admissions in the Plea Agreements are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein.
31. The statements contained in the Plea Agreements are substantiated in whole or in part by several other guilty pleas by other defendants named in the Superseding Indictment. See Joseph Ignoffo Plea Agreement (located at Appendix “H”); Commelie Peters Plea Agreement (located at Appendix “I”); Leroy S. Peters Plea Agreement (located at Appendix “J”); Charles Romano Plea Agreement (located at Appendix “K”); Debra Coveliers Plea Agreement (located at Appendix “L”). The admissions in these Plea Agreements are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein.
32. The United States Attorney’s criminal investigation of the Hired Truck Program and the resulting indictments and guilty pleas allege that the City has regularly and systematically coerced political financial contributions, through threats of economic harm, in violation of the 1972 Court Order, ¶ D.
33. The City’s Hired Truck Program provided certain City operating departments with a mechanism to use privately provided trucking services on an as-needed basis to assist in the delivery of City services. Participating trucking companies were hired by the City and provided equipment and operators to the respective City operating departments to perform specific tasks. The principal operating departments using Hired Truck Program services were the Department of Water, the Department of Streets and Sanitation, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Sewers.
34. City employees routinely demanded payment of money in the form of political contributions from persons seeking contracts and trucking assignments through the Hired Truck Program. This process was used to raise campaign funds from the participating companies.
89

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 41 of 46 PageID #:2114
35. The City’s conduct as alleged in the Superseding Indictment constitutes widespread, systematic violations of the Court Orders by high level City employees, and would establish that the City must be subjected to contempt sanctions.
36. The City has knowing and willfully violated the requirements of the Court Orders. 37. These facts further allege a culture of disobeying federal court orders within the City and, therefore, would demonstrate the necessity for contempt sanctions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants, as follows: a. Find the City and its Mayor in civil contempt for their repeated violations of the
1972 Court Order. b. Appoint a Special Master from candidates proposed by the Plaintiffs to investigate
the matters referred to in this Application, identify the perpetrators, beneficiaries and victims of the City’s illegal activities, and to report to the Court the Special Master’s findings and recommendations. The Special Master should be given all powers provided by Rule 53 with respect to the matters referred to the Special Master. c. Authorize the Plaintiffs to monitor and ensure the continuing enforcement of the Court Orders and the Plan of Compliance and to present matters through counsel of their choice in connection with carrying out the Court Orders and Plan of Compliance. d. Impose a fine for the purposes permitted by the law of civil contempt upon any person found to be in contempt. e. Award the Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this action.
Count XI-B Violations of the Court Orders in the City’s Employment Practices 38. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 26 as if set forth here in full.
90

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 42 of 46 PageID #:2115
39. The investigation of the United States Attorney’s office has also revealed violations of the Court Orders’ prohibitions against conditioning any aspect of employment with the City on political factors or considerations.
40. In addition to the Superseding Indictment and Plea Agreements identified above, on July 17, 2005, the United States of America filed criminal complaints against Robert Sorich and Patrick Slattery, both high ranking City employees, alleging criminal activity in connection with the City’s hiring procedures. Copies of these criminal complaints are located at Appendix “M” and Appendix “N” and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
41. The facts in the Superseding Indictment, Plea Agreements, and the Sorich and Slattery criminal complaints allege that since 1993 and continuing:
! The City has regularly and systematically hired employees based upon political factors, in violation of the 1983 Court Order.
! The City has regularly and systematically promoted employees based upon political factors, in violation of the 1972 Court Order.
! The City has regularly and systematically rewarded City employees with raises and overtime pay based on political factors in violation of the 1972 Court Order.
42. The Sorich and Slattery complaints and the admissions by high-ranking City officials described therein, allege that City employees engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to commit and hide violations of the Court Orders by acts of fraud and deception. City employees routinely manipulated the interview and selection process for certain City employment positions by conducting sham interviews, falsely inflating interview scores, and otherwise guaranteeing that certain pre-selected candidates who were favored by top City officials would win the employment positions, often to the exclusion of equally or more qualified candidates. This pre-selected status was granted by City
91

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 43 of 46 PageID #:2116
officials at times because of the prospective employee’s association with particular political organizations or contributions of labor to certain political organizations or candidates.
43. City employees routinely and consistently manipulated and falsified the ostensibly merit-based ratings given to prospective employees in order to improperly influence the hiring and promotions for Shakman-covered positions.
44. These facts allege recent widespread, systematic violations of the Court Orders by high level City employees justifying the imposition of contempt sanctions against the City.
45. The Superseding Indictment and Plea Agreements allege that City employees participated in political work on behalf of candidates the selection of which was determined by City officials. City officials notified high ranking City employees as to the particular field work each employee’s organization was to conduct. The City employees then held meetings of other City employees in their department during the business day to notify them of the particular political campaigns they would be supporting and to discuss the intended work plan for carrying out the political activities.
46. Following these meetings, the City employees in attendance contacted additional employees to provide them with their field assignments for the upcoming election cycle. These employees in turn contact additional employees to obtain “volunteers” for the field activities.
47. During the field activities, sign up lists were maintained and the political work performed by City employees was tracked. City officials and employees met after each election cycle to review the individual political performances of City employees. The purpose of these meetings was to provide specific information to high ranking City employees in order to obtain work-related benefits for the City employees who had performed political work. City employees were given raises, promotions and overtime as a reward for their political work.
92

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 44 of 46 PageID #:2117

48. The City has knowing and willfully violated the requirements of the Court Orders.

49. These facts further allege a culture of disobeying Federal Court orders within the City

of Chicago and would demonstrate the necessity for contempt sanctions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their

favor and against Defendants, as follows:

a. Find the City and its Mayor in civil contempt for their repeated violations of the 1972 Court Order.

b. Appoint a Special Master from candidates proposed by the Plaintiffs to investigate the matters referred to in this Application, identify the perpetrators, beneficiaries and victims of the City’s illegal activities, and to report to the Court the Special Master’s findings and recommendations. The Special Master should be given all powers provided by Rule 53 with respect to the matters referred to the Special Master.

c. Authorize the Plaintiffs to monitor and ensure the continuing enforcement of the Court Orders and the Plan of Compliance and to present matters through counsel of their choice in connection with carrying out the Court Orders and Plan of Compliance.

d. Impose a fine for the purposes permitted by the law of civil contempt upon any person found to be in contempt.

e. Award the Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this action.

Dated: January 11, 2006

Respectfully Submitted, Michael L. Shakman, et al.

Michael L. Shakman Edward W. Feldman Frederick E. Vars Roger J. Perlstadt MILLER SHAKMAN & HAMILTON LLP 180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-263-3700

s/Edward W. Feldman One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs
93

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 45 of 46 PageID #:2118 Roger R. Fross Brian I. Hays LORD BISSELL & BROOK 115 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, Il. 60603 312-443-0345
94

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 376-2 Filed: 01/11/06 Page 46 of 46 PageID #:2119
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on January 11, 2006 he served a copy of the foregoing Second Amended Complaint on the parties of record pursuant to ECF as to Filing Users and in accordance with LR 5.5 as to any party who is not a Filing User or represented by a Filing User. Dated: January 11, 2006
/s/ Edward W. Feldman

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN and PAUL M. LURIE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) No. 69 C 2145 ) ) Wayne R. Andersen ) District Judge ) )

MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the Court on the motion of Patrick Burke to intervene in this matter pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. For the following reasons, the motion to intervene is denied.
BACKGROUND In January 2006, following a thirty-seven year history of this litigation, named Plaintiffs Michael Shakman and Paul Lurie filed their Second Amended Complaint in this case. The Second Amended Complaint includes express class action allegations covering City of Chicago employees, applicants and candidates. Comprehensive and complex settlement negotiations began in earnest in the Shakman case in January 2006. Three months later, on April 25, 2006, Patrick Burke filed a Complaint in this Court in the action of Burke, et al v. City of Chicago 06 C 2295. Burke brought his action individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated for alleged unfair hiring and promotional practices on the part of the City of Chicago during the period from 1997-2005. On August 10, 2006, Burke filed an Amended Complaint seeking a finding in his case that the City violated the Shakman Decree. On October 19, 2006, Burked moved to certify his case as a class action.

On March 22, 2007, Burke filed his motion to intervene in this case. Burke claims that he should be allowed to intervene in the Shakman case because Plaintiffs in that case have not filed a motion to certify the class. He believes that the Shakman Plaintiffs are seeking to represent the same class of persons he has already sought to certify as a class and represent. Burke seeks to intervene in this matter under the doctrine of permissive intervention pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. The Shakman Plaintiffs object to the intervention on two primary grounds. First, they argue that the motion to intervene is not timely. Second, the Shakman Plaintiffs argue that the motion to intervene should be denied for equitable reasons.
DISCUSSION Under the doctrine of permissive intervention, intervention may be allowed on a timely application “when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of fact in common.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. Permissive intervention under Rule 24 is wholly discretionary. Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2000). The Seventh Circuit considers the following factors to determine whether a motion to intervene should be allowed: (1) the length of time the intervenor knew or should have known of his interest in the case; (2) the prejudice caused to the original parties by the delay; (3) the prejudice to the intervenor if the motion is denied; and (4) any other unusual circumstances. Id. We will address each of these considerations in turn. The first factor considers the timeliness of the motion to intervene. The purpose of the timeliness requirement “is to prevent a tardy intervenor from derailing a lawsuit within sight of the terminal. As soon as a prospective intervenor knows or has reason to know that his interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation he must move promptly to
2

intervene." Sokaogon Chippewa Community, 214 F.3d at 949 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In this case, the circumstances preclude a finding of timeliness. First, Burke knew or should have known of his interest in this case at least a year before filing his motion to intervene. The Second Amended Complaint in this action was filed in January 2006. That Complaint included express class allegations covering City employees and applicants. Three months later, on April 25, 2006, Burke filed political discrimination claims against the City. On August 10, 2006, Burke filed an amended complaint seeking, inter alia, a finding that the City violated the "Shakman Decree." Amended Compl. Para. 3. There is no question that Burke was aware of the present action, even if we ignore the first thirty-seven years of this case. Burke knew or should have known that his rights were implicated by the present action no later than April 2006, yet he did not seek to intervene in this lawsuit until March 22, 2007. For these reasons, analysis of the first factor weighs against a finding of timeliness because Burke's motion to intervene comes much too late.
The second factor examines the prejudice caused to the original parties by the delay. In this case, the original parties would be severely prejudiced if Burke is allowed to intervene. The original parties litigated this case and negotiated a settlement based on the premise that all the stakeholders were represented. Those litigation and negotiation efforts would be prejudiced by the addition of a new party who seeks to substitute himself as class representative at this late date. After months of difficult negotiations, the parties in this case have reached a settlement that this Court has preliminarily approved. Therefore, allowing intervention now would seriously risk derailing this case on the eve of final settlement approval, and the original parties
3

would be greatly prejudiced by allowing Burke to step in at the eleventh hour. Third, Burke will not be prejudiced if intervention is denied. He will remain free, if he
chooses, to object to the settlement agreement and to opt-out and pursue his individual lawsuit should the settlement be approved. It is unclear whether Burke has any real objection to the pending settlement. His motion is conclusory and relies solely on the incorrect factual premise that he asserted class allegations before the Shakman plaintiffs did. But if Burke actually does disagree with the views of the settling parties, that dissent can be dealt with in the same ways that dissent in any large class is usually accommodated. Among these are permitting active participation as amicus and at hearings. See, e.g, Jenkins v. State of Missouri, 78 F.3d 1270, 1275 (8th Cir. 1996) (group of class members were properly denied intervention; district court made other avenues available, through class counsel, the filing of amicus briefs, and by requesting permission to testify at hearings); Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 575-76 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (group of class members properly denied intervention, having set up procedure for such members to communicate regularly with class counsel); see also Gautreaux v. Pierce, 690 F.2d 616, 635 (7th Cir. 1982) (district court properly denied intervention to community group, particularly when it was permitted to present evidence at fairness hearing). In this case, Burke is free to submit any objection or comments he wishes to the pending settlement. Especially in light of these alternative avenues for Burke to voice his dissent, if in fact he has any substantive dissent, there is no prejudice to him from denying intervention.
The fourth and final permissive intervention factor allows the Court to consider “any other unusual circumstances.” The long and tortuous history of this thirty-seven year litigation and the number of individuals affected certainly qualifies as an “unusual circumstance” which
4

lends against allowing late permissive intervention. See Aleut Corp. v. Tyonek Native Corp., 725 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1984). While Burke's motion is conclusory, it seems to rest on the unstated premise that, because he filed a class certification motion first, he and his counsel would better serve as class representative and counsel than the current representatives and counsel. Burke offers no basis for such a conclusion, and given the fact that the Shakman Plaintiffs and counsel have given thirty-seven years of service and experience in this case, we believe that the substitution Burke seeks would be inappropriate.
In sum, we conclude that Burke’s intervention on the eve of settlement, after this Court has preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and Accord and following thirty-seven years of litigation, is not timely and that to permit it would severely prejudice the rights of the original parties. Therefore, we deny Burke’s motion to intervene.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny the motion of Patrick Burke to intervene in this case. (# 593). It is so ordered.

Dated: May 18, 2007

___________________________________ Wayne R. Andersen
United States District Court

5

 
  
 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 1 of 44 PageID #:61051

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN, and PAUL M. LURIE, et. al.
Plaintiffs, v.
CLERK OF COOK COUNTY, et. al., Defendants.

) ) ) No. 69 C 2145 ) ) ) ) Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 5, 1972, a number of governmental entities in Illinois, including the Clerk of Cook County (“the County Clerk”), entered into a consent decree (“1972 Consent Decree”) barring them from “conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of government employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor” (1972 Consent Decree at 3). Nineteen years later, on November 1, 1991, the County Clerk entered into a separate consent judgment (“1991 Consent Judgment”) that barred it from “conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting the hiring of any person as a Governmental Employee (other than Exempt Positions), upon or because of any political reason or factor . . .” (1991 Consent Judgment at 4). For nearly 28 years thereafter, the 1972 Consent Decree and the 1991 Consent Judgment (collectively, sometimes referred to as “the Consent Orders”) have remained in effect without either challenges by plaintiffs to the County Clerk’s compliance with those court orders, or efforts by the County Clerk to terminate those orders.

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 2 of 44 PageID #:61052
That long period of quiescence came to an end on September 6, 2019, when plaintiffs filed a motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6486: Pls.’ Mot. Suppl. Relief). In that motion, plaintiffs assert that the County Clerk has violated the 1972 Consent Decree and the 1991 Consent Judgment in various ways, and seek appointment of a special master to perform certain tasks in order to bring the County Clerk into compliance with the Consent Orders. For her part, the County Clerk filed a response denying any violations of the Consent Orders (doc. # 6588: County Clerk’s Resp.). In addition, perhaps mindful of the saying that “the best defense is a good offense,” the County Clerk argues that the Court should not even consider the question of whether she violated the Consent Orders on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing to bring the motion and that the motion presents non-justiciable questions that the Court is powerless to address (County Clerk’s Resp. at 4-8). The County Clerk argues in the alternative that even if the plaintiffs have standing and the claims they present are justiciable, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) the Court should vacate the Consent Orders due to changes in the law and the factual landscape since their entry decades ago (Id. at 17-20).
The motion has been fully briefed (doc # 6669: Pls.’ Reply; doc. # 6760: County Clerk’s Sur-Reply). In addition, because the briefing disclosed factual disputes, we permitted the parties to engage in limited discovery and convened an evidentiary hearing that took place on March 3, March 10 and March 16, 2020. We received testimony from nine witnesses in court or through depositions, and accepted into evidence 118 exhibits. We also received closing arguments in writing from the parties (doc. # 6801: County Clerk’s Submission; doc. # 6803: Pls.’ Submission).
For the reasons that follow, we grant in part the plaintiffs’ motion. We find that plaintiffs have standing to present the claims they assert in the motion and that those claims are justiciable. While we do not find the level of violations of the Consent Orders asserted by plaintiffs, we agree
2

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 3 of 44 PageID #:61053
that the County Clerk has violated certain aspects of the Consent Orders and that the evidence raises concerns about the County Clerk’s compliance with other aspects of those orders. In light of those findings we cannot agree that the time has come for the Consent Orders to be vacated as to the County Clerk under Rule 60(b)(5). To the contrary, we agree with plaintiffs that the violations and concerns disclosed by the evidence warrant the appointment of a special master, not only to better ensure compliance with the Consent Orders but — just as importantly — to lay the groundwork for the day when those orders should indeed be vacated as to the County Clerk.
In Part I of this opinion, we explain why plaintiffs have standing to present the claims raised by their motion and why those claims are justiciable. In Part II, we explain our findings that the County Clerk has violated the 1991 Consent Judgment in her use of the exempt list and in hiring employees without the required public posting of job openings, as well as our concern that the ill-fated rotation policy for supervisors in the Vital Records Offices and the evidence of political solicitations suggest the improper use of political considerations in connection with existing employees that is barred by the 1972 Consent Decree. In Part III, we explain why terminating the Consent Orders is not warranted at this time under Rule 60(b)(5). In Part IV, we explain the reasons for our appointment of a special master and the scope of the work we authorize her to perform.
I. The County Clerk challenges the standing of plaintiffs to enforce the Consent Orders, and further argues that the claims plaintiffs raise under the Consent Orders are not justiciable. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree.
3

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 4 of 44 PageID #:61054
A. According to the County Clerk, plaintiffs lack standing to seek relief under the Consent Orders because any injuries that voters and candidates allege cannot be fairly traced to the actions of the County Clerk, and because IVI-IPO—a named plaintiff—is not even a party to the orders it seeks to enforce (County Clerk’s Resp. at 4-6; County Clerk’s Sur-Reply at 1-10; County Clerk’s Submission at 10-11). In response, plaintiffs stress, at the threshold, that not only has the Seventh Circuit affirmed voters’ and candidates’ standing in this case, but it also has made clear that a defendant cannot raise a standing challenge—as the County Clerk does here—after entry of a consent judgment, as if the case were being litigated for the first time (Pls.’ Reply at 1-12; doc. Pls.’ Submission at 13-18). Instead, plaintiffs say, the County Clerk must meet the equitable standards for modifying or vacating a consent decree under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which they contend the Clerk has not done (Pls.’ Reply at 4-5). In any event, plaintiffs argue, not only do voters and candidates have standing to seek enforcement of the Consent Orders, but so too does IVI-IPO, both in its own right and on behalf of its members (Id.). “Article III of the Constitution limits the exercise of the judicial power to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc., -- U.S. --, 137 S.Ct. 1645, 1650 (2017). “Standing to sue is a doctrine rooted in the traditional understanding of case or controversy.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, -- U.S. --, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). The “‘irreducible constitutional minimum’ of standing consists of three elements . . . : The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1547 (2016) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). When there are
4

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 5 of 44 PageID #:61055
multiple plaintiffs, “[a]t least one plaintiff must have standing to seek each form of relief requested in the complaint.” Town of Chester, 137 S.Ct. at 1651.
“Standing is evaluated at the time suit is filed.” Milwaukee Police Assn v. Bd. of Fire & Police Comm’rs of City of Milwaukee, 708 F.3d 921, 928 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000)). “In contrast, when a party with standing at the inception of the litigation loses it due to intervening events, the inquiry is really one of mootness.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
To explain why we conclude that plaintiffs have standing, we begin with a brief review of the pertinent history of this 50-year-old case.
1. In Shakman v. The Democratic Org. of Cook Cty, 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1970) (“Shakman I”), the Seventh Circuit found that voters’ and candidates’ interest in (or right to) an equal chance and equal voice was entitled to constitutional protection, and was allegedly impaired by the misuse of official power over public employees to create the substantial patronage force that plaintiffs complained of. Id. at 268. The Seventh Circuit found that voters and candidates had standing for their claims, and that these claims were justiciable because the right asserted was judicially identified and its breach could be judicially determined. Id. at 270. The case was remanded to the district court, where the 1972 Consent Decree was ultimately reached, prohibiting defendants— including the County Clerk—from “conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor” (doc. # 6486-1, Pls.’ Mot. Suppl, Relief, Ex. A., 1972 Consent Decree). The 1972 Consent Decree left open the issue of whether political considerations could be used in hiring new employees.
5

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 6 of 44 PageID #:61056
The parties continued to litigate the hiring claim, and the district court ultimately granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on it, finding that patronage hiring practices infringed upon voters’ and candidates’ rights by giving the incumbent an unfair advantage. Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cty., 481 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Ill. 1979). The plaintiffs and certain defendants then reached a consent decree on hiring (“the 1983 Decree”), while certain other defendants—including the County Clerk—appealed the summary judgment ruling.
In Shakman v. Dunne, 829 F.2d 1387, 1399 (7th Cir. 1987) (“Shakman II”), the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court, and found that voters and candidates did not have standing to challenge governmental hiring practices. In reaching its decision, the Seventh Circuit emphasized, among other things, the significant developments in the law of standing that had occurred after entry of the 1972 Consent Decree. Id. at 1392-93. The Seventh Circuit noted that reconsideration of the decision in Shakman I that voters and candidates had standing to pursue all the claims raised in the complaint would typically be foreclosed by the doctrine of the law of the case. However, the Seventh Circuit found it appropriate to revisit that issue with respect to the hiring claims presented in the appeal, and concluded that the connection between the complained of patronage hiring practices and a dilution of the voters’ political voice was too attenuated to meet the requirements for standing. Id at 1397. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that because any candidate could promise to discriminate against applicants on the basis of political considerations just like incumbents, any injury to voters from the defendants’ patronage practices was too speculative to be fairly traceable to the defendants’ actions. Id. at 1397.
The Seventh Circuit was careful to note the limits of its decision, explaining that the appeal raised “only the constitutionality of politically-motivated hiring practices without any reference to the other patronage-based employment practices—including the discharge scheme now forbidden
6

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 7 of 44 PageID #:61057
by the [1972] consent decree.” Id. at 1393 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original). As a result, the Seventh Circuit stated that its ruling did “not address the substantially different question of whether the plaintiffs would have standing to attack the constitutionality of coerced political work demanded of those already employed by the government as a condition of continued employment.” Id. at 1399 (emphasis in original).
Several years later, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990), in which it held that the First Amendment’s proscription against patronage dismissals similarly applied to promotion, transfer, recall, or hiring decisions involving public employment positions for which party affiliation is not an appropriate requirement. 497 U.S. at 68. In the wake of Rutan, IVI-IPO joined this lawsuit to represent its members’ interests as public employees and applicants as well as its own interest, and to address any standing issues on plaintiffs’ hiring claim that had been created by the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Shakman II (doc. # 6803-1, Pls.’ Submission, Ex. A, Pls.’ Mot. to Leave to Suppl.).1 And, the County Clerk entered into a separate consent judgment—the 1991 Consent Judgment— which barred it from using political considerations in hiring employees into positions for which party affiliation is not an appropriate requirement (“non-exempt positions”).
The Seventh Circuit addressed issues in this litigation for the third time in 2005, when the City of Chicago challenged the standing of two police officers who had sought enforcement of the 1983 Decree. O’Sullivan v. City of Chi., 396 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Shakman III”). The district court had granted the City’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed. In so doing, the Seventh Circuit rejected the City’s attempt to assert a lack of standing at that juncture, as if the question were being raised for the first time, when that question had already
1 We cite to this docket entry and certain other re-submitted filings (as opposed to their original docket entries) for the convenience of the parties since the older docket entries are not electronically available.
7

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 8 of 44 PageID #:61058
been litigated fully and resolved against the City (which had not appealed the 1979 summary judgment ruling, but instead had entered into the 1983 Decree). As the Seventh Circuit explained: “After a case has become final by exhaustion of all appellate remedies, only an egregious want of jurisdiction will allow the judgment to be undone by someone who, having participated in the case, cannot complain that his rights were infringed without his knowledge.” Id. at 859 (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, the appeals court remanded the case to the district court to consider the issue of standing, but only in the context of an equitable analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Id. at 868. The Seventh Circuit reiterated this reasoning several months later in a decision remanding to the district court for consideration under Rule 60(b) the City’s motion to vacate the 1983 Decree. Shakman v. City of Chi., 426 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Shakman IV”).
These decisions make clear to us that the County Clerk’s standing objections must be considered in light of the procedural posture of the case. As with the plaintiffs in Shakman III, plaintiffs here move for relief under a previously entered consent decree. “Once entered, a consent decree may be enforced.” Shakman III, 396 F.3d at 867 (quoting Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 440 (2004)). “[C]ontinuing respect for the valid decrees of a court commands that they be obeyed until changed.” Id. at 865 (citations omitted). Thus, although we consider the County Clerk’s objection to Plaintiffs’ standing, we do so cognizant that it is not a basis for disregard of the existing Consent Orders and that it is but one component of the County Clerk’s request to vacate the decrees (which is discussed more fully in Part III below).
2. We begin with the County Clerk’s argument that IVI-IPO not only lacks standing, but that it is not even a party to the decrees under which plaintiffs seek relief (County Clerk’s Sur-Reply
8

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 9 of 44 PageID #:61059
at 2-3). IVI-IPO cannot be a party to the Consent Orders, the County Clerk says, because it was not added as a party to this action until years after entry of the 1972 Consent Decree and several months after entry of the 1991 Consent Judgment (Id.). Further, the County Clerk argues, the language of the 1991 Consent Judgment makes clear that it was only intended to be between the voters and candidates class and the County Clerk (See Id.).
Plaintiffs view the record differently, arguing that IVI-IPO has standing to assert claims under the Consent Orders. In particular, they point out that their motion to add IVI-IPO as a plaintiff was pending for a year before the 1991 Consent Judgment was entered, and that their motion was specifically held in abeyance while the parties negotiated their settlement without any objection by the Clerk (Pls.’ Submission at 14-15). Once the terms of their agreement had been finalized, plaintiffs say, they renewed their motion to add IVI-IPO which was granted shortly thereafter (See Id.). According to plaintiffs, the County Clerk thus knew at the time that the 1991 Consent Judgment was entered that the motion to add IVI-IPO had been renewed as part of the settlement, agreed to its entry, and took steps to comply with that agreement for years without objection. The County Clerk points to no evidence to dispute these assertions. It was not until plaintiffs brought the current motion for supplemental relief that the County Clerk raised an attack on plaintiffs’ standing (Pls.’ Submission at 15).
At the threshold, we note that the sense of the County Clerk’s argument is that it entered into the 1991 Consent Judgement knowing that no plaintiff had standing to enforce that judgment (since voters and candidates lacked standing to pursue hiring claims under Shakman II and the County Clerk says IVI-IPO could not do so). We seriously doubt that the County Clerk would have entered into such a consent judgment. And, to the contrary, we find that IVI-IPO is a party with standing to seek relief under the Consent Orders.
9

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 10 of 44 PageID #:61060
The 1972 Consent Decree enabled “parties to this Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for such further orders and directions” (1972 Consent Decree). The 1991 Consent Judgment, in turn, was entered into by all plaintiffs, identified as: “Plaintiffs Michael L. Shakman, et al.,” both to “carry out and implement the [1972] Consent Judgment, and to settle “all of the plaintiffs’ claims in this case” (Pls.’ Mot. Suppl. Relief, Ex. B., 1991 Consent Judgment at 1-2)—which included, of course, the hiring claims which the 1991 Consent Judgment squarely addressed. The “purpose of the [1991 Consent] Judgement [was] to eliminate the conditioning, basing or affecting of employment within the Cook County Clerk on political reasons or factors” which it sought to do by way of declaratory relief and the issuance of an injunction affecting the hiring of any person as a governmental employee based on a political reason (Id. at 2, 4). At the time the 1991 Consent Judgment was entered, it was a matter of record that plaintiffs intended to add IVI-IPO with the express purpose of addressing any standing issue that had been raised under Shakman II for voters and candidates on their hiring claim (Pls.’ Mot. to Leave to Suppl.). The settlement of that claim was embodied in the 1991 Consent Judgment.
Contrary to the County Clerk’s argument, nothing in the language of the 1991 Consent Judgment excludes IVI-IPO. We are unpersuaded by the County Clerk’s argument that such a limitation should be found in the motion that presented the proposed judgment because it recited it had been brought on behalf of “Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie, individually and on behalf of the classes they represent” (See Pls.’ Mot. Suppl. Relief, Ex. B. at 18, Agreement, Consent & Mot. of Pls. & the Cook County Clerk). Since the Court had not yet granted the motion to add IVI-IPO as plaintiff at that time, it would have been premature for IVI-IPO to have been identified as a party. Regardless, it is the language of the 1991 Consent Judgment, and not its presenting motion, which drives our analysis.
10

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 11 of 44 PageID #:61061
Nor are we convinced by the County Clerk’s argument that because IVI-IPO was incorporated in 2002 and gained its Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) status in 2006, plaintiffs have not established that the IVI-IPO that exists today is the same entity that joined this litigation nearly 30 years ago (County Clerk’s Sur-Reply at 3). Notwithstanding the County Clerk’s argument, no showing to this effect need be made. Under Illinois law, all of the rights and obligations of a previously unincorporated association become the rights and obligations of the new corporation automatically upon its incorporation. 805 ILCS 105/102.35. Further, plaintiffs’ undisputed evidence shows that IVI merged with IPO in 1978, and since then IVI-IPO has operated as a continuing entity with substantially the same structure, constitution and bylaws (Igasaki Dep. at 18:13-18, 30:03-08, 38:14-41:5). The County Clerk’s argument to the contrary fails.
Finally, we observe that even if IVI-IPO were not a party to the 1991 Consent Judgment, that fact would not be determinative with respect to its standing since IVI-IPO also asserts associational standing to pursue the claims of its members. The 1991 Consent Judgment reserved the Court’s jurisdiction for the purpose of enabling applications to enforce its provisions not only by “any party,” but also by “any aggrieved employee, aggrieved former employee or aggrieved applicant for employment with the Clerk’s office” (1991 Consent Judgment at 11-12). We find no merit in the County Clerk’s argument that because IVI-IPO is an entity, it cannot be an “employee” under the decree. One of its members is an employee, and IVI-IPO can assert the interests of its employee member. See, e.g., Milwaukee Police Ass’n, 708 F.3d at 928. Nothing in the 1991 Consent Judgment imposes the kind of limitation on IVI-IPO’s ability to seek its enforcement that the County Clerk suggests.
11

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 12 of 44 PageID #:61062
3. “An association has standing to bring suit on behalf of one of its members when its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181 (2000); accord Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adv. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). “The first two of these requirements derive from Article III, while the third is prudential.” Milwaukee Police Ass’n, 708 F.3d at 928. As alleged in Plaintiffs’ Supplement to the First Amended Complaint, some of IVI-IPO’s members were excluded from being hired for County Clerk’s Office positions, and others who were employees were pressured to pledge political allegiance and to provide financial support to candidates whom they did not support (doc. # 6669-1, Pls.’ Reply, Ex. A, Suppl. to First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 19). Indeed, at least one IVI-IPO member, George Tserotas, testified that he is a current County Clerk employee who was directly affected by one of the County Clerk’s policies of which plaintiffs complain (March 3, 2020 Hrg. Trans. at 99:07-101:13). There is no question that at least one of IVI-IPO’s members therefore has standing to seek the relief that plaintiffs seek. See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 182-183 (organization had standing to challenge defendant’s failure to comply with environmental statute where at least one member alleged his enjoyment of the affected river had been diminished by defendant’s violation); Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 472 F.3d 949, 951 (7th Cir. 2007), aff’d 533 U.S. 181, 189 n.7 (political party had standing to assert challenge to statute on behalf of its members who would be prevented by it from voting). Contrary to the County Clerk’s argument, the interests IVI-IPO seeks to protect are germane not only to its members, but also to its organizational mission. Based on language from
12

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 13 of 44 PageID #:61063
the IVI-IPO’s articles of incorporation, the County Clerk argues that IVI-IPO’s singular mission is to provide information about government and politics, and not to act as an employment rights group (County Clerk Sur-Reply at 5-6). But this mis-frames the issue and sets too high a bar for the determination of what is “germane.” The County Clerk fails to submit authority for its assertion that what is germane is limited to that which is identified in an articles of incorporation, and we are unaware of any.
Although plaintiffs’ enforcement claims may affect IVI-IPO’s members’ employment, they do so based on the right to be free in one’s employment from political discrimination. As plaintiffs observe, fighting unlawful political patronage and protecting the First Amendment rights of individuals to associate with the political parties and organizations of their choice has been a core principle of the IVI-IPO since at least 1971 (Stern Dep. at 13:01-24, 36:21-41:24; Igasaki Dep. 23:11-21, 31:12-33:24). Notwithstanding the County Clerk’s assertions, this is not a situation like in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), where an organization sought to vindicate its value preference through litigation. Here, IVI-IPO alleges injury to its members and itself based on a practice that as an organization it competes against and works to prevent. By any reasonable interpretation, the interests IVI-IPO seeks to vindicate are germane to its mission.
Nor does a conflict exist within the membership of IVI-IPO that would bar a claim of associational standing. The County Clerk argues that because Karen Yarbrough, who currently serves as County Clerk, at one time was a member of IVI-IPO, the claims that IVI-IPO asserts here are internally conflicted and thus cannot be germane to its mission (County Clerk’s Sur-Reply at 6 (citing Southwest Suburban Bd. of Realtors, Inc. v. Beverly Area Planning Assoc., 830 F.2d 1374 (7th Cir. 1987) (group lacked standing to bring associational claims where at least three of its members were also named defendants))). We see at least two problems with this theory. First,
13

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 14 of 44 PageID #:61064
even if the evidence of Ms. Yarbrough’s membership that the County Clerk submits were admissible (which the County Clerk did not even try to establish), that evidence suggests only that Ms. Yarbrough was a member of IVI-IPO in 2014, not that she is a member now (See County Clerk’s Sur-Reply Ex. D). Past membership falls short of establishing current membership. Second, and more importantly, Ms. Yarbrough’s personal membership, vel non, in the organization is irrelevant: the claims raised in the current motion are against the County Clerk’s Office, not Ms. Yarbrough personally. So, even if Ms. Yarbrough were still a member of IVI-IPO, it would not raise a conflict among its members that would bar associational standing. See Ret. Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of Chi., 76 F.3d 856, 863 (7th Cir. 1996); Southwest Suburban Bd. of Realtors, Inc., 830 F.2d at 1381. Unlike the authorities cited by the County Clerk, there is no suggestion here that claims against the County Clerk’s Office pit one of IVI-IPO’s members against the other.
Finally, we see no need for the individual participation of IVI-IPO’s members in obtaining the relief plaintiffs seek. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 515 (1975) (“If in a proper case the association seeks a declaration, injunction, or some other form of prospective relief, it can reasonably be supposed that the remedy, if granted, will inure to the benefit of those members of the association actually injured”); United Food & Comm. Workers Union Loc. 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 554 (1996) (individual participation is not necessary where association seeks prospective relief for its members). Because plaintiffs seek only appointment of a special master and other declaratory and prospective relief, there is no need for individualized proof of damages or other individualized participation. For each of these reasons then, we find that IVI-IPO has associational standing to pursue the claims set forth in the motion.
14

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 15 of 44 PageID #:61065
4. We also find that IVI-IPO possesses standing in its own right. “To bring suit in its own right, an organization must itself satisfy the requirements of standing.” Milwaukee Police Ass’n, 708 F.3d at 926. Just like an individual plaintiff then, the IVI-IPO must allege a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent, fairly traceable to the defendant, and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982); Milwaukee Police Ass’n, 708 F.3d at 926 (citing Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007)). The injury alleged must be to itself as an entity; alleged injuries to its members are insufficient to establish standing of an organization on its own behalf. Milwaukee Police Ass’n, 708 F.3d at 926. In joining this litigation, IVI-IPO alleged that the patronage practices complained of injure IVI-IPO and frustrate its mission by making it more difficult to attract members, reducing the financial contributions and other support it can attract, and reducing its political effectiveness (Suppl. to First Am. Compl. ¶ 18). IVI-IPO further alleged that it depends on volunteer campaign work and financial contributions to advance its political activities, and that it has no patronage jobs to dispense to its supporters (Id. ¶ 13). According to the County Clerk, however, these allegations demonstrate only that IVI-IPO has a “mere interest” in the litigation which is insufficient to confer standing. The County Clerk argues that IVI-IPO cannot allege an injury sufficient for standing both because it is a Section 501(c)(4) organization that is prohibited from participating in partisan politics, and because it fails to show that IVI-IPO’s complained of decline in membership is causally related to the County Clerk’s alleged patronage practices (County Clerk’s Sur-Reply at 7-9). We find these arguments unpersuasive.
15

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 16 of 44 PageID #:61066
Conduct that is alleged to frustrate an organization’s mission and drain its resources constitutes injury sufficient to confer organizational standing. Havens Realty, 455 U.S. at 379 (fair housing organization had standing to challenge discriminatory housing practice that frustrated ability to provide housing counseling and referral services by diverting its resources); Crawford, 472 F.3d at 951 (political party’s diversion of resources resulting from challenged law sufficiently alleged injury in fact). In its 1991 supplement to the first amended complaint, IVI-IPO alleged such impairment through the depletion of its resources, and negative impact on its fundraising and membership efforts as a direct result of the complained of patronage practices. (Suppl. to First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13-16, 18, 20). Economic harm is “the prototypical injury-in-fact.” Milwaukee Police Ass’n, 708 F.3d at 927. While we agree with the County Clerk’s observation that IVI-IPO’s State Chair Stephen Stern acknowledged in deposition testimony in February 2020 that IVI-IPO’s declining membership might be based on factors unrelated to the County Clerk’s actions, his testimony does not defeat IVI-IPO’s allegations that the County Clerk’s patronage practices also have frustrated its organizational goal of eliminating patronage and decreased its political efficacy.
Nor do we find merit in the County Clerk’s assertion that IVI-IPO’s status as a Section 501(c)(4) organization means it cannot claim injury to its political efficacy. An organization need not participate in partisan politics to advance a goal of eliminating the use of partisan politics from employment decisions involving non-exempt positions. Moreover, “Havens makes clear . . . that the only injury which need be shown to confer standing on [an] agency is deflection of the agency’s time and money from counseling to legal efforts directed against discrimination.” Village of Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521, 1526 (7th Cir. 1990) (finding under Havens that nonprofit had standing for civil rights action because time spent investigating discrimination was time deflected from its counseling services). As discussed above, the claims here are not like those
16

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 17 of 44 PageID #:61067
raised in Sierra Club, 405 U.S. at 739, in that IVI-IPO not only has an interest in the subject matter of patronage practices that is the heart of this litigation, but also alleges direct injury as a result of them.
Similarly, IVI-IPO’s injuries are fairly traceable to the County Clerk’s alleged conduct. As IVI-IPO alleged upon entry to this case, it has no patronage jobs to dispense to its supporters and is competitively disadvantaged by politicians and political parties that offer unlawful political patronage jobs to supporters (Suppl. to First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13-16, 18). Moreover, while the measuring stick for IVI-IPO’s standing is at the time of their entry into the case, Milwaukee Police Ass’n, 708 F.3d at 928, IVI-IPO submitted testimony to show that the complained of conduct continues to cause it to expend some time and resources fighting against the County Clerk’s alleged patronage practices instead of engaging in other educational activities (Stern Dep. at 28:16-35:04). That the County Clerk’s alleged conduct causes IVI-IPO to devote resources which otherwise would be available for other organizational purposes is enough for purposes of standing. Havens Realty, 455 U.S. at 379; Village of Bellwood, 895 F.2d at 1526.
Finally, the relief IVI-IPO requests will address and seek to remedy the harm that it alleges. An order requiring the County Clerk’s Office to comply with its obligations under the Consent Orders would address the alleged patronage practices of the County Clerk and would remove a barrier to IVI-IPO’s ability to further its mission as well as to raise and utilize money towards its organizational goals. For these reasons, IVI-IPO has standing in its own right to pursue the current claims here.
17

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 18 of 44 PageID #:61068
5. We now consider the claim by the County Clerk that plaintiffs as voters and candidates lack standing to pursue claims under the 1972 Consent Decree. For the reasons that follow, we reject that claim. The 1972 Consent Decree was negotiated and entered into based on the claims of the voters and candidates, after the Seventh Circuit specifically affirmed their standing in Shakman I, 435 F.2d at 270, ruling that the patronage system harmed voters and candidates by forcing them to expend resources to counter patronage tactics. Id. As the Court explained: The interests of candidates in official treatment free from intentional or purposeful discrimination are entitled to constitutional protection. Where discrimination is sufficiently shown, the right to equal protection under the equal protection clause is not diminished by the fact that the discrimination relates to political rights. Id. (citation omitted). Contrary to the County Clerk’s argument, the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Shakman II, 829 F.3d 1387, did not question this reasoning. The Seventh Circuit explained that its focus in Shakman II was limited to the specific issue of whether voters and candidates lacked standing to challenge governmental hiring policies; as a result, the decision in Shakman II that voters and candidates lacked standing on the hiring claim “did not apply to the substantially different question of whether the plaintiffs would have standing to attack the constitutionality of the coerced political work demanded of those already employed by the government as a condition of continued employment.” Shakman II, 829 F.2d at 1398-99 (emphasis in original). As the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed in a later decision, Shakman II “did not encompass all voter challenges of any patronage practices; it was limited to ‘plaintiff’s standing to attack the constitutionality of the defendants’ hiring practices.’” Shakman III, 396 F.3d at 850 (quoting Shakman II, 829 F.2d at
18

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 19 of 44 PageID #:61069
1399). Accordingly, the holding of Shakman I—that voters and candidates have standing to challenge unlawful political discrimination against employees—remains controlling here.2
In accordance with the Seventh Circuit’s decisions, we find the standing of voters and candidates to pursue claims under the 1972 Consent Decree to be well-settled.3
B.
Despite the Seventh Circuit’s determination in Shakman I that the claims raised by
plaintiffs are justiciable, and despite the fact that the County Clerk settled those claims by entering
the 1972 Consent Decree and 1991 Consent Judgment, the County Clerk now reverses course and
asks that we find these claims non-justiciable (County Clerk’s Resp. at 6-8; County Clerk’s Sur-
Reply at 10-15). According to the County Clerk, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rucho v.
Common Cause, -- U.S. --, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019), that partisan gerrymandering claims present
non-justiciable political fairness questions, applies to the claims here which the County Clerk says
are based on negating the electoral advantage of patronage and obtaining “fairer” outcomes
(County Clerk’s Sur-Reply at 12-13). Because the Rucho Court held that such matters of fairness
are not judicially manageable, the County Clerk says, this case would be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction if it were filed today (Id. at 13). Since the 1972 Consent Decree was thus based on a
2 We do not agree with plaintiffs, however, that Rutan casts doubt on the continued vitality of the standing decision in Shakman II. As the Seventh Circuit has explained, “Rutan did not speak to standing requirements but made clear that basing hiring decisions on political patronage was impermissible.” Shakman III, 396 F.3d at 851. 3 In light of Shakman I, we need not address plaintiffs’ argument that the Seventh Circuit has recognized that a candidate whose competitor obtains an advantage through a government practice, thereby causing the candidate to engage in additional campaigning and expend additional funds, has standing to challenge that practice. See Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir. 1990) (third party candidate had standing to challenge state’s decision to allow major parties’ candidates on ballot after deadline which forced candidate to face increased competition requiring additional campaigning and outlay of funds). Other courts have similarly applied the doctrine of competitor standing where the government is alleged to have taken action that benefits a plaintiff’s competitor to the detriment of the plaintiff. E.g., Buchanan v. Fed Elec. Comm’n., 112 F. Supp. 2d 58, 63-64 (D.D.C. Cir. 2000). Notably, plaintiffs specifically allege candidates’ economic injury resulting from the alleged patronage practices (Suppl. to First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20). See Milwaukee Police Ass’n, 708 F.3d at 927 (noting economic injury is “prototypical injury-infact”).
19

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 20 of 44 PageID #:61070
complaint raising non-justiciable political questions, the Clerk argues, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims for supplemental relief (Id. at 15).
Plaintiffs disagree that Rucho has any application here (Pls.’ Reply at 12-13). According to plaintiffs, they do not seek to vindicate partisan preferences or ask this Court to make a political judgment about an appropriate number of patronage jobs based on proportional voter support. (Id. at 14). To the contrary, plaintiffs say, they seek only to vindicate claims of unlawful political patronage that both the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit have recognized are actionable (Id. at 13). Here, too, we agree with plaintiffs.
In Rucho, the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions “beyond the reach of the federal courts” because resolving such claims would require federal courts to “reallocate political power between two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.” Rucho, 139 S.Ct. at 2506-07. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the constitutionally prescribed role of the federal courts to “vindicate the individual rights of the people appearing before it,” and not “generalized partisan preferences.” Id. at 2501. Because a governmental entity may engage in some level of constitutional political gerrymandering and federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between parties, the Court stated that there are no manageable judicial standards to enable a determination of when partisan gerrymandering had “gone too far.” Id. at 2497, 2506 (internal quotation omitted).
The Supreme Court further reasoned that declining judicial consideration of partisan gerrymandering claims was consistent with constitutional structure and history. Id. at 2495-96. Specifically, it observed, the Constitution’s Elections Clause delegates the right to prescribe the time, places and manners of holding elections, “expressly checked and balanced by the Federal
20

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 21 of 44 PageID #:61071
Congress.” Id. at 2496. Noting that the Framers were aware of electoral districting problems and had considered what to do about them, the Court found it instructive that no suggestion had been made on this point “that the federal courts had a role to play.” Id.
Importantly, the Court distinguished partisan gerrymandering from racial gerrymandering, which presents a justiciable claim. As the Supreme Court explained:
Unlike partisan gerrymandering claims, a racial gerrymandering claim does not ask for a fair share of political power and influence, with all the justiciability conundrums that entails. It asks instead for the elimination of a racial classification. A partisan gerrymandering claim cannot ask for the elimination of partisanship. Id. at 2502. The considerations leading the Rucho Court to find claims of political gerrymandering nonjusticiable are not implicated here. Instead, the right asserted here is more akin to the prohibition against racial gerrymandering that the Rucho Court distinguished from political gerrymandering. Plaintiffs do not bring general claims for partisan fairness and proportional representation, but instead assert their rights to be free from political discrimination resulting from the use of political considerations in the employment process. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the justiciability of such challenges to unlawful patronage practices in the public employment setting. E.g., Rutan, 479 U.S. at 65; Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (recognizing First Amendment claim of government employees who alleged termination based on political affiliation or belief); Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) (same). In reaching its decision in Rucho, the majority did not discuss, let alone overrule this line of cases. We do not treat Rucho as sub silentio undoing some 45 years of Supreme Court precedent. Moreover, the impediments to relief identified by the Rucho Court are not present here. And, unlike in Rucho, plaintiffs’ claims are based on their own individualized interests and not on a community perspective of fairness. Accordingly, the claims plaintiffs present fall squarely within
21

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 22 of 44 PageID #:61072
the constitutionally prescribed role of the federal courts to decide. See, e.g., Rucho, 139 S.Ct at 2501. We follow the Seventh Circuit precedent in Shakman I, and find plaintiffs’ claims justiciable.
II. We now turn to plaintiffs’ claims that the County Clerk has violated the 1991 Consent Judgment and the 1972 Consent Decree. In doing so, at the outset, we must first determine the legal standard by which to assess plaintiffs’ claims. The County Clerk argues that plaintiffs must prove any violations by clear and convincing standard, because a violation of the Consent Orders amounts to contempt of court (County Clerk’s Submission at 2). However, nowhere in plaintiffs’ prayer for relief do they seek a contempt order and moreover, in their post-hearing filing, plaintiffs specifically state they are not seeking to hold the County Clerk or her staff in contempt but rather are seeking oversight of the County Clerk’s office to bring it to substantial compliance with the Consent Orders (Pls.’ Mot. Suppl. Relief at 10-11, Pls.’ Submission at 5). Therefore, we are not bound by a clear and convincing standard. Rather, we consider whether plaintiffs have provided enough evidence to show conduct within the County Clerk’s office that warrants appointment of a special master and/or other relief. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. 205, 89 C 20168, 1991 WL 166960 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 1991) (appointing a Special Master to assess compliance with the court’s previous orders); In re Pearson, 990 F.2d 653 (1st Cir. 1993) (affirming court’s decision to appoint a special master to assess continuing efficacy of permanent injunctive relief).
A. Plaintiffs claim that the County Clerk maintains and operates an illegal patronage employment system that violates the Consent Orders (Pls.’ Mot. Suppl. Relief at 3). Plaintiffs have raised four main concerns for their contention that violations by the County Clerk warrant relief:
22

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 23 of 44 PageID #:61073
(1) the placement of political allies into positions that are not on the Court-approved exempt list; (2) oral modifications to written employment policies and selective enforcement of these policies; (3) the selective enforcement of the rotation policy for supervisors in the Bureau of Vital Records; and (4) the solicitation of political contributions from non-exempt employees. We address each in turn.
1. The 1991 Consent Judgment included a List of Exempt Positions (“1991 List”) and an exclusive means by which to amend the list – filing a motion with the Court (1991 Consent Judgment at 10, List of Exempt Positions).4 The 1991 Consent Judgment also provided that “[p]rior to entry of an order of Court determining a position, other than one in the [1991 List], to be an Exempt Position, no such position shall be exempt from this Judgment and no action with respect to any such position shall be exempt from inquiry under this Judgment” (Id. at 11). The parties agree that the 1991 List has never been amended with Court approval (Pls.’ Submission at 9, County Clerk’s Resp. at 12-13). Therefore, any hiring by the County Clerk for exempt positions that are not on the 1991 List does not comply with the 1991 Consent Judgment. The County Clerk claims in her response brief (County Clerk’s Resp. at 14) that the “current list” of exempt employees in the County Clerk’s office is Exhibit D to her response brief (doc. # 6588-5 at 6), which is titled “DRAFT 8/22/2019 SHAKMAN EXEMPT EMPLOYEES” (“Draft 2019 List”). Thus, the most “current” list available to us is the Draft 2019 List. The 1991 Consent Judgment provides that the number of exempt positions cannot be expanded without a motion before the Court (1991 Consent Judgment at 10). The 1991 List
4 The List of Exempt Positions can be found at doc. # 6486-2 at 17 of 23.
23

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 24 of 44 PageID #:61074
contains 22 positions while the Draft 2019 List contains 21 positions (doc. # 6486-2 at 17; doc. # 6588-5 at 6). Neither party argues that the number of positions is an issue.
Rather, the County Clerk argues that the titles on the Draft 2019 List are “substantively equivalent” to the 1991 List (County Clerk’s Resp. at 14). We disagree. Of the 21 positions on the Draft 2019 List, only four are identical title matches to the 1991 List, 10 can reasonably be considered to be close to the title of the positions on the 1991 List, and seven are not listed on the 1991 List (examples are IT director and chief legal counsel).5 The County Clerk claims that although the titles may not be exact, the responsibilities and duties of the positions are the same. However, the County Clerk has failed to offer evidence to support that proposition for many of the positions. We are mindful that over the almost 30 years since the 1991 Consent Judgment was enacted, the way in which government offices and departments function has evolved to include positions (such as an IT Director) that may not have existed in 1991. That said, the changes in the County Clerk’s office over the years do not excuse the County Clerk from complying with the 1991 Consent Judgment by seeking and obtaining court approval for any changes in the exempt list. The point of that requirement is to ensure that the positions on the exempt list in fact have responsibilities that make it appropriate for the County Clerk to use political considerations in filling them. The County Clerk’s unilateral revisions to the exempt list without court approval violates the 1991 Consent Judgment.6
5 The four identical titles are (the number in parenthesis represents the number on the 1991 List) Deputy Clerk of the Board (8), Director of Elections (14), Director of Real Estate and Tax Services (10), and Director of Vital Records (17); the ten similar titles are Chief Deputy Clerk (2), Deputy Clerk of Security (20), Deputy Clerk of Policy (7), Clerk of the Board & Procurement Director (9), Deputy Clerk of Elections (15), Executive Assistant to Director of Elections (16) (two individuals with this title), Deputy Clerk of Human Resources (6), Accounting and Tax Extension Manager (13), Deputy Clerk of Vital Records (18); the seven titles not listed on the 1991 List are Special Assistant to the Clerk for Government Affairs, Director of Communication, Manager of Outreach and Education, Chief Legal Counsel, IT Director, Warehouse Manager, and Deputy Clerk of Real Estate and Tax Services. 6 The County Clerk complains that the exempt list she is using was put into place by her predecessor, David Orr, without court approval – and without objection by plaintiffs (County Clerk’s Resp. at 13-14). The fact that a prior
24

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 25 of 44 PageID #:61075
2. In their motion for supplemental relief, plaintiffs alleged there were oral modifications to written employment policies (Pls.’ Mot. Suppl. Relief at 6). And, indeed, the evidence showed that the County Clerk often did not follow her own policies regarding posting of job openings for nonexempt positions (Pls.’ Submission at 6-9; Clerk 30(b)(6) Dep. at 50:8-53:14, 56:3-58:24; Sanchez Dep. at 56:3-58:24). For example, the County Clerk hired two Executive Assistants to the Assistant to the Clerk for Government Affairs and a Storekeeper III without posting the positions, allowing people to apply, or conducting interviews (Pls.’ Hrg. Exs. 69, 75, 76). The County Clerk does not know who made the decision not to post these positions or who decided to hire these individuals (Clerk 30(b)(6) Dep. at 61:9-1, 62:23-2, 62:24-65:21). In failing to publicly post for job openings for non-exempt positions, the County Clerk did not merely disregard her own policies – she violated the 1991 Consent Judgment, which unequivocally states that the County Clerk must publicly post notice of openings for non-exempt job positions (1991 Consent Judgment at 5, ¶ G). The County Clerk claims that her hiring plan that was required under the 1991 Consent Judgment terminated on June 1, 2002, and therefore all the hiring procedures required under the plan also terminated at that time (County Clerk’s Submission at 4). Thus, the County Clerk argues that the 1991 Consent Judgment does not require the posting for openings for non-exempt positions, but only prohibits the County Clerk’s office from basing those hiring decision on a political condition or factor (Id.). The County Clerk’s view, however, fails to recognize that the 1991 Consent Judgment permanently enjoined the Clerk’s office from “hiring any person for any Governmental Employment position (except Exempt Positions …) unless prior public notice of
violation of the 1991 Consent Judgment went unnoticed or unremedied is not a defense to the County Clerk’s current violation. Had plaintiffs brought this issue to our attention under Clerk Orr’s administration, we would have responded in a similar fashion.
25

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 26 of 44 PageID #:61076
the opportunity to apply for and be hired for the job has been given” (Pls.’ Submission, Ex. A, Pls.’ Mot. to Leave to Suppl. at 29). Therefore, even though the County Clerk’s hiring plan terminated on June 1, 2002, the County Clerk was still mandated by the 1991 Consent Judgment to provide public notice of all employment positions other than exempt or emergency positions. The evidence shows without question that the County Clerk violated this unequivocal mandate.
3. Clerk Yarbrough took office as the County Clerk in December 2018.7 Vital Records is one of the departments within the County Clerk’s Office with a downtown location and five suburban offices located in Bridgeview, Markham, Maywood, Rolling Meadows and Skokie. The Vital Records department has nine supervisors – one for each suburban office and four in the downtown office. On May 9, 2019, the County Clerk announced a “rotation policy” (sometimes also referred to as the “summer rotation policy”) wherein the supervisors for all five suburban offices and one of the downtown supervisors would rotate to all six offices for 90-day back-to-back periods at each location for a total of 15 months away from his or her home office.8 The first rotation began on June 10, 2019. The second rotation began on September 11, 2019. The rotation policy was suspended in December 2019, several months after the filing of the instant motion, and was ultimately terminated on February 27, 2020, on the eve of the evidentiary hearing that commenced on March 3, 2020. The County Clerk claims that the rotation policy was necessary because the suburban offices did not operate with the same policy and procedures as the downtown office. However, the
7 Prior to that, Clerk Yarbrough was the Cook County Recorder of Deeds from 2012-2018. 8 Three supervisors were exempt from the rotation policy: Mr. Torres, Ms. Wright-Madison and one other supervisor who was set to retire were exempt from the rotation policy. We will further discuss the exemption of Mr. Torres and Ms. Wright-Madison below.
26

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 27 of 44 PageID #:61077
evidence undercut this rationale, as it revealed that it was actually the downtown office that needed improvements rather than the suburban offices. The evidence also showed that the rotation policy imposed significant hardship on the supervisors to whom it applied.
Four current or former Vital Records Supervisors testified during the evidentiary hearing: Dawn Nowak, George Tserotas, Lana Yacilla and Carolyn Harris. The four supervisors testified to their long tenures in the office (each more than 20 years), the location of the office listed on their original job description for the supervisor position, the details of the rotation policy, the onerous nature of their new assignments including the long distances they were required to commute, and how the rotation policy was sprung on each of the supervisors without their input or any advance notice from the County Clerk.
Ms. Nowak worked in the Vital Records department for a total of 33 years, the last 26 years as Bridgeview’s supervisor. When she applied for the supervisor role in Bridgeview, the location of the office – Bridgeview – was part of the written job description. Ms. Nowak spent the first 90day rotation, beginning on June 10, 2019, at the Markham office and testified there were no differences in the policies or procedures of that office as compared to her home office of Bridgeview. She was assigned to the Skokie office for the second 90-day rotation and testified as to the hardship this long commute placed on her as a single parent and the health issues that she experienced as a result. Ms. Nowak resigned in October 2019 as a Vital Records supervisor after the implementation of the rotation policy due to her health concerns.
Ms. Nowak explained that on May 9, 2019, she and the other five affected Vital Records supervisors attended a meeting at the downtown location wherein Ms. Erica Sanchez, Deputy Clerk of Vital Records, presented each supervisor with a folder describing the summer rotation policy, a new job description that did not include a specific office location (e.g., stating “Vital
27

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 28 of 44 PageID #:61078
Records Supervisor” instead of “Bridgeview Supervisor”) and a start date, end date and rotation location. Ms. Nowak described the shock and uncertainty she and the other supervisors felt by the imposition of this new policy being sprung on them without notice or their input.
In a similar fashion, Mr. Tserotas testified that he worked at the Maywood office for a total of 30 years, the last 15 as the supervisor. When he applied to be a supervisor at Maywood, the job posting specifically stated the job was for the Maywood office. Mr. Tserotas also was blindsided at the May 9, 2019 meeting wherein the rotation policy was presented to the supervisors. The job description presented to him at that meeting had been changed to state that he would be performing his duties at any of the six points of service throughout the County and that he would need to travel to other offices as needed (Pls.’ Hrg. Ex. 7). Mr. Tserotas testified that under the union’s collective bargaining agreement, a change in job description can only be discussed during contract negotiations and this change had not been negotiated. And, indeed, the County Clerk’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness testified to a lack of knowledge as to whether the change in the job description had received prior approval by the Human Resources department or was discussed with Service Employees International Union “(SEIU”) prior to being implemented (Clerk 30(b)(6) Dep. at 63:312). Mr. Tserotas first rotated to the downtown office, and considered this assignment to be a punishment because he had told Ms. Sanchez that he never wanted to work downtown. His commute grew from 35 to 45 minutes to two hours each way, he felt he was set up for failure, and he explained the personal hardships this change caused him.
Ms. Yacilla has worked for the County Clerk for 26 years, the majority of which time – 24 years – she served as the Rolling Meadows supervisor. When she applied for the position, the supervisor job description specified Rolling Meadows as the location, which was important to Ms. Yacilla because it was close to her home. Like her fellow supervisors, she also testified that all of
28

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 29 of 44 PageID #:61079
the offices followed the same policies and procedures as required by the Vital Records Act. Ms. Yacilla’s first rotation was to Skokie and her second to Markham. Both rotation locations significantly increased her commute time and created a hardship to her, and she experienced both physical and mental health issues as a result.
Finally, Ms. Harris had worked as the Markham supervisor since 2005. She rotated to Bridgeview and the downtown office and ultimately decided to remain in the downtown office (her commute to Markham and downtown was the same). Ms. Harris stated that the rotation policy caused stress to her and her family, and she was concerned about commuting a longer distance to work because of her daughter’s health issues. Although the rotation policy was allegedly implemented so the suburban offices would mirror the downtown office, Ms. Harris testified that she found the opposite to be true – the downtown office was not functioning properly, and the supervisors were not doing what their counterparts in the suburbs were doing. Ms. Harris changed the downtown office to function like the suburban offices. Ms. Harris testified that if the rotation policy was implemented again, she would retire.
The plaintiffs argue that the rotation policy implemented by the County Clerk served no legitimate purpose and was motivated by unlawful political discrimination (“UPD”) (Pls.’ Submission at 9). They further argue that the rotation policy was instituted to inflict hardship on six of the nine Vital Records Supervisors in an effort to constructively discharge them, and that the hearing evidence proved these assignments were politically motivated (Id.). The County Clerk argues that the rotation policy was not implemented for a political purpose, but instead for legitimate reasons concerning the effective operations of the office (County Clerk’s Submission at 12).
29

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 30 of 44 PageID #:61080
The County Clerk’s stated rationale for the rotation policy of inconsistency of operations between the suburban offices from the downtown office is not supported by the evidence. The evidence of any major inconsistencies between the offices was exceedingly thin. To the extent the County Clerk argues there were inconsistencies, the testimony elicited showed there were not inconsistencies in applying policy and procedures – as each office was mandated by statute to follow the Vital Records Act – but rather only inconsistency in professionalism of the various offices (i.e. demeanor, and how the staff dealt with the public). While these concerns may be significant, they are personnel issues and not policy issues to be addressed by rotating supervisors.
Additionally, there were no contemporaneous documents about any investigation or deliberative process that went into formation of the rotation policy. The County Clerk did not lay out evidence about observations that would warrant the rotation policy. The policy was announced on May 9, 2019, some five months after Ms. Yarbrough became the County Clerk. The evidence showed that she and her senior staff made only a few visits to the suburban offices, and there was no evidence offered to show major inconsistencies in the implementation of policies or practices in these offices.
The County Clerk’s stated rationale for the rotation policy was to bring the suburban offices to the same standard of operation as the downtown office. The evidence failed to support that rationale. Ms. Harris, a supervisor in the Vital Records department, and Mr. Byron Steele, Director of Vital Records, both testified that the downtown office was the problem office, not the suburban offices. Ms. Erica Sanchez, Director Clerk of the Board, testified that the only issue in the suburban offices was the need for a Spanish speaking employee in one of the locations, but again, that is a personnel issue not a policy issue.9 Moreover, the contemporaneous reports of the supervisors after
9 Ms. Sanchez’s position changed to Director Clerk of the Board in November 2019 (March 16, 2020 Hrg. Trans. at 418:15-23).
30

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 31 of 44 PageID #:61081
each rotation at a different location support their testimony that all of the policies and procedures were the same for each office as they all must follow the Vital Records Act.
The evidence strongly suggests that the rotation policy was instituted for the purpose of making life miserable for the long-time supervisors who had settled expectations of a work – life balance. The supervisors testified that they each applied to work at a specific location and that the location was included on their original job descriptions. As part of the rotation program, these job descriptions were changed, without advance notice to or input from the supervisors, to eliminate location as part of the description. And the structure of the rotation policy maximized the negative impact on the supervisors. The supervisors were sent to office locations far away from their home office base rather than the closer office locations. The testimony showed that prior to the rotation policy, when an office was short a supervisor and lead for the day, a supervisor from an office close in proximity would cover for the day. The pattern was to fill in from nearby offices – the Skokie and Rolling Meadows offices were matched up as well as the Maywood and Bridgeview offices. That approach was disregarded when implementing the rotation policy.
In addition, the length of the rotation policy appears to have been calculated to maximize this adverse impact. The original policy explained to the supervisors at the May 9, 2019 meeting stated that each rotation would last 90 days and that the supervisors would rotate to the other five locations, meaning the rotations would last for 15 consecutive months. Testimony uncovered that there was some prior discussion of a 30-day rotation, but ultimately, the County Clerk implemented a 90-day rotation at each site. There were no contemporaneous documents or testimony offered by the County Clerk to explain the basis for a 90-day versus a shorter stint in each office; or the basis for the rotations to be stacked one on top of the other for a 15-month
31

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 32 of 44 PageID #:61082
period. The absence of any explanation for the length and structure of the program left no credible reason for that structure other than to inflict hardship on the supervisors who were subject to it.
The timeline of the rotation policy and the County Clerk’s ultimate decision to discontinue it also raises questions. The supervisors were told of the rotation policy on May 9, 2019. It began in June 2019, with each of the six supervisors reporting to their first 90-day rotation office. The second rotation began in September 2019; however adjustments were made to the original locations published to the supervisors on May 9, 2019 for their second rotation. This adjustment occurred around the time of the filing of plaintiffs’ motion for supplemental relief on September 6, 2019 (Pls.’ Mot. Suppl. Relief). Sometime later, the rotation policy was put on hold for the winter months beginning in December 2019. Finally, on the eve of the evidentiary hearing in this matter, the rotation policy was rescinded on February 27, 2020.
We note that on the eve of the evidentiary hearing, on March 1, 2020, the County Clerk also announced a new policy manual and implemented written procedures for operation of the Vital Records office. Mr. Steele testified that work on these documents commenced in January 2020, well after the rotation policy was first announced to the supervisors on May 9, 2019 and implemented in June 2019. The County Clerk is to be commended for implementing these new policies. But she offered no evidence as to why the rotation program preceded the work on these policies; there certainly was no evidence that anything was learned from the rotation policy that informed the creation of the new written policies.
The County Clerk relies on the Office of the Independent Inspector General (“OIIG”) investigation and report dated August 8, 2019, that found the rotation policy was based on a legitimate goal unrelated to political considerations (County Clerk’s Submission at 14). However, everything was not revealed to the OIIG in its investigation; nor did the OIIG have the benefit of
32

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 33 of 44 PageID #:61083
all the evidence introduced at the evidentiary hearing. The OIIG report states the SEIU signed off on the rotation policy, which was the information conveyed by the County Clerk (County Clerk’s Hrg. Ex. 3 at CCC00142). But, the SEIU had filed a grievance on June 3, 2019, regarding the rotation policy and the County Clerk did not inform the OIIG of this grievance. Therefore, without the complete picture, little weight can be assigned to the OIIG report.
We therefore conclude that the County Clerk has not offered evidence to support the stated rationale for the rotation program. To the contrary, the evidence is that this program was structured in a way to impact great hardship on the supervisors to whom it applied, suggesting an intent to drive them to quit. And, indeed, the rotation policy caused Ms. Nowak to resign, and caused Ms. Harris to say she would resign if the policy was reinstated.
That said, developing a policy calculated to drive out long term, more highly paid people may be viewed as unwise, or it may be seen as hard-headed economics – but either motivation alone would not constitute a violation of the Consent Orders. And, there is no evidence that the people to whom the rotation policy applied were selected for political reasons. But it would violate the Consent Orders to exempt some employees from the policy because they are politically favored. Plaintiffs argue that is what occurred here.
Plaintiffs argue that the exemption of Mr. Torres and Ms. Wright-Madison from the supervisor rotation was due to political reasons. The evidence revealed that Mr. Torres and Ms. Wright-Madison did have a certain political pedigree. It was common knowledge that Mr. Torres’ brother-in-law is the former Chicago Alderman, Ricardo Munoz (March 3, 2020 Hrg. Trans. at 41:4-11). Additionally, Mr. Torres’ sister, Betty Torres Munoz who was married to Alderman Munoz, was the County Clerk’s human resources director for a period of time (March 3, 2020 Hrg. Trans. at 42:11-17). Ms. Wright-Madison also had worked with Mr. Coleman, Director of Vital
33

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 34 of 44 PageID #:61084
Records and a Shakman exempt employee in the County Clerk’s office, under Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle (March 3, 2020 Hrg. Trans. at 42:18-44:1). There is no evidence that the supervisors subject to the rotation had a similar political pedigree.
The County Clerk argues that these two supervisors performed different jobs than the other six supervisors and were exempt from it for that reason. The evidence on this argument does not strongly support the County Clerk’s position. Mr. Torres and Ms. Wright-Madison worked in the downtown office and supervised the accounting and genealogy departments, respectively. While there was some testimony that Mr. Torres and Ms. Wright-Madison did different work than the other supervisors, there was also testimony that they did the same work as the six supervisors in that they would perform the same tasks Wednesdays at the downtown office, and filled in at the suburban offices when a supervisor was out of the office.
Moreover, the May 9, 2019 memorandum to the supervisors discussing the implementation of the rotation policy mentioned a key component of the policy was to enhance the current skill set of the supervisors. Mr. Steele testified that a focus of the policy was to cross-train the supervisors. If the goal of the policy was truly to enhance skill sets and cross-train employees, the evidence did not indicate why Mr. Torres and Ms. Wright-Madison were wholly excluded from the rotation.
The evidence of exclusion due to political reasons is a close call. But there are significant indications to lead to the conclusion that Mr. Torres’ and Ms. Wright-Madison’s political pedigree is why the County Clerk excluded them from an onerous program that the other supervisors were forced to endure.
34

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 35 of 44 PageID #:61085
4. Plaintiffs claim that the County Clerk improperly solicited non-exempt employees for contributions. They offered two examples of political appointees soliciting non-exempt employees to attend a political fundraiser for Clerk Yarbrough: first, a May 2, 2019 text from Ms. Sanchez to Ms. Nowak sent in the middle of a work text exchange and second, a May 20, 2019 text from exempt employee Jamica Davis to Sonia Khalil (a non-exempt employee) during work hours (Pls.’ Submission at 2 citing Pls.’ Hrg. Exs. 94-95, 109). Solicitation of non-exempt employees is not barred so long as it is not coerced and not made the basis for exempt position decisions (1972 Consent Decree at 3). While the evidence and testimony submitted by plaintiffs suggests the defendants solicited non-exempt employees to politically support Clerk Yarbrough, the evidence does not show that the solicitation rose to the level of coercion. Ms. Nowak testified that Ms. Sanchez said it would be “beneficial” for her to show support for Ms. Yarbrough (March 3, 2020 Hrg. Trans. at 64:1-6), suggesting perhaps a level of attempted coercion in the situation.10 But in the end, plaintiffs offered no evidence that the solicitation was successful, that Ms. Nowak felt coerced by it, or that it was linked in anyway to her inclusion in the rotation policy. Moreover, the plaintiffs offered no evidence to flesh out the details of the solicitation of Ms. Khalil. Although we find Ms. Nowak’s testimony was credible and did raise a flag about the solicitation of non-exempt employees, in the constellation of flags it is not the reddest nor the brightest flag. Furthermore, while plaintiffs assert that the County Clerk’s failure to implement a
10 While Ms. Sanchez testified that Ms. Nowak had requested the solicitation (March 16, 2020 Hrg. Trans. at 422:20 – 423:3), we do not find Ms. Sanchez’s testimony credible. Ms. Sanchez also enjoys a political pedigree (her fatherin-law owns a banquet hall that often hosts political fundraisers and campaign events, her husband is an elected official (Id. at 427:7 – 428:10), and Ms. Sanchez worked for Clerk Yarbrough when she was the Recorder as well. And, Ms. Nowak testified that she did not ask for the solicitation, which we find credible in light of her unrebutted testimony that she ignored it – the County Clerk has offered no reason why Ms. Nowak would seek out a solicitation that she ultimately disregarded.
35

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 36 of 44 PageID #:61086
litigation hold raises the prospects that additional evidence of solicitation of non-exempt employees may have been destroyed, we are not prepared to say that a failure to preserve certain text messages and e-mail messages would have led to a treasure trove of evidence. Thus, we do not find a violation of the Consent Orders by the solicitations.
III. Rule 60(b)(5) provides that “the court may relieve a party … from a final judgment, order, or proceeding … [if] the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” The party seeking to modify or vacate a consent decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) “bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992). The significant change may either be a change in “factual conditions or in law.” Id. Invoking this rule, the County Clerk asks us to vacate the Consent Orders claiming there has been a change in fact and law (County Clerk’s Submission at 16). The County Clerk has failed to establish a sound basis to do so.
A. As a factual matter, the Consent Orders have not been satisfied. The evidence, based on limited discovery, fails to show rampant violations of the decree. That said, the evidence showed a general disregard for certain aspects of the Consent Orders. As discussed in greater detail above, the County Clerk ignored that changes to the exempt list require Court approval; the County Clerk ignored that hiring employees without posting of the job opening is a violation of the 1991 Consent Judgment, and the County Clerk’s effort to engraft a 10-year sunset into that portion of the decree is not a faithful reading of it; and the rotation policy, both in its origin and application and the way it was terminated – suspended in the shadow of the motion and terminated on the eve of the hearing
36

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 37 of 44 PageID #:61087
– gives us concern. While we are encouraged that defendants put into place an employment plan and a manual, this did not happen until March 2020 and the procedures and plan were not even on the drawing board until January 2020 – several months after plaintiffs filed the instant motion. The hearing evidence of this conduct does not show that there has been the kind of compliance with the Consent Orders that, as a factual matter, weighs in favor of their termination.
B. Similarly, there has not been a change in law that makes it inequitable to continue to enforce the Consent Orders. We measure whether there has been a change in law from the point that the Consent Orders were entered, and begin with the 1972 Consent Decree. There has been no change in law that would make in inequitable to enforce the 1972 Consent Decree. The 1972 Consent Decree was entered in the shadow of Shakman I, which held that voters and candidates had standing to pursue the claims that applicant’s and employee’s rights were violated by the use of political consideration in employment decisions concerning nonexempt employees. Shakman II did not change that precedent as it applied to existing employees. Similarly, Rutan also did not address the standing of voters or candidates to assert such claims. Consistent with the Seventh Circuit’s law of the case, our inquiry into standing “shall be not on the law of standing as a jurisdictional concept but on the equitable standards embodied in Rule 60(b)(5).” Shakman III, 396 F.3d at 868. In any event, neither Shakman II nor Rutan effected any change in the law making it unjust to continue to enforce the 1972 Consent Decree. Nor has any change in the relevant law occurred since the 1991 Consent Judgment. The 1991 Consent Judgment followed upon Rutan, which ruled that hiring decisions cannot be based on political considerations. That legal principle was settled at the time that the 1991 Consent Judgment was entered, and that legal principle has not changed since that time. With eyes wide
37

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 38 of 44 PageID #:61088
open, the County Clerk entered into the 1991 Consent Judgment in light of Rutan and despite knowing Shakman II stated voters and candidates did not have standing to raise hiring claims, but also mindful that the plaintiffs were adding IVI-IPO as a party to fill that gap. Thus, the law that existed as of 1991 when the consent judgment was entered into, remains the law today. We therefore find that there has not been a change in fact or law to warrant the termination of the Consent Orders. We see no equitable circumstances that lead us to conclude the Consent Orders should not be enforced against the office that voluntarily entered into them. The fact that the identity of the County Clerk has changed is not a sufficient basis to terminate the Consent Orders: the enforceability of those orders does not turn on who is in office.
IV. We now turn to the relief that is warranted in view of the findings and conclusions we have reached. In their motion, plaintiffs identified seven specific items of relief that they seek (Pls.’ Mot. Suppl. Relief at 10-11). One item of requested relief — rescinding the rotation policy for the Bureau of Vital Records Offices — is moot in light of the County Clerk’s decision to rescind that policy shortly before the evidentiary hearing in this case. Another item of requested relief — prohibiting the solicitation of political donations from non-exempt employees — sweeps too far. While the Consent Orders bar the County Clerk from basing employment decisions on political donations or other political activity (1972 Consent Decree at 3; 1991 Consent Judgment at ¶¶ D and E), they do not entirely bar any and all solicitations for political donations or other political activity. What the Consent Orders bar is coerced political support from non-exempt employees as the price for getting or maintaining a job. We conclude that in some form, the other requests for relief that plaintiffs seek are warranted here. Chief among those is the request that we appoint a special master. We do not take
38

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 39 of 44 PageID #:61089
that step lightly. But the evidence here has shown clear violations of the 1991 Consent Judgment with respect to the use of a non-Court approved exempt list and the disregard for the pubic posting of job openings. The evidence also has raised concerns about compliance with certain aspects of the 1972 Consent Decree with respect to whether certain employees with political pedigree were exempted from the application of a burdensome rotation policy that applied to others, and with respect to political solicitations.
Our decision to appoint a special master also is informed by the fact that as of December 2020, the Cook County Office of the Recorder of Deeds (“Recorder’s Office”) will be dissolved as an independent governmental entity and its functions will be absorbed by the County Clerk. The Recorder’s Office is also subject to the 1972 Consent Decree, and to a Consent Judgment entered into in 1992 (“1992 Consent Judgement”) that parallels the 1991 Consent Judgment which binds the County Clerk. In July 2010, the Recorder’s Office entered into an agreed supplemental relief order (“Recorder SRO”) that provides, among other things, for a court appointed monitor (“RCA”) to oversee the Recorder’s Office level of compliance with the 1972 and 1992 orders, to identify instances where that office has fallen short of that requirement, and to assist that office in developing procedures to better assure compliance (doc. # 1759: Recorder SRO).
The goal of the active monitoring was to help the Recorder’s Office achieve “substantial compliance” with the requirements of the 1972 and 1992 orders, and thus to allow for the termination of those orders as they apply to the Recorder’s Office.11 This Court has terminated
11 “Substantial Compliance means: (1) the Recorder has implemented the New Employment Plan, including procedures to ensure compliance with the New Employment Plan and identify instances of non-compliance; (2) the Recorder has acted in good faith to remedy instances of non-compliance that have been identified, and prevent a recurrence; (3) the Recorder does not have a policy, custom or practice of making employment decisions based on political reasons or factors except for Exempt Positions; (4) the absence of material noncompliance which frustrates the Recorder’s Consent Decree and the SRO’s essential purpose. The RCA and the Court may consider the number of post-SRO complaints that have been found to be valid. However, technical violations or isolated incidents of noncompliance shall not be a basis for a finding that the Recorder is not in substantial compliance; and (5) the Recorder
39

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 40 of 44 PageID #:61090
consent decrees governing the use of political considerations for a number of other governmental entities that entered into supplemental relief orders — the City of Chicago, Cook County, the Sheriff of Cook County and the Cook County Forest Preserve District — because they each achieved substantial compliance.
The same cannot be said for the Recorder’s Office. Despite the office being of very modest size as compared to other entities that have achieved substantial compliance, after nearly 10 years the Recorder’s Office still has some distance to travel in order to meet that standard. We note that for six years of that period, from December 2012 to December 2018, the current County Clerk served as the Recorder of Deeds. While progress toward substantial compliance was made at various points during that period, the Recorder’s Office also came under fire on a number of occasions from the RCA, the plaintiffs and the OIIG for conduct that they said suggested or constituted unlawful political discrimination in violation of the SRO and the Consent Orders underlying them. (Pls.’ Exs. 88, 91 – 93, 107, 110).
We need not today pass on those charges leveled against the Recorder’s Office during the tenure of the current County Clerk. What is significant is that under her tenure as Recorder the office did not approach substantial compliance. And now, the Recorder’s Office has recently lost important employees in Human Resources and other functions critical to achieving substantial compliance, and will have difficulty replacing them in light of the office being phased out of existence by the end of the year. This will make it challenging at best for the Recorder’s Office to achieve in the next several months the substantial compliance target that has eluded it for more than nine years.
has implemented procedures that will effect long-term prevention of the use of impermissible political considerations in connection with employment with the Recorder” (Recorder SRO at 12-13).
40

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 41 of 44 PageID #:61091
As a result, it is likely that the Recorder’s Office will remain under the SRO and active monitoring by the RCA as of December 2020 when that office is absorbed by the County Clerk. We have concern about an office that is under active monitoring because of a failure to achieve substantial compliance for many years (the Recorder’s Office) being subsumed by an office (the County Clerk) that has recently engaged in violations of the Consent Orders and other conduct raising concerns about compliance with those orders.
Thus, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 and the Court’s equitable powers to enforce its orders, we appoint Cardelle B. Spangler to serve as special master, subject to the supervision and orders of the Court. Ms. Spangler has served as the RCA since 2010, and her experience in that capacity will be invaluable in permitting her to hit the ground running for this appointment and to efficiently and effectively discharge the duties set forth below. The appointment shall be effective upon the filing required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 (b)(3)(A) and the Court’s determination that it shows no ground for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455.
We appoint the Special Master to do the following with all reasonable diligence: 1. Work with the County Clerk to develop (with the input of plaintiffs’ counsel) a list of exempt
positions to be approved by the Court. Pending approval of any new list, the County Clerk may not hire persons as non-exempt employees for positions which are not on the 1991 List of Exempt Positions without prior court approval; 2. Review the County Clerk’s recently adopted personnel policy and monitor the County Clerk’s application of that policy to determine whether the policy is in fact applied in the observance rather than the breach (which we deem important in light of the evidence that there has been frequent disregard of the prior policies concerning applications for employment), identify any discrepancies in the application of the policy, and propose any appropriate revisions;
41

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 42 of 44 PageID #:61092
3. Recommend policies to govern the solicitation of political donations or support and the reporting of any such solicitations;
4. Review the incorporation of the Recorder’s Office into the County Clerk, to determine, among other things, whether political considerations are improperly used in deciding which Recorder’ Office non-exempt employees are retained by the County Clerk; and
5. Make recommendations as to how to remedy any violations of the Consent Orders that she might find in conducting the foregoing activities. The Special Master shall have the right to retain counsel and to employ staff in order to
fulfill the duties of her appointment as set forth above. The Special Master, her counsel and her staff, as well as the parties and their counsel, shall be permitted to have ex parte communications with the Court. The Special Master, her counsel and her staff shall be permitted have ex parte communications with the parties and the parties’ counsel. During the pendency of any contested motion, the Court shall not have any ex parte communications with the parties or their counsel relating to the motion.
In the course of performing the duties hereunder, the Special Master and her counsel shall have the power to cause subpoenas to be issued, and to take testimony to the same extent as a lawyer for a party in discovery proceedings in civil litigation pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The County Clerk and her employees shall cooperate with the Special Master in connection with her activities pursuant to this Memorandum Opinion and Order and any further orders of this Court, including providing reasonable access to all relevant, non-privileged documents and reasonable access to employees at all levels. The County Clerk shall provide the Special Master access to non-privileged information, in whatever form it is maintained in the ordinary course of business, that is necessary or appropriate to the exercise of her authority. Any
42

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 43 of 44 PageID #:61093
non-privileged but confidential information provided to the Special Master shall be subject to a confidentiality order to be submitted to the Court for entry by May 8, 2020. The Special Master shall use her best efforts to minimize disruption to the workplace during the course of her activities.
The Special Master shall periodically file written reports concerning her work, including any findings and recommendations. The Special Master shall serve on the parties a draft of her initial report by August 3, 2020. The parties shall provide any comments on the draft report by August 10, 2020. The Special Master shall file her initial report by August 17, 2020. The Special Master shall file reports every 120 days thereafter, with the same advance time period for providing drafts to the parties and for the parties to offer any comments. Any party who wishes to file an objection to a report the Special Master has filed must do so within 14 days after the report has been filed.
The County Clerk shall compensate the Special Master and her counsel at the hourly rate of $250.00. The County Clerk shall compensate any employees or contractors the Special Master deems necessary to fulfill her duties at such other rates that are agreed upon among the parties and the Special Master or, in the absence agreement, ordered by the Court. The County Clerk shall pay the reasonable costs necessary to fulfill the work of the Special Master. The Special Master and her counsel shall submit itemized bills for their services and costs on or before the fifteenth day of each calendar month for the previous month (‘the billing period”). The Special Master and the County Clerk shall cooperate informally to resolve any billing disputes without the need for Court intervention. On or before the last day of the month following the billing period, the Special Master and her counsel shall file the finalized bills for their services for the preceding billing period and shall served copies of the same on counsel for the County Clerk and the plaintiffs. The County Clerk shall have 10 days to file with the Court any specific written objections to any time billed or
43

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6829 Filed: 04/17/20 Page 44 of 44 PageID #:61094

costs incurred; any objections not filed within this time period are shall be deemed waived. The County Clerk shall pay the Special Master and her counsel the fees and costs within 60 days after the Court order approving the fee and cost bill.
The appointment of the Special Master to perform the foregoing tasks is for a defined period of time, extending through August 31, 2021. By June 30, 2021, the Special Master and the parties shall advise the Court as to their views concerning whether the period of appointment should be extended. All provisions in this Memorandum Opinion and concerning the appointment of the Special Master, including the duration of the appointment, may be amended at any time after notice to the parties and an opportunity to be heard.
ENTER:

DATE: April 17, 2020

______________________________ SIDNEY I. SCHENKIER United States Magistrate Judge

44

 
 Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 1 of 47 PageID #:64869

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 69-2145 ) ) Judge Edmond E. Chang ) )

GOVERNOR’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE MAY 5, 1972 CONSENT DECREE

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 2 of 47 PageID #:64870
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
I. HISTORY OF THE SHAKMAN LITIGATION .................................................................. 3 a. The Beginning of this Litigation ...................................................................................... 3 b. The 1972 Decree .............................................................................................................. 5 c. Relevant Proceedings Subsequent to the Consent Decree ............................................... 6 d. Shakman Proceedings with Respect to the Governor and the State ................................. 9 e. Summary of the State’s history as it relates to the current motion ................................ 20
II. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 22 a. Legal Standard................................................................................................................ 23 b. Significant changes in factual conditions compel termination of the decree. ................ 24 i. The State has a comprehensive Exempt List and an Exempt Employment Plan. ...... 24 ii. The State has an independent, permanent Office of Executive Inspector General with a dedicated Hiring and Employment Monitoring Division ........................................ 26 iii. The State has adopted many other significant improvements in its employment procedures................................................................................................................... 28 iv. The objective of the 1972 decree has been achieved.................................................. 30 v. There is no basis for systemic intervention. ............................................................... 33 c. Significant changes in the law compel termination of the decree. ................................. 35 d. There is no ongoing violation of federal law, and any additional requirements imposed on the State would be aimed at eliminating conditions that do not implicate federal law. ........................................................................................................................................ 39
i

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 3 of 47 PageID #:64871
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Evans v. City of Chicago, 10 F.3d 474 (7th Cir. 1993)....................................................... 3, 40, 42 Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979) ................................................. 38 Gordon v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 2019 WL 498937, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2019) .......... 37 Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009) ........................................................................ 23, 24, 41, 42 Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2011) .................................. 32 Komyatti v. Bayh, 96 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1996)............................................................................. 39 Loertscher v. Anderson, 893 F.3d 386, (7th Cir. 2018),
reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc denied (July 17, 2018) ................................................ 39 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ..................................................................... 2 O’Sullivan v. City of Chicago, 396 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2005) ................................................ passim People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., Sch. Dist. 205,
246 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................. 1, 23, 24, 34 People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., Sch. Dist. 205,
961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................................ 30, 34 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) ................................................................ 38 Plotkin v. Ryan, 239 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 34, 35 Plotkin v. Ryan, 1999 WL 965718, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 1999),
aff’d, 239 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................... 35 Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) ................................................. 7, 36, 37 Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 868 F.2d 943 (7th Cir. 1989),
aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) ......................................................... 7, 36, 37, 40 Salazar by Salazar v. D.C., 896 F.3d 489 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ............................................. 32, 33, 34 Shakman v. City of Chicago, 426 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2005)................................................... passim Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cnty., 310 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Ill. 1969) ......................... 4 Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cnty., 356 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ill. 1972) ......................... 6 Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cnty., 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1970), cert denied 91 S.Ct.
1383 (1971) ........................................................................................................................... 4, 20
ii

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 4 of 47 PageID #:64872
Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cnty., 481 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Ill. 1979), vacated, Shakman v. Dunne, 829 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1065 (1988)........... 3
Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cnty., 829 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir. 1987)........................ passim United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971) .................................................................. 32 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................. 37 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ........................................................................................... 37 Winpisinger v. Watson, 628 F.2d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1980)................................................................ 35 Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 1983............................................................................................................................. 7 5 ILCS 430/20-10 ............................................................................................................. 15, 16, 26 5 ILCS 430/20-20 ................................................................................................................... 16, 26 5 ILCS 430/20-70 ......................................................................................................................... 16 5 ILCS 430/5-15 ........................................................................................................................... 30 Treatises Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 2.3.2 (2003) ............................................................ 38
iii

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 5 of 47 PageID #:64873
JB Pritzker, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois, by his attorney, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), to vacate the consent decree entered on May 5, 1972 by Judge Abraham Marovitz. In support of this motion, the Governor states as follows:
INTRODUCTION For the past 48 years, the State of Illinois has been subject to the 1972 Shakman consent decree. Governor Richard Ogilvie agreed to the decree; eight administrations since then inherited it. The 1972 decree is attached as Exhibit A. Since Plaintiffs sought supplemental relief in 2014, a Special Master has overseen the employment policies, practices, and decisions made by the State. “[S]tates … have a right to the restoration of control over the institutions of state [] government as soon as the objectives of the federal remedial decree have been achieved.” People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., Sch. Dist. 205, 246 F.3d 1073, 1075–76 (7th Cir. 2001). For two principal, independent reasons, that time has come. First, the State has reformed its employment practices to unquestionably pass constitutional muster. The State has instituted a durable solution to prevent future patronage employment practices. It has a comprehensive “exempt list” – approved by the Plaintiffs, the Special Master, and the Court – which the Court identified as the central infirmity of the State’s prior employment practices when Plaintiffs sought supplemental relief in 2014 and 2016.1 In addition, the State, by statute, has instituted an independent oversight structure in the Office of Executive Inspector General, which has within it a dedicated Hiring and Employment Monitoring Division – comprised of ten professionals with expertise and experience in
1 “Exempt” positions are those for which political affiliation is an appropriate consideration because they involve policymaking or confidential roles. “Non-exempt” positions are those for which political affiliation is not an appropriate consideration.
1

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 6 of 47 PageID #:64874
monitoring the State’s employment practices to prevent and uncover political and other forms of discrimination, misconduct, and inefficiency.
In addition, the Special Master exhaustively has monitored the State’s employment policies and practices for the past six years, and has filed 350 pages of detailed reports describing her work and her findings. Those reports acknowledge the State’s “significant progress,” e.g., Dkt. 6565 at 1, and do not identify a single patronage violation during that timeframe – let alone the kind of widespread illegal policies or practices to justify continued systemic intervention.
Second, during the protracted life of the decree, this case has become unmoored from the Constitution. Article III confines courts to cases and controversies involving individual federal rights. To ensure the presence of a case and controversy, Article III requires, as an irreducible constitutional minimum, an injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct, and that is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Plaintiffs are two private lawyers who, regardless of how they came to be litigants in 1969, now in no respects satisfy this constitutional minimum. They simply are not affected, let alone injured, by the State’s employment policies – they are not State employees and have no desire to become State employees.
A half century ago, Plaintiffs obtained a foothold to standing and to a federal forum by complaining of a specific patronage scheme. Plaintiffs alleged that as an independent candidate for the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention and a voter supporting that candidate, they were injured by a systemic practice whereby incumbents forced public employees to do political work and make political donations at the risk of being fired. Plaintiffs alleged that this army of campaign workers co-opted from the ranks of public employees tipped the electoral playing field such that candidates and voters themselves suffered cognizable injury.
2

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 7 of 47 PageID #:64875
Now, almost five decades since the decree was entered, Plaintiffs do not and cannot plausibly assert that the State is perpetuating any such scheme. Similarly, the standing jurisprudence that originally (although tenuously) recognized Plaintiffs’ claim to involve a justiciable case-and-controversy has evolved to unequivocally preclude litigating generalized grievances and policy preferences in the federal courts. The factual and legal predicates upon which the federal court originally entered the 1972 decree therefore no longer exist.
As a result, the Constitution compels termination of the decree, not its continued existence. In evaluating whether to vacate a consent decree, “concerns of federalism should factor strongly into the court’s analysis.” O’Sullivan v. City of Chicago, 396 F.3d 843, 868 (7th Cir. 2005). “Unless there is a substantial claim under federal law, the district judge should not enter or continue to enforce a consent decree affecting the operation of a governmental body.” Evans v. City of Chicago, 10 F.3d 474, 482 (7th Cir. 1993). There remains no case-andcontroversy and no federal interest in this case to justify the extraordinary intrusion of a federal court into sovereign State affairs.
As explained further below, these developments compel an unequivocal conclusion: there is no basis for continued federal court involvement in the State’s employment practices. After nearly half a century, it is time for the 1972 decree to sunset. I. HISTORY OF THE SHAKMAN LITIGATION
a. The Beginning of this Litigation Plaintiffs Michael Shakman and Paul Lurie filed this action in 1969. Shakman was an unsuccessful candidate in the November 1969 election for delegates to the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention. See Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cnty., 481 F. Supp. 1315, 1320 (N.D. Ill. 1979), vacated, Shakman v. Dunne, 829 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
3

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 8 of 47 PageID #:64876
484 U.S. 1065 (1988). Lurie was a resident of the same voting district and supported Shakman’s candidacy. Id. at 1320. Shakman claimed injury to his ability to compete as a candidate for public office, and both plaintiffs claimed injuries as voters. Id. at 1321. “Plaintiffs’ principal theory [was] that the use of state and local government patronage power to coerce political support for the regular Party organizations and their candidates violate[d] independents’ rights to fair and equal participation in the electoral process.” Id. at 1320. Neither plaintiff claimed injury as a public employee or an applicant for public employment.
The district court initially dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint. Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cnty., 310 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Ill. 1969). It held that plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the constitutional rights of public employees, and that, even if plaintiffs could assert their own rights had been violated, those violations were derivative of the claims of public employees who were coerced to engage in political activities, and plaintiffs could not represent the interests of those persons. Id. at 1400-01.
In a 2-1 decision, the Seventh Circuit reversed. Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cnty., 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1970) (“Shakman I”). The Seventh Circuit explained that plaintiffs alleged that public employees “are required, as a condition of keeping their jobs, or in order to escape discipline, to contribute money to the county democratic organization, or its affiliates, or endorse candidates, and to do political work for such organizations and candidates. Some of such allegedly coerced work is done during regular working hours and some on the [employee’s] own time. The defendants, it is alleged, coerce [employees] by this means to give votes, political support, campaign work, and money to candidates endorsed by the organization and its affiliates.” Id. at 269.
Because this alleged scheme of coerced political work and donations favored incumbent
4

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 9 of 47 PageID #:64877
candidates to the detriment of their challengers, the Court held that plaintiff candidates and voters were “seeking redress for injuries to their own interests” and had standing in that capacity. Id. Defendants filed a petition for certiorari which was denied. 402 U.S. 909 (1971).
b. The 1972 Decree Following denial of certiorari, forty-two Defendants including the then-Governor of Illinois Richard B. Ogilvie, agreed to the 1972 consent decree. The section of the decree enjoining Defendants’ conduct is narrow and prohibitory. It states in relevant part: E. Each and all of the defendants and others named or referred to in paragraph C above are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly, in whole or in part:
(1) conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor.
(2) knowingly causing or permitting any employee to do any partisan political work during the regular working hours of his or her governmental employment, or during time paid for by public funds; provided that nothing contained in this subparagraph (2) shall prohibit governmental employees from voluntarily using vacation time, personal leave time or from taking nonpaid leaves of absence to do political work, but permission to do so must be granted nondiscriminatorily.
(3) knowingly inducing, aiding, abetting, participating in, cooperating with or encouraging the commission of any act which is proscribed by this paragraph E, or threatening to commit any such act.
The decree at its core thus prohibits elected officials from forcing government employees to perform campaign work or else be fired or otherwise punished. As the Seventh Circuit put it, the decree prohibits “a system of coerced political work demanded of those already employed by the government as a condition of continued employment.” Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cnty., 829 F.2d 1387, 1398 (7th Cir. 1987) (“Shakman II”). The decree by its terms is limited geographically to “employment within the Northern District of Illinois.” 1972 consent decree ¶ B.
5

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 10 of 47 PageID #:64878
c. Relevant Proceedings Subsequent to the Consent Decree Since this case was filed in 1969, the district court, the Seventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court have issued numerous decisions relevant to this motion. 1972: District Court holds that Shakman prohibits only political considerations which affect voter and candidate rights – i.e., coerced political work. In 1972, the district court heard motions to dismiss by the defendants that had not signed on to the consent decree. Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cnty., 356 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ill. 1972). The Court affirmed that “Shakman prohibits only political considerations which [a]ffect voter and candidate rights.” Id. at 1248. 1987: Seventh Circuit holds that voters and candidates do not have standing to challenge governmental hiring practices. In 1987, the Seventh Circuit held that voters and candidates for public office do not have standing to challenge governmental hiring policies. Shakman II, 829 F.2d at 1399 (“Because we have determined that the plaintiffs do not have standing to assert the claim they bring to this court, we can proceed no further…. Those aspects of the complaint which challenge the patronage hiring practice of the defendants are dismissed.”). In reaching this holding, the Court noted that, in the years between the 1972 decree and its 1987 decision, “the Supreme Court has engaged in a thorough examination of ‘justiciability,’ the limitations imposed on federal courts by the ‘case-and-controversy’ provision of article III.” Id. at 1393. The Court found the “line of causation between the appellants’ activity” – alleged patronage hiring practices – “and the appellee’s asserted injury to be particularly attenuated.” Id. at 1397. The Shakman II Court explained that its holding did not address the “question of whether the plaintiffs would have standing to attack the constitutionality of the coerced political work
6

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 11 of 47 PageID #:64879
demanded of those already employed by the government as a condition of continued employment” – therefore not “affecting the continued validity of the Shakman decree.” Id. at 1399.
1990: Supreme Court issues the decision in Rutan. In 1990, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990). Rutan held that “promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs based on political affiliation or support are an impermissible infringement on the First Amendment rights of public employees.” Id. at 75. The decision affirmed that allegations of political discrimination brought by public employees state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, since 1990, non-exempt State employees have been able to bring their own First Amendment claims if their employment status changed because of political considerations.
The Supreme Court left undisturbed the Seventh Circuit’s holding that the voters who were plaintiffs in Rutan did not have standing to bring Rutan claims. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 868 F.2d 943, 958 (7th Cir. 1989), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 497 U.S. 62 (1990).
2005: Seventh Circuit expresses serious concerns about voter standing and federalism. In 2005, the Seventh Circuit held that in order to exit the Shakman decree, Rule 60(b) governs. O’Sullivan v. City of Chicago, 396 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Shakman III”). When performing that analysis, “[t]he district court should consider critically whether changes in the legal landscape … require modification or vacatur,” and that “two important developments … should guide the district court’s analysis.” Id. at 868. The first is that “concerns of federalism should factor strongly into the court’s analysis.” Id. The second is that “the court must consider the significant changes in the law of voter standing since the entry of the [decree].” Id. The Court made clear that “the focus of the district court shall be not on the law
7

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 12 of 47 PageID #:64880
of standing as a jurisdictional concept but on the equitable standards embodied in Rule 60(b)(5),” and that the district court “should consider whether the class of voters has the incentive to vigorously litigate and present the matter of political patronage to the court in the manner best suited for judicial resolution.” Id. It explained: “As Shakman II makes clear, we have serious concerns whether the plaintiffs as voters bring to the litigation the sort of concrete adverseness to fulfill the mandate of Lujan,” adding that “a decree fashioned in litigation in which one of the litigants did not have a sufficient concrete stake in the outcome might contain provisions that are not worthy of continued enforcement by a federal court.” Id.
2005: Seventh Circuit reverses and remands the district court’s denial of the City’s Rule 60(b) motion. Shortly thereafter, the Shakman case again came before the Seventh Circuit on the City of Chicago’s appeal of the district court’s denial of its Rule 60(b) motion. Shakman v. City of Chicago, 426 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Shakman IV”). The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, explaining that “[i]n sum, we do not believe that the district court’s denial of the City’s Rule 60(b) motion can be reconciled with this Court’s decision in O’Sullivan or the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rufo [v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992)] and Frew [v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004)].” Id. at 936. Those authorities make clear that, when considering a Rule 60(b) motion with respect to public litigation, the nature of that litigation must factor into the district court’s decision-making process; the public interest and ‘concerns of federalism’ should guide the court’s analysis.” Id. at 936 (citing Shakman III, 396 F.3d at 868). The Court stressed that “[a] very important fact in this case is that the 1983 Consent Decree provides for the ongoing involvement of a federal district court in the hiring decisions of the City of Chicago,” and that “[t]he decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court have noted the need to avoid, when possible, interference in the decision-making process of
8

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 13 of 47 PageID #:64881
local governmental leaders by extending, unnecessarily, the life of a consent decree whose objectives have been achieved or have become unjust, illegal, or unattainable.” Id. at 933 (citing cases).
The Seventh Circuit further explained that on remand “the district court’s Rule 60(b) analysis must account for ‘the significant changes in the law of voter standing since the entry of the … decree.” Id. at 936. It instructed the district court, “guided by the current law of standing to determine whether the class of voters has the necessary interest in this litigation … or whether that task is best left to individuals directly impacted by hiring decisions made by the City.” Id.
d. Shakman Proceedings with Respect to the Governor and the State In the fifty years that this case has been litigated, it has proceeded differently for various Defendant governmental units. The specific posture of this case with respect to the State is important to understand the specific aspects of Shakman that apply and do not apply to the State. Between 1972 and 2009: Other governments enter additional consent decrees and Supplemental Relief Orders, but there is no case activity with respect to the State. After then-Governor Richard B. Ogilvie entered the consent decree at issue in 1972, a number of other governments signed on to additional decrees and Supplemental Relief Orders that imposed requirements beyond the 1972 decree. For instance, many governments including the City of Chicago agreed to a 1983 consent judgment that extended the prohibitions to include patronage hiring. In 2006, Cook County entered a Supplemental Relief Order that imposed a number of additional obligations on the County, including obligations relating to hiring. Dkt. 531. The City of Chicago entered a similar Agreed Settlement Order and Accord in 2007. Dkt. 601. The County Clerk entered a “Hiring and Exemptions” consent judgment in 1991. Dkt. 6486-2. In contrast, the State has not agreed to additional relief or obligations, and it remains bound by only
9

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 14 of 47 PageID #:64882
the 1972 consent decree. This means that, unlike the cases against other defendants, only voter and candidate interests are at issue, and “hiring” remains off the table in this case.
2009-2010: Plaintiffs move for supplemental relief. In December 2009, Plaintiffs sought against the State “supplemental relief with respect to the 1972 Order similar to the supplemental relief orders entered by this Court in the last several years with respect to the City of Chicago, Cook County and other governmental offices.” Dkt. 1460 ¶ 11. Then-Governor Patrick Quinn opposed the request for supplemental relief. Dkt. 1551. Plaintiffs did not file a reply and never sought a ruling on their motion.
2014: Plaintiffs again seek supplemental relief for the entire State; the Court appoints a special master for the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). In 2014 – forty-two years after entry of the decree – Plaintiffs filed what they called an “Amended Motion for Entry of Supplemental Relief.” Dkt. 3744. The Plaintiffs cited as the principal basis for their motion an August 14, 2013 report by the Better Government Association. Id. at 6. The Plaintiffs’ motion centered on the argument that IDOT had taken advantage of the fact that the State did not have a single, comprehensive, and accurate list of “exempt” job positions. They argued that IDOT inappropriately placed political hires into “staff assistant” positions that should have been filled without regard to political preference. As Plaintiffs described in their motion:
The scheme worked as follows: IDOT created or re-designated numerous “staff assistant” or “executive secretary” positions, which it designated as Rutan-exempt even though the jobs performed by those placed in the positions did not in actuality require the sort of policy-making tasks that would qualify the positions as exempt. These faux-exempt positions were filled with employees based on political considerations rather than qualifications. Many of these hires were ‘dumped’ on IDOT managers who did not ask for or want to manage the employees. Later … the politically-hired employees were promoted or transferred into non-exempt, often unionized positions in order to make it harder to terminate the employees. These promotions or transfers were motivated by political considerations, in violation of both Rutan and the 1972 Order. Id. at 7; see also Dkt. 4128 at 5 (“[T]he Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Entry of
10

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 15 of 47 PageID #:64883
Supplemental Relief in 2014, alleging that IDOT improperly created or reclassified numerous ‘Staff Assistant’ or ‘Executive Secretary’ positions as Rutan-exempt (e.g., positions where party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the job) even though the work performed by those employees should be Rutan-covered. The Plaintiffs further alleged that the ‘faux-exempt positions’ were improperly filled with employees based on political consideration rather than qualifications—in violation of Rutan and the 1972 Decree.”). Plaintiffs specified that the complained-of practices “began in or about 2003 under Governor Blagojevich and continued until the end of 2011 or early 2012 under Governor Quinn.” Id. at 6.
Plaintiffs sought “authority to take discovery” and obtain relief including “additional injunctive relief”; the “appointment of a special master … to investigate and recommend appropriate reforms in the employment practices for non-exempt jobs under the jurisdiction of the Governor within the Northern District of Illinois”; “Development … of a hiring, promotion, reassignment and employment plan for non-exempt positions”; and “Development … of a list of employment positions that are properly exempt from the rules against political sponsorship or conditioning employment upon political factors or considerations.” Id. at 9-10.
The Court awarded Plaintiffs the relief it determined was appropriate. Specifically, the Court appointed a Special Master for IDOT, finding “that compliance with the decree is best served by having a transparent process in which an agent of the Court is involved in further investigating the scope and reason for what occurred, recommending the measures that may be necessary to prevent any recurrence and then in assessing the implementation of those efforts to ensure that they are effective.” Id. 16:25-17:6. The Court explained that “[a] special master performing those very targeted functions will not usurp the responsibilities of officials to run the affairs at IDOT, but rather will help ensure that IDOT’s employment practices comply with the
11

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 16 of 47 PageID #:64884
requirements of the decree.” Id. 17:7-11. The Court declined to afford Plaintiffs the additional relief that they had sought, however.
It declined to order relief as to agencies under the Governor’s jurisdiction except IDOT; it declined additional injunctive relief; and it declined to allow Plaintiffs to take discovery. 10/22/14 Hr’g Tr. 9:12-22 (attached as Exhibit B). While Plaintiffs argued that their 2014 evidence “establishe[d] the need for supplemental relief with respect to the 1972 Order similar to the supplemental relief orders entered by the Court in the last several years with respect to” a number of other defendants, Dkt. 3744 at 9, the Court did not impose such an order.
The Court entered its Order appointing Noelle C. Brennan as Special Master pursuant to Rule 53 on November 18, 2014. Dkt. 4020. The Court charged the Special Master with investigating IDOT’s misuse of the “staff assistant” position, and with recommending measures to prevent recurrence and to remedy the past violations. That Order instructed that “[t]he Special Master … shall with all reasonable diligence”:
(i) investigate the scope and reason for any violation of the 1972 Decree regarding the Illinois Department of Transportation (“IDOT”),
(ii) recommend measures that may be necessary or appropriate to prevent any recurrence,
(iii) assess the implementation of those efforts to ensure that they are effective, (iv) address whether positions in IDOT labeled as exempt were properly exempt under
applicable legal principles, and (v) make recommendations for how to remedy any violations of the 1972 Decree. Id. ¶ 3. 2016-2017: Plaintiffs move for and the Court orders expansion of the Special Master’s responsibilities to cover aspects of exempt employment beyond IDOT. In 2016, Plaintiffs moved to expand the Special Master’s responsibilities to include certain aspects of
12

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 17 of 47 PageID #:64885
exempt employment at all of the Governor’s other agencies, not just with respect to IDOT. Dkt. 4676. Specifically, Plaintiffs requested to expand the Special Master’s responsibilities to include:
(i) Reviewing all positions under the jurisdiction of the Governor designated as “exempt”;
(ii) Developing a single and comprehensive list of all “exempt” positions – an “Exempt List”;
(iii) Developing procedures for revision of the Exempt List; and (iv) Investigating whether certain positions designated as “exempt” qualify under
applicable law. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiffs argued that “[t]he relief sought in this Motion” – expansion of a Special Master’s jurisdiction – “is warranted because the process of developing an Exempt List has not proceeded with reasonable speed ….” Id. at 4. They characterized their “prior motions that led to the appointment of the Special Master in 2014 resulted from the widespread unlawful practices in defining and filling exempt positions under the Quinn Administration.” Id. They repeated their core concern that “[t]he lack of a single comprehensive list of Exempt Positions and of an established procedure for revising the list of Exempt Positions permitted the Quinn administration to appoint approximately 300 individuals as purportedly exempt IDOT ‘technical assistants’ despite the fact that they did not warrant exempt status.” Id. Over the State’s objection (Dkt. 4725), the Court granted the motion and expanded the Special Master’s responsibilities to extend to the Governor’s other agencies beyond IDOT (“Statewide”). Dkt. 4798. The Court explained that “[a] review of the exempt positions at the other agencies [besides IDOT] will allow the Court to ensure the requirements of the 1972 decree (and the constitution) are met by ensuring that only positions that truly qualify for exempt
13

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 18 of 47 PageID #:64886
status receive that label, and that robust processes are in place to ensure that remains the case.” Id. at 3. The State had agreed that a review of exempt positions was appropriate, but argued that “expansion of the Special Master’s authority will needlessly duplicate the work of the newly established Hiring and Employment Monitoring unit in the Office of the Executive Inspector General.” Dkt. 4725 at 1.
The Court reasoned that “in our judgment, involving the Special Master in the endeavor from the outset will better promote effectiveness of the review, and will cost the State less money in the long run,” and that “[t]he support and assistance of the Special Master is vital to ensure that review of exempt positions across the State occurs within a reasonable time frame.” Dkt. 4798 at 4, 6. Although the Court “applaud[ed] the creation of” the HEM unit, it reasoned that “we are not convinced that the newly-created HEM unit currently possesses the experience or expertise to take on the investigation and review of exempt positions – and the process for determining which positions are exempt – for the entire state of Illinois without the active involvement of the Special Master.” Id. at 5. At the same time, the Court explained that “[o]ne goal of our order is to encourage the fastest and most efficient transfer of knowledge and experience from the Special Master to HEM unit employees so that they may carry more of the burden.” Id. at 6.
The Court therefore expanded the authority of the Special Master to encompass the four responsibilities listed above that the Plaintiffs had set out in their motion. Id. at 6-7. Those responsibilities were formalized in an Order expanding the Special Master’s responsibilities under Rule 53. Dkt. 5004. The four responsibilities reduce to two principal ones: developing a comprehensive “Exempt List” and developing procedures for revising that list. Id.
14

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 19 of 47 PageID #:64887
2014-present: Extensive monitoring and oversight by the Special Master. From 2014 to present, the Special Master and her team have performed extensive monitoring at IDOT. The Special Master has filed eleven reports with respect to IDOT, totaling approximately 250 pages. Those reports contain a number of recommendations for IDOT to adopt, most of which have been adopted. From 2017 to present, the Special Master and her team likewise have had significant involvement in Statewide exempt employment. The Special Master has filed six reports and a supplement with respect to the State, totaling another 100 pages. The Special Master solicits and investigates both anonymous and named complaints regarding the State’s employment practices through the website www.ShakmanIllinois.com. See Dkt. 4128 at 3. To give the Court a sense of the thoroughness of the Special Master’s work, the cost outlay to the State with respect to the Special Master’s team, which is currently comprised of six people, has been over $4 million – which equates to approximately 16,000 hours of work at the Special Master’s compensated rate of $250 per hour.
2016-present: Extensive monitoring and oversight by the Office of Executive Inspector General and Hiring & Employment Monitoring Division. In the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 5 ILCS 430/20-10(a), the Illinois General Assembly created the Illinois Office of Executive Inspector General (“OEIG”), “a fully independent office with separate appropriations” under “the direction and supervision of an Executive Inspector General.” The Executive Inspector General is appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of three-fifths of the Illinois Senate, to a five-year term from which she can only be removed for cause. 5 ILCS 430/20-10(b), (f). The current Executive Inspector General, Susan M. Haling, was appointed by Governor Bruce Rauner and reappointed by Governor Pritzker. The OEIG has approximately 72 full-time equivalent employees and had an annual operating
15

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 20 of 47 PageID #:64888
budget in fiscal year 2020 of approximately $7.75 million. Under the Ethics Act, the OEIG has broad jurisdiction “to investigate allegations of
fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, misconduct, nonfeasance, misfeasance, malfeasance, or violations or this Act or violations of other related laws and rules.” 5 ILCS 430/20-10(c). The statute specifically charges OEIG with “review[ing] hiring and employment files of each State agency … to ensure compliance with Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990), and with all applicable employment laws.” 5 ILCS 430/20-20(9). To fulfill its statutory role, the OEIG has the authority to issue subpoenas and compel the attendance of witnesses, and a person refusing to comply with a subpoena “shall be subject to punishment as may be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.” 5 ILCS 430/20-20(2), (3) and 20-35. State officers and employees have a specific duty “to cooperate with the [EIG] … in any investigation undertaken pursuant to [the Ethics] Act.” 5 ILCS 430/20-70. And the failure to cooperate with the OEIG “is grounds for disciplinary action, including dismissal.” Id.
In 2015, the OEIG created a separate compliance division known as the Hiring & Employment Monitoring Division – referred to as “HEM.” The Executive Inspector General submitted a memorandum to the Court that describes in detail the OEIG’s role in monitoring and investigating State hiring and employment. Dkt. 6936. In it, the Executive Inspector General notes that the OEIG’s “investigations … have brought many hiring issues to the attention of the State and the public, including the IDOT investigation that prompted these proceedings.” Id. at 24. The Executive Inspector General’s Memorandum further describes how “[i]n addition to identifying hiring issues through its investigations, the OEIG recognized the necessity of a vigorous compliance role, and thus expended significant time and resources to create a 10-person compliance unit, HEM, to work directly with agencies to implement, monitor, and enforce
16

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 21 of 47 PageID #:64889
proper State hiring practices and procedures.” Id. HEM’s ten employees “include[e] a director, three attorneys, a supervising analyst, four analysts, and a project manager.” Id. at 3. As that staffing reflects, the OEIG has devoted significant resources to “its mission of ensuring competitive State hiring free of political or any other manipulation.” Id. at 24.
2017: The Special Master completes her IDOT investigation. With respect to IDOT, the Court in 2014 ordered the Special Master to investigate IDOT’s use of the “staff assistant” positions. As the Court explained, “plaintiffs ask that I appoint an officer to conduct an investigation in the wake of evidence … in the OEIG report … at IDOT regarding the use of staff assistant positions that were labeled as exempt, meaning that partisan political considerations could be used in determining who would receive these positions. But that, in fact, the people who went into the positions performed job duties that largely or exclusively fell into the category of non-exempt positions, meaning that the people who filled jobs of that character had to be selected without regard to partisan political considerations.” 10/22/14 Hr’g Tr. 7:238:8; see also id. 8:15-21 (“[A]ccording to the Inspector General report, some of the people who were hired into the staff assistant positions but who actually performed non-exempt work, had partisan political connections. … [The Plaintiffs] say that this conduct violates the 1972 consent decree.”).
The Special Master accordingly was tasked with “very targeted functions,” 10/22/14 Hr’g Tr. 9:21-22, relating to investigating misuse of the “staff assistant” position that led to her assignment and recommending measures to prevent recurrence and to remedy the past violations. The Special Master completed her investigation in an 89-page report filed on April 24, 2017. Dkt. 4988; see also Dkt. 5069 at 1 (“[T]he Special Master and her staff completed the investigation into the Governor’s Office’s involvement in the misuse of the Staff Assistant
17

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 22 of 47 PageID #:64890
position at IDOT ….”). In the three years since then, the Special Master has made myriad recommendations and assessed implementation of those recommendations, such that the functions the Court assigned her with respect to IDOT and misuse of the Staff Assistant position now are complete.
Two principal developments merit specific mention. First, on December 4, 2017, the Court issued an Order Creating a Review Process for Applications of Former Staff Assistant for Positions at IDOT. Dkt. 5644. This created “a procedure for determining, in specific cases, what consideration [IDOT] is to give a Staff Assistant’s experience when applying for a nonexempt, Rutan-covered position.” Id. at 1. As the Special Master noted, this process “minimize[s] the ongoing impact of previous violations of the 1972 Decree with respect to the Staff Assistant position.” Dkt. 5699 at 2. Second, and as explained further below, the State now has a comprehensive Exempt List. The Special Master has explained that “[h]aving a finite list ensures that improper political hiring is less likely to occur, because no department can simply create and fill an unlimited number of new positions, as was the case with the Staff Assistant positions at IDOT.” Dkt. 6306 at 2.
2019: The Court approves the Governor’s Employment Plan for Exempt Positions and Statewide Exempt List. As described above, in 2016, the Court expanded the Special Master’s duties beyond IDOT to include reviewing positions designated as “exempt” and developing both a comprehensive list of “exempt” positions – an “Exempt List” – and procedures for revising that list. Dkt. 4798. The Court described this work as “allow[ing] the Court to ensure the requirements of the 1972 decree (and the constitution) are met by ensuring that only positions that truly qualify for exempt status receive that label, and that robust processes are in place to ensure that remains the case.” Dkt. 4798 at 3. The Parties finished that
18

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 23 of 47 PageID #:64891
work in 2019. On January 7, 2019, the Court entered an Agreed Order approving the Governor’s Employment Plan for Exempt Positions, which includes a process for changing the status of positions from exempt to non-exempt and vice versa. Dkt. 6158. On January 22, 2019, the Court entered an Agreed Order approving the statewide Exempt List (which included IDOT’s exempt positions). See Dkt. 6180. The State’s Exempt List is updated monthly and available online at https://www2.illinois.gov/cms/Documents/ExemptList_w_Incumbents.pdf. The Employment Plan for Exempt Positions contemplates that, even once the 1972 decree is terminated, OEIG, HEM, and the State’s Civil Service Commission will continue to have oversight over the addition and deletion of positions on the Exempt List. Dkt. 6158.
2019-2020: The State discusses with Plaintiffs and the Special Master its hope to exit the decree. As the parties achieved these milestones and the State completed its obligations under the Special Master’s Orders, in late 2019 the State began discussions with the Plaintiffs, the Special Master, and the Court regarding the State’s exit from the decree. See Dkt. 6712 at 2 (“The State has been very upfront in stating its intention to seek to exit the 1972 Decree given all it has accomplished to comply with this Court’s orders.”). The State had hoped to exit the decree during Judge Schenkier’s tenure, given all of the progress that he had overseen and his familiarity with the 2014 and 2017 orders. However, discussions with the Plaintiffs made clear that the parties had different understandings regarding the requirements to exit the decree. In the Plaintiffs’ view, the State could not exit the decree without first adopting and implementing a “Comprehensive Employment Plan,” which would dictate all aspects of State hiring and employment. Once implemented, the Plaintiffs believe that they and the Special Master should monitor the entirety of the Comprehensive Employment Plan and evaluate the State’s
19

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 24 of 47 PageID #:64892
performance for at least a year.2 Plaintiffs also have indicated their belief that the State must submit to and have its progress measured by a “supplemental relief order” similar to the ones that applied to the City and County before they exited the decree, even though those entities agreed to supplemental relief orders as a means of settling disputes and the State has not. See Dkt. 6789 at 22.
As it became clear that the State could not agree to the Plaintiffs’ additional conditions for exiting the decree, the State requested a briefing schedule for its Rule 60(b) motion. See Dkt. 6674. The State’s target date for filing its motion was pushed back, including because its efforts turned exclusively to addressing the Coronavirus pandemic beginning in March 2020.
e. Summary of the State’s history as it relates to the current motion Because the 50+ year history of this case and its nearly 7,000 docket entries are not easily distilled, the State believes the following are the most salient aspects of its specific history for purposes of the present motion: First, the 1972 decree is limited. It contains a prohibitory injunction, not a mandatory injunction – forbidding “a system of coerced political work demanded of those already employed by the government as a condition of continued employment.” Shakman II, 829 F.2d at 1398. There remains a case-and-controversy and a federal claim – if at all – only insofar as Plaintiffs are affected as candidates and voters, such as when challengers are disadvantaged by the structural advantages that coerced political work provides incumbents. Shakman I, 435 F.2d at 269. The decree is limited geographically to “employment within the Northern District of
2 While the Parties did not reach full agreement on a Comprehensive Employment Plan, the Plaintiffs, the Special Master, and OEIG HEM reviewed and commented on drafts and the State made numerous changes based on those discussions. The State filed the Comprehensive Employment Plan for the Court’s awareness on November 25, 2019. Dkt. 6612. The State has begun implementing and training human resources and personnel staff on the Comprehensive Employment Plan, in coordination with HEM.
20

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 25 of 47 PageID #:64893
Illinois.” 1972 consent decree ¶ B. The decree does not and, under the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Shakman II, cannot cover the State’s “hiring” policies and practices. 1972 consent decree ¶ E; Shakman II, 829 F.2d at 1399.
Second, for the first 37 years the decree was in place, Plaintiffs took no action and sought no relief regarding the State’s employment policies or practices. In 2009, they filed a motion for supplemental relief and let it languish. Thus, for a full 42 years, Plaintiffs did not seek the additional employment reforms they now attempt to cast as constitutional imperatives. Notably, Plaintiffs did not obtain against the State the supplemental relief orders that ultimately dictated the course of their litigation against other Defendants, including the City and County, and the State did not agree to additional consent judgments like the County Clerk.
Third, developments in case law – particularly regarding the case-and-controversy requirement – have left the 1972 decree on dubious legal footing. As the Seventh Circuit explained in Shakman III, “we have serious concerns whether the plaintiffs as voters bring to the litigation the sort of concrete adverseness to fulfill the mandate of Lujan,” and “a decree fashioned in litigation in which one of the litigants did not have a sufficient concrete stake in the outcome might contain provisions that are not worthy of continued enforcement by a federal court.” 396 F.3d at 868. The Plaintiffs are lawyers who are not and do not want to be State employees. And they are only “candidates” and “voters” in the abstract – not with respect to any particular election that is somehow affected by the State’s employment policies.
Fourth, when Plaintiffs sought broad new relief as to the State in 2014 and 2016, they focused on the lack of an accurate and comprehensive Exempt List and procedures for revising that list. In ordering a Special Master pursuant to Rule 53, the Court rejected significant aspects of the relief Plaintiffs sought and imposed the relief it determined was warranted. Accordingly,
21

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 26 of 47 PageID #:64894
the Orders relating to the Special Master were limited. The Court’s 2014 order was limited to IDOT (not the rest of the Governor’s agencies), and the Court described the Special Master as assuming “very targeted functions,” 10/22/14 Hr’g Tr. 9:21-22, which are set out in the Rule 53 Order and which necessarily tie back to the violation involving misuse of the “staff assistant” position. Dkt. 4020. The Court’s 2017 order was limited to Statewide “exempt” employment. That order requires two significant tasks that encompass the rest: development of a comprehensive “Exempt List” and procedures for revising that list. The Court “encourage[d] the fastest and most efficient transfer of knowledge and experience from the Special Master to HEM unit employees” so that HEM could assume her responsibilities on an ongoing basis. Id. at 5.
Fifth, the State has accomplished the objectives identified by the Court to address the requirements of the 1972 decree. For eighteen months now, the State has had a comprehensive Exempt List and an Employment Plan for Exempt Positions – agreed to by the Plaintiffs and the Special Master, and approved by the Court. Dkt. 6154; Dkt. 6180. The State also has instituted a robust and permanent oversight structure in OEIG and HEM, which ensures that allegations of political discrimination and patronage in hiring and employment will receive thorough review and investigation by an experienced and independent team of oversight professionals.
II. ARGUMENT After 48 years under the 1972 consent decree, with the past six involving extensive
investigation, monitoring, and oversight from the Special Master regarding State employment, it is time for this litigation to come to a close. The State has achieved the objectives of the decree and has instituted an independent and vigorous oversight structure. Further federal involvement would violate the principles of federalism central to our constitutional democracy.
22

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 27 of 47 PageID #:64895
a. Legal Standard Rule 60(b) “provides a means by which a party can ask a court to modify or vacate a judgment or order if a significant change either in factual conditions or in law renders continued enforcement detrimental to the public interest …. The party seeking relief bears the burden of establishing that changed circumstances warrant relief, but once a party carries this burden, a court abuses its discretion when it refuses to modify an injunction or consent decree in light of such changes.” Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009) (citations omitted). When a decree imposes “institutional reform” of State government, courts must take a “flexible approach … to ensure that responsibility for discharging the State’s obligations is returned promptly to the State and its officials when the circumstances warrant.” Id. at 450. “In applying this flexible approach, courts must remain attentive to the fact that federal-court decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate [federal law] or does not flow from such a violation. If [a federal consent decree is] not limited to reasonable and necessary implementations of federal law, it may improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers.” Id. (citations omitted); Shakman IV, 426 F.3d at 936 (“[T]he public interest and concerns of federalism should guide the court’s analysis.”). For these reasons, “a critical question in this Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry is whether the objective of [the original order] has been achieved. If a durable remedy has been implemented, continued enforcement of the order is not only unnecessary, but improper.” Horne, 557 U.S. at 450 (citation omitted); see also People Who Care, 246 F.3d at 1075–76 (“[T]he states and their subdivisions have a right to the restoration of control over the institutions of state and local government as soon as the objectives of the federal remedial decree have been achieved”);
23

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 28 of 47 PageID #:64896
Shakman IV, 426 F.3d at 933 (“The decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court have noted the need to avoid, when possible, interference in the decision-making process of local governmental leaders by extending, unnecessarily, the life of a consent decree whose objectives have been achieved ….”).
A related and equally critical question is “whether ongoing enforcement of the original order [is] supported by an ongoing violation of federal law.” Horne, 557 U.S. at 454; see also People Who Care, 246 F.3d at 1078 (terminating decree where “[p]ressed at argument, the plaintiffs’ able lawyer could not cite an instance in which the school board has violated any of the numerous provisions of the decree”).
b. Significant changes in factual conditions compel termination of the decree. There have been myriad significant changes in factual conditions since the 1972 consent decree was entered. Two fundamental factual developments – the development of a comprehensive Exempt List (along with the institution and implementation of a detailed process to modify that list as needed) and the permanent statutory oversight provided by OEIG HEM – demonstrate that the State has in place a durable remedy to prevent violations of the law. The absence of any substantiated violations of the decree or instances of patronage in the period of the Special Master’s monitoring – now spanning eighteen months of the current administration and the entirety of the prior one – further underscores that the objectives of the decree have been achieved. There remains no basis for any continued federal court oversight, let alone continued systemic oversight, which is improper without a systemic violation.
i. The State has a comprehensive Exempt List and an Exempt Employment Plan.
The State now has a comprehensive Exempt List and an Employment Plan for Exempt Positions, each approved by the Plaintiffs, the Special Master, and the Court. Dkt. 6154; Dkt.
24

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 29 of 47 PageID #:64897
6180. The creation of the Exempt List and the Exempt Employment Plan satisfies Plaintiffs’ requests and principal complaints that led to the appointment of the Special Master. See Dkt. 4676 at 4 (“Plaintiffs’ prior motions that led to the appointment of the Special Master in 2014 resulted from the widespread unlawful practices in defining and filling exempt positions under the Quinn Administration. The lack of a single comprehensive list of Exempt Positions and of an established procedure for revising the list of Exempt Positions permitted the Quinn administration to appoint approximately 300 individuals as purportedly exempt IDOT ‘technical assistants’ despite the fact that they did not warrant exempt status.”).
The Court previously determined that “[a] review of the exempt positions [at all agencies under the jurisdiction of the Governor] will allow the Court to ensure the requirements of the 1972 decree (and the constitution) are met by ensuring that only positions that truly qualify for exempt status receive that label, and that robust processes are in place to ensure that remains the case.” Dkt. 4798 at 3. The Special Master likewise has noted that “[h]aving a finite list ensures that improper political hiring is less likely to occur, because no department can simply create and fill an unlimited number of new positions, as was the case with the Staff Assistant positions at IDOT.” Dkt. 6306 at 2. The Special Master explained that the corresponding “Exempt Employment Plan … describes the process by which the Governor’s Office … may, from time to time, request to make changes to the Exempt List by adding, removing, or amending the titles of positions on the list.” Id. at 6. The Plan also “includes the process by which a position that currently has an incumbent may be changed from exempt to non-exempt if it is determined, through the request to change process, that the position no longer qualifies for the Exempt List under the applicable standards.” Id. at 7.
For over eighteen months, the Special Master has observed the Exempt List and the
25

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 30 of 47 PageID #:64898
Exempt Employment Plan at work. As the Special Master noted in her latest Statewide report, over this period, positions have been both added and deleted from the Exempt List pursuant to the Exempt Employment Plan. Dkt. 6710 at 28. And “[s]ince January of 2019, the Pritzker Administration has made more than 500 appointments into Exempt List positions. HEM reviews the appointment paperwork for each appointment. To avoid duplication of efforts, the Special Master’s office has not played an active role in reviewing each appointment in recent months.” Id. The presence of a comprehensive exempt list and an agreed mechanism for revising that list addresses the principal deficiency that Plaintiffs claimed undermined the State’s past employment practices.
ii. The State has an independent, permanent Office of Executive Inspector General with a dedicated Hiring and Employment Monitoring Division.
The second dispositive aspect of the State’s durable remedy is the existence of the Office of Executive Inspector General (“OEIG”), and a dedicated Hiring and Employment Monitoring Division (“HEM”) within OEIG.
The Illinois General Assembly created the OEIG as part of the Ethics Act. See 5 ILCS 430/20-10(a). In 2009, the Illinois legislature amended the law to expand the OEIG’s jurisdiction to including investigating allegations of prohibited employment practices, including the requirements of Rutan. See 5 ILCS 430/20-20(9) (adding power to “review hiring and employment files of each State agency within the Executive Inspector General’s jurisdiction to ensure compliance with Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990), and with all applicable employment laws.”). In 2015, the OEIG created the Division of Hiring & Employment Monitoring (HEM), which conducts compliance-based reviews of State hiring and employment procedures and decisions to ensure that they are lawful, merit-based, and justifiable. HEM conducts both file reviews and on-site monitoring of agency hiring decisions. The OEIG
26

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 31 of 47 PageID #:64899
submitted a memorandum to the Court that describes in detail its extensive role in monitoring and investigating state hiring and employment. Dkt. 6936. OEIG also publishes quarterly reports detailing its activities, which are found at https://www2.illinois.gov/oeig/HEM/Pages/HEM%20Reports.aspx.
When the Court in 2017 expanded the Special Master’s jurisdiction to exempt employment beyond IDOT, one of its bases for doing so was that HEM was still new. The Court explained that “we are not convinced that the newly-created HEM unit currently possesses the experience or expertise to take on the investigation and review of exempt positions – and the process for determining which positions are exempt – for the entire state of Illinois without the active involvement of the Special Master.” Dkt. 4798 at 5. The Court concluded that “[a]llowing the HEM unit to handle that task ‘flying solo’ would create the unacceptable risk that the unit would miss critical issues as it climbs the analytical learning curve, or make improvident decisions that could require costly unraveling later.” Id. To address that risk going forward, the Court explained that “[o]ne goal of our order is to encourage the fastest and most efficient transfer of knowledge and experience from the Special Master to HEM unit employees so that they may carry more of the burden.” Id. at 6.
Now, after years of work and building a staff that is larger than the Special Master’s team and dedicated full time to hiring and employment monitoring, there is no doubt about HEM’s experience or expertise, and there is no question concerning the integrity, competency, or rigor of their monitoring of the State’s hiring and employment. The HEM unit that began as one person in 2015 now has ten full-time employees. Indeed, in her recently-filed Sixth Report regarding Statewide employment, the Special Master noted that HEM now reviews appointment paperwork, and “[t]o avoid duplication of efforts, the Special Master’s office has not played an
27

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 32 of 47 PageID #:64900
active role in reviewing each appointment in recent months.” Dkt. 6710 at 28. There is no basis for duplication of oversight and investigation that can be – and is being – done by an independent hiring and employment monitor.
iii. The State has adopted many other significant improvements in its employment procedures.
While the exempt list and the existence of OEIG/HEM should be dispositive in evaluating changed circumstances and a durable remedy, the State has adopted myriad other improvements during the six years the Special Master has been making recommendations for IDOT and the three years she has been making recommendations Statewide.
With respect to IDOT, the Special Master recently identified a number of accomplishments, which included:
• IDOT, the Special Master, and HEM agreed on the list of truly “technical” positions that should remain excluded from the Personnel Code under Section 4c(12).
• IDOT and HEM, with participation of the Special Master’s office, have been creating minimum required qualifications (“MRQs”) that demonstrate the technical nature of those positions and revising them as necessary.
• IDOT, the Special Master, and HEM agreed on the list of positions that should be reclassified as Personnel Code-covered.
• IDOT, in collaboration with CMS, the Special Master’s office, and HEM, established Personnel Code position descriptions for non-technical, exempt positions, such that those positions can be included on the Exempt List.
Dkt. 6458 at 2. The Special Master recently noted that, “[s]ince filing the Tenth IDOT Report … on August 16, 2019 (Dkt. 6458), several of the Special Master’s long-standing recommendations to IDOT have been accomplished or are on track for completion.” Dkt. 6900 at 1. The Special Master listed:
• Finalizing and filing the Technical List – representing a “significant accomplishment.”
28

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 33 of 47 PageID #:64901
• Presenting and finalizing [minimum required qualifications] for all technical classifications.
• Creating a detailed plan with target dates for conversion of titles that will no longer be technical to the Personnel Code.
• Presenting all proposed 4d(3) positions at IDOT to [the Civil Service Commission] for 4d(3) determination.
• Converting formerly Rutan-exempt positions not included on the Shakman Exempt List to non-exempt status.
• Creating and presenting a plan to ensure a wider applicant pool for seasonal internship positions.
Id. at 2-3. With respect to the State (those agencies beyond IDOT), the Special Master likewise has
noted “significant progress.” Dkt. 6565 at 1. “[T]he parties have accomplished the following with respect to Shakman-exempt positions”:
• Reducing the number of positions where political factors may be considered in hiring from approximately 3500 positions to approximately 1100 positions.
• Eliminating all job protection for any Shakman-exempt positions. • Agreeing upon minimum qualifications for all Shakman-exempt positions. • Implementing a hiring process for Shakman-exempt positions that requires
certification from the hiring agency that the candidate is qualified and will be performing exempt work, with oversight by the Office of Inspector General’s Hiring and Employment Monitoring Division (“HEM”). Id. The Special Master further acknowledged the State has begun the process of rolling out for all State hiring an Electronic Hiring Process that “is a vast improvement to the State’s historical hiring system, and we commend the CMS personnel who have worked diligently over the past few years to develop the new system.” Dkt. 6710 at 21. At this point, HEM is wellpositioned to assume the responsibility of recommending additional reforms to the State’s hiring
29

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 34 of 47 PageID #:64902
and employment practices, and to monitor the State’s implementation of those reforms. iv. The objective of the 1972 decree has been achieved.
In light of the factual changes listed above, the objective of the 1972 decree has been achieved. This analysis requires stepping back and analyzing what the State agreed to – and what it did not agree to – in 1972. “Consent decrees are fundamentally contracts. True, when the imprimatur of the injunction joins the parties’ agreement, the result is more than a contract, but the source of authority to require the parties to act remains their acquiescence rather than rules of law.” People Who Care, 961 F.2d 1335, 1337 (7th Cir. 1992).
The State agreed in the 1972 decree not to do something – at its core, not to require employees to perform coerced political work at the risk of being terminated or punished if they refused. 1972 consent decree ¶ E. The Plaintiffs do not allege that the State is perpetrating this type of coerced political work scheme. The Ethics Act, 5 ILCS 430/5-15, which OEIG enforces and investigates, codifies the prohibitions that:
• “[A]t no time shall any executive or legislative branch constitutional officer or any official, director, supervisor, or State employee intentionally misappropriate the services of any State employee by requiring that State employee to perform any prohibited political activity (i) as a part of that employee’s State duties, (ii) as a condition of State employment, or (iii) during any time off that is compensated by the State,”
• “A State employee shall not be required at any time to participate in any prohibited political activity in consideration for that State employee being awarded any additional compensation or employee benefit, in the form of a salary adjustment, bonus, compensatory time off, continued employment, or otherwise,” and
• “A State employee shall not be awarded any additional compensation or employee benefit, in the form of a salary adjustment, bonus, compensatory time off, continued employment, or otherwise, in consideration for the State employee’s participation in any prohibited political activity.” In the six years that the Special Master has investigated and monitored, she has not
identified in any of her reports an allegation or finding that the State has maintained a coerced
30

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 35 of 47 PageID #:64903
political work scheme, or that any employee has been fired or otherwise punished for refusing to participate in political work. Indeed, neither the Special Master in her reports nor the Plaintiffs in their recent motion (Dkt. 6789) point to any finding of illegal political discrimination during the past six years. Coupling the absence of any evidence of violations of the 1972 consent decree (during a period of extensive investigation and monitoring by both the Special Master and OEIG HEM) with the durable remedies embodied in the Exempt List and OEIG/HEM oversight, the decree has achieved its purpose.
Plaintiffs believe the State should be subject to the same “supplemental relief orders” as the City and the County. See Dkt. 6789 at 22. But for the City and the County, those “supplemental relief orders” reflect negotiated settlement compromises agreed to by the parties. See Dkt. 531, Dkt. 601. Here, the State has not agreed to supplemental relief, and the Court has never awarded it (outside of appointing the Special Master). The Court in 2014 determined that a Special Master was warranted to perform “very targeted functions,” 10/22/14 Hr’g Tr. 9:21-22, but a supplemental relief order was not, even though Plaintiffs argued that their 2014 evidence “establishes the need for supplemental relief with respect to the 1972 Order similar to the supplemental relief orders entered by the Court in the last several years with respect to” a number of other defendants. Dkt. 3744 at 9. Just because the City and the County litigation took a specific path does not mean that the State must follow the same one.
Indeed, the narrow, prohibitory text of the 1972 decree (which is very different from the later decrees and orders to which the City, the County, and the County Clerk are parties) provides no basis for the Court to take the extraordinary step of mandating a “supplemental relief order” or a “Comprehensive Employment Plan.” The additional obligations that the Plaintiffs seek to impose on the State – whether through a supplemental relief order, a Comprehensive
31

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 36 of 47 PageID #:64904
Employment Plan, or otherwise – thus would be tantamount to modifications of the 1972 decree. “Who would sign a consent decree if district courts had free-ranging interpretive or enforcement authority untethered from the decree’s negotiated terms?” Salazar by Salazar v. D.C., 896 F.3d 489, 500 (D.C. Cir. 2018). These additional requirements would convert the narrow prohibitory injunction of the 1972 decree into a massive mandatory injunction to adopt employment practices and a “Comprehensive Employment Plan” – and then to have the Special Master monitor all aspects of the Comprehensive Employment Plan. See Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 883, 892 (7th Cir. 2011) (“A mandatory injunction imposes significant burdens on the defendant and requires careful consideration of the intrusiveness of the ordered act, as well as the difficulties that may be encountered in supervising the enjoined party’s compliance with the court’s order.”). The Plaintiffs acknowledge that they hope to have the Special Master “replace and reform the State’s employment practices.” Dkt. 6789 at 19.
But the Plaintiffs have not moved to convert the injunction from prohibitory to mandatory, and such a modification would be improper in any event. “When a plaintiff seeks to enhance a consent decree’s terms, courts must be careful to ensure that the new injunctive terms give effect to and enforce the operative terms of the original consent decree. Courts may not, under the guise of modification, impose entirely new injunctive relief. That practice would end run the demanding standards for obtaining injunctive relief in the first instance, would deny the enjoined party the contractual bargain it struck in agreeing to the consent decree at the time of its entry, and would destroy the predictability and stability that final judgments are meant to provide.” Salazar, 896 F.3d at 498; see also United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971) (“[T]he scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it.”).
32

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 37 of 47 PageID #:64905
v. There is no basis for systemic intervention. Finally, there remains no factual or legal basis to sustain the extraordinary systemwide and systemic intervention that, under the Plaintiffs’ view of it, the decree imposes. “Systemwide relief is never appropriate in the absence of a systemwide violation, and even then should be no broader and last no longer than necessary to remedy the discrete constitutional violation.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 392–93 (1996); Salazar, 896 F.3d at 500 (“[A] local government cannot be subjected to ongoing classwide structural relief simply because a problem has not been 100% eradicated.”); Salazar, 896 F.3d at 500 (“Expansive, classwide structural relief that judicially superintends local government operations cannot issue based on a factual predicate consisting only of one-off errors that have, at best, a marginal connection to the only remaining executory portions of the Consent Decree.”). With approximately 50,000 State employees in agencies under the jurisdiction of the Governor, even if the record in this case revealed several instances of political discrimination – which it does not – those instances would represent a tiny fraction of the State workforce and would not provide a legal basis for systemwide and systemic relief. In addition, without evidence linking the Governor (the only State defendant in this case) to any purported violation, the 1972 decree would not be implicated. There is no basis to conclude that the State’s current employment policies or practices violate the Constitution, or bear any resemblance to the coerced political work scheme that led to the decree in 1972. “A remedy is justifiable only insofar as it advances the ultimate objective of alleviating the initial constitutional violation.” People Who Care, 961 F.2d at 1338 (citation omitted). While the State’s policies and practices no doubt leave room for improvement and likely always will, and while rogue actors theoretically could violate those policies and practices in a way that leads to some form of illegal discrimination, that potentiality cannot sustain
33

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 38 of 47 PageID #:64906
systemic judicial intervention. See Plotkin v. Ryan, 239 F.3d 882, 885 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Plaintiffs make no allegations that the bribes-for-commercial-drivers’-licenses scheme is continuing under Secretary White’s administration, contending only that ‘[t]here exists in the Secretary of State’s office a deep-seated culture and policy or custom of intertwining and requiring coerced partisan political work together with the official duties of the office,’ and as a result, ‘[t]here is a substantial likelihood that without remedial steps being taken that such or similar unlawful conduct will continue.’ These allegations are purely speculative.”); Salazar, 896 F.3d at 500-01 (“The burden was on the Plaintiffs to prove the existence of a continuing and widespread problem. By shoehorning the Plaintiffs’ new injunction into a Rule 60(b) modification, the district court evaded that proof problem, finding it sufficient to enter a sweeping injunction just because it had ‘no assurance’ that already-solved problems ‘w[ould] not arise again.’ That gets Rule 60(b) exactly backwards.”) (citation omitted).
Failproof employment policies (or, stated differently, employment policies that cannot be manipulated for any reason) are the type of “unattainable” goal that cannot sustain continuing a decree. Shakman IV, 426 F.3d at 933; People Who Care, 246 F.3d at 1075 (“Nothing in the logic of … the plaintiffs’ brief … suggests any natural terminus to the decree.”). In addition, beyond the State’s own commitment to continuous improvement, HEM is fully capable of identifying and recommending further enhancements to State employment processes and ensuring that the State continues to improve. See Dkt. 6936 at 2 (“HEM reviews and makes recommendations to agencies regarding hiring actions and then follows up through continued monitoring of agency hiring activities. HEM staff work directly with Agency Personnel Officers and staff, the Department of Central Management Services (CMS), and the Office of the Governor to ensure necessary changes are implemented based on its reviews.”).
34

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 39 of 47 PageID #:64907
c. Significant changes in the law compel termination of the decree. There are also substantial legal changes since 1972 that separately and additionally require termination of the decree. The Seventh Circuit has stated expressly that “since our decision in Shakman I, the Supreme Court has reexamined justiciability and its limitations under the case-and-controversy provision of Article III.” Plotkin, 239 F.3d at 884. And it has instructed expressly that a district court evaluating a Rule 60(b) motion in the context of this case “must account for the significant changes in the law of voter standing” since entry of the decree. Shakman IV, 426 F.3d at 936. In that regard, the Seventh Circuit – while not presented with a question that forced it to rule on the correctness of Shakman I – expressed its “serious concerns whether the plaintiffs as voters bring to the litigation the sort of concrete adverseness to fulfill the mandate of Lujan.” Shakman III, 396 F.3d at 868. Other courts similarly have questioned the continued vitality of Shakman I. As the Seventh Circuit observed, while the D.C. Circuit in Winpisinger v. Watson, 628 F.2d 133, 141 (D.C. Cir. 1980) “found it unnecessary to repudiate directly this circuit’s holding in Shakman I, it also made it clear that it had serious reservations as to its correctness.” Shakman II, 829 F.2d at 1398 n.11. Similarly, in a decision later affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, Judge Zagel found that the subsequent Shakman decisions in the Seventh Circuit “do cast considerable doubt as to the continuing validity of the Shakman I reasoning and limit its persuasive power.” Plotkin v. Ryan, No. 99 C 53, 1999 WL 965718, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 1999), aff’d, 239 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2001). The State is aware of no caselaw outside of the Shakman case suggesting that voters – or a candidate from an election held 50+ years ago – have a federal interest sufficiently concrete to constitute a case-and-controversy such to exert extended oversight of a public body’s systemwide employment practices. The sui generis nature of litigation lasting more than half a
35

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 40 of 47 PageID #:64908
century – given that every State and thousands of local governments have employment policies and practices that could be challenged under a similar theory by any one of millions of aggrieved candidates or voters – casts substantial doubt on the correctness of the 1970 standing decision that is the thin reed upon which this litigation has expanded for half a century.3
Plaintiffs likely will respond with Rutan, given that they apparently believe that they are empowered to police “Shakman-Rutan problems.” Dkt. 6789 at 21. But Rutan held that public employees state a claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments when they are denied “promotions, transfers, or rehires for failure to affiliate with and support” a political party. 497 U.S. at 76. Plaintiffs in Rutan also brought claims as voters – asserting that “patronage has created an advantage in favor of the incumbents.” Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 868 F.2d 943, 958 (7th Cir. 1989), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 497 U.S. 62 (1990). The Seventh Circuit rejected those claims, holding that “[t]his does not confer standing on voters.” Id. It explained that “[t]he causal link between any ‘loss’ in their votes’ impact and the challenged actions is too tenuous. Indeed, plaintiffs’ statewide challenge presents a more tenuous causal relationship than the challenge mounted by voters and candidates in Shakman to patronage hiring in a single county. Because the injury asserted in the complaint is not fairly traceable to the
3 To be clear, the State is not arguing or requesting a finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing when this case was filed in 1969. The State recognizes that question is not material, as, in the interest of finality, “[a]fter a case has become final … only an egregious want of jurisdiction will allow the judgment to be undone by someone who, having participated in the case, cannot complain that his rights were infringed without his knowledge.” Shakman III, 396 F.3d at 859 (citation omitted). Because “the focus of the district court shall be not on the law of standing as a jurisdictional concept but on the equitable standards embodied in Rule 60(b)(5),” id. at 868, the State’s argument is that due to “significant changes in the law of voter standing since the entry of” the consent decree, at this juncture, the decree is “fashioned in litigation in which one of the litigants [does] not have a sufficient concrete stake in the outcome” such that its provisions “are not worthy of continued enforcement by a federal court.” Id.; see also Shakman IV, 426 F.3d at 936 (“[T]he district court should be guided by the current law of standing to determine whether the class of voters has the necessary interest in this litigation to vigorously litigate and present the matter of political patronage to the court in the manner best suited for judicial resolution, or whether that task is best left to individuals directly impacted by hiring decisions made by the City.”).
36

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 41 of 47 PageID #:64909
challenged action, the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claims as voters for lack of standing.” Id. The Supreme Court left this holding as to voter standing intact. 497 U.S. at 62. Given that the Seventh Circuit in Rutan was evaluating, like here, a “statewide challenge” against the Governor as a defendant, with respect to employment practices such as “transferring, and promoting state employees,” 868 F.2d at 944, 958, the holding that voters lack standing is instructive as Plaintiffs now hope to dictate the State’s policies for employment actions like
transfer and promotion.
Against case law that has evolved significantly over the past fifty years to increasingly
demand that plaintiffs have a direct and concrete stake in the outcome, it is no longer tenable that a lawyer in private practice, as class representative4 and class counsel,5 should patrol the
employment rights of all State employees, while deciding which hiring and employment policies
State officials may or must adopt. As the Supreme Court has explained:
This Court has held that the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. Without such limitations—closely related to Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governance—the courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499–500 (1975) (citations omitted). The notion that any of the
hundreds of candidates for elected office or any one of the millions of voters in the Northern
4 The Supreme Court has severely constrained when employment actions can be maintained as class actions. Where “the crux of the inquiry is ‘the reason for a particular employment decision,’” the Court explained that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question why was I disfavored.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 352 (2011). 5 “[A] majority of courts ... have refused to permit class attorneys, their relatives, or business associates from acting as the class representative.” Gordon v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., No. 14 C 5848, 2019 WL 498937, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2019) (citing cases).
37

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 42 of 47 PageID #:64910
District of Illinois who happens to disagree with the State’s employment practices have recourse through the federal courts simply has no purchase under modern jurisprudence. That problem is heightened at this juncture, where even candidate and voter rights are at issue only in the abstract, without any specific candidate, specific voter, or specific contested election – and only theoretical notions about how the State’s employment practices may impact votes and election outcomes.
“[T]he judiciary seeks to avoid deciding questions of broad social import where no individual rights would be vindicated and to limit access to the federal courts to those litigants best suited to assert a particular claim.’” Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 804 (1985) (citing Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99–100 (1979)). “The court should consider whether the class of voters has the ‘incentive to vigorously litigate and present the matter [of political patronage] to the court in the manner best suited for judicial resolution.’” Shakman III, 396 F.3d at 868 (bracketed text in original) (citing Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 2.3.2 (2003)). State employees are best suited to assert claims relating to their own State employment, and they have ample recourse to do so – through union representation in the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements, through complaints to OEIG and HEM, and through civil suits brought under Rutan.
Against this backdrop, if there remains a case-and-controversy in this litigation, it is solely with respect to the narrow and specific facts of the coerced political work scheme that formed the basis of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and allowed them to assert injury 50 years ago. Plaintiffs recently affirmed that their original complaint, and the reason they believe they retain standing, is that “[p]atronage employees were forced to support the dominant political parties by donating to campaign funds and performing campaign work.” Dkt. 6669 at 11. In arguing that
38

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 43 of 47 PageID #:64911
“traceability” and “redressability” continue to be satisfied, plaintiffs contend that enjoining coerced political work means that “independent candidates are not forced to spend time and effort raising and expending additional funds to compete against the major parties’ army of patronage employees.” Id. at 12. Plaintiffs no longer even attempt to argue that this practice continues with respect to the State, and do not identify any particular “independent candidate” or voter purportedly impacted, which should end this case. As the Seventh Circuit has explained:
[A] plaintiff must show a ‘personal stake’ in the outcome of the action. This requirement ensures that the Federal Judiciary confines itself to its constitutionally limited role of adjudicating actual and concrete disputes, the resolutions of which have direct consequences on the parties involved. Loertscher v. Anderson, 893 F.3d 386, 392–93 (7th Cir. 2018), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc denied (July 17, 2018) (citation omitted). “[T]his requirement must be met at all stages of review,” and “Article III, § 2 of the Constitution grants jurisdiction to federal courts to adjudicate only actual, ongoing controversies.” Id. (citations omitted). d. There is no ongoing violation of federal law, and any additional requirements
imposed on the State would be aimed at eliminating conditions that do not implicate federal law. A federal court may only “enforce the terms of a consent decree as long as they are tailored to rectify the federal constitutional violation.” Komyatti v. Bayh, 96 F.3d 955, 961 (7th Cir. 1996). Modification of a consent decree is, therefore, appropriate “to relieve . . . officials from a provision that no longer serves any valid federal purpose.” Id. “[T]he court must ensure that there is a substantial federal claim, not only when the decree is entered but also when it is enforced, and that the obligations imposed by the decree rest on this rule of federal law rather than the bare consent of the officeholder. When making these inquiries, courts are bound by principles of federalism (and by the fundamental differences between judicial and political branches of government) to preserve the maximum leeway for democratic governance. … [The
39

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 44 of 47 PageID #:64912
Seventh Circuit] has emphasized the district court’s responsibility to identify the rule of federal law supporting a consent decree binding the political arms of government, and the corresponding obligation to permit new public officials to set their own policy within the limits established by federal law.” Evans v. City of Chicago, 10 F.3d 474, 479 (7th Cir. 1993).
There remains no substantial federal claim in this case and no credible assertion that there is an ongoing or systemic violation of federal law – neither the Special Master’s reports nor the Plaintiffs’ recent motion to expand the scope of her responsibilities identify a single purported violation in the last six years. There is no suggestion that the State has a policy or practice of coercing political work or donations and punishing those employees who fail to participate. In the half century of this litigation, the essential questions of whose constitutional rights allegedly are being violated, and when, and how, and by whom, have been relegated to the margin – and at this stage have no answer.
Rutan, again, supports the State’s view. Rutan vests rights in public employees, not in candidates or voters. See Rutan, 868 F.2d at 957, aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 497 U.S. 62 (“Besides challenging the alleged patronage system as employees, plaintiffs, as voters, also claim that the patronage system deprived them of ‘equal access and effectiveness of elections.’ Plaintiffs allege that the patronage system gives Governor Thompson and his supporters a significant advantage over their opposition in elections. The district court never reached the merits of this claim on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. We agree.”). The fact that employees themselves have a cause of action for political discrimination under Rutan does not mean that unaffected parties such as the Plaintiffs have a federal interest in the State’s employment policies. Employees may invoke federal law to sue the State for sex discrimination, race discrimination, religious discrimination, as well as political discrimination in its hiring and
40

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 45 of 47 PageID #:64913
employment decisions – but the fact that employees have this recourse does not mean that every candidate or voter in the State has a federal interest allowing him to force the State to adopt different employment policies. In fact, it means the opposite. State employees have myriad avenues to challenge patronage if they suspect it – including through the OEIG and HEM, union grievances, and civil suits under Rutan. This available recourse demonstrates that ending the decree does not mean an end to oversight and accountability – just that the right parties and forums will provide it.
The additional demands from Plaintiffs before they deem the State to be ready to exit the consent decree are not rooted in the Constitution or in a federal right. “[F]ederal-court decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate [federal law] or does not flow from such a violation.” Horne, 557 U.S. at 447. Plaintiffs’ additional demands – such as a Comprehensive Employment Plan, a supplemental relief order, and continued monitoring for at least a year after implementation of a Comprehensive Employment Plan – merely reflect one set of views on what good comprehensive hiring and employment policies and practices should look like. In a constitutional democracy, those questions are reserved for sovereign State and local governments – not the federal courts, and not Plaintiffs who are unaffected by those policies and practices. For the State specifically, responsibility for improving the State’s employment practices rests not only with the Governor and his designees, but also with the State’s independent monitor, HEM – which lends its extensive expertise and resources to that exact undertaking. See Dkt. 6936.
The sole federal interest that remains at stake in this case is federalism – which requires terminating this decree, not extending it. For 48 years, the sovereign State of Illinois has been subject to a federal consent decree relating to its employment policies and practices. “[T]he
41

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 46 of 47 PageID #:64914

longer an injunction or consent decree stays in place, the greater the risk that it will improperly interfere with a State’s democratic processes.” Horne, 557 U.S. at 453. For the past six years, a Special Master – an arm of the federal court – has monitored employment decisions at IDOT; all State agencies under the authority of the Governor have been subject to this oversight for more than three years. In the context of evaluating when the valuable life of a consent decree has run, the Seventh Circuit has emphasized the importance of “preserving democratic governance, separating the judicial and political spheres, [and] respecting state autonomy in the absence of a federal rule.” Evans, 10 F.3d at 482. After the past six years of extensive and meaningful reform, which accomplished the Court’s stated goals and the decree’s objectives, it is time to reanimate those principles and restore control of State employment to the State.
July 14, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

KWAME RAOUL Illinois Attorney General

JB Pritzker, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Illinois
By: /s/ Brent D. Stratton Brent D. Stratton Office of the Illinois Attorney General 100 W. Randolph Street, 12th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 814-4499

42

Case: 1:69-cv-02145 Document #: 6946 Filed: 07/14/20 Page 47 of 47 PageID #:64915 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that, on July 14, 2020, he caused to be filed through the Court’s CM/ECF system a copy of Governor’s Memorandum in Support of His Motion to Vacate the May 5, 1972 Consent Decree. Parties of record may obtain a copy of this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF system.
/s/ Brent D. Stratton Brent D. Stratton
43

 
 Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

APPEAL,FUENTES,PROTO

United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:69-cv-02145

Shakman, et al v. Cook Co Democratic, et al Assigned to: Honorable Edmond E. Chang Demand: $0 related Cases: 1:01-cv-00861
1:10-cv-01313 1:18-cv-07497 Case in other court: 05-02134
05-02134 12-03583 18-01619 19-02772 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

Date Filed: 10/17/1969 Date Terminated: 11/06/1969 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Special Master Noelle C Brennan

represented by Kristi Lynn Nelson Gair Law Group, Ltd. 1 East Wacker Drive Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 600-4900 Email: knelson@gairlawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ines M. Monte Email: imonte@lapointelaw.com TERMINATED: 07/28/2008

Susan E. Cox The Law Offices of Susan E. Cox, Ltd. 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 663-3674 Email: susanecox@msn.com

Plaintiff Michael L Shakman

TERMINATED: 02/22/2007
Tiffany L. Amlot Dentons US LLP 233 South Wacker Dr. Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 312 876 2349 Email: tiffany.amlot@dentons.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Irina Dashevsky Locke Lord LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 443-0228 Email: irina.dashevsky@lockelord.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy M. Maggio Locke Lord LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 814-2274 Email: tmaggio@atg.state.il.us TERMINATED: 03/27/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Adam T Waskowski Waskowski Johnson Yohalem LLP 954 West Washington Blvd Suite 720 Chicago, IL 60607 312-278-3153 Email: awaskowski@wjylegal.com TERMINATED: 10/01/2007
Ana D. Petrovic U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 175 W Jackson Ste 900 Chicago, IL 60604 312 886 0831

Email: petrovica@sec.gov TERMINATED: 01/13/2012
Brian Ignatius Hays Locke Lord LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 443-0700 Email: bhays@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Feldman Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP 180 North LaSalle Street Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 263-3700 Email: efeldman@millershakman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernesto R Palomo Locke Lord LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 443-0700 Email: epalomo@lockelord.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fredrick E Vars Miller Shakman & Beem LLP 180 North LaSalle Street Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 263-3700 Email: fvars@millershakman.com TERMINATED: 01/15/2014
Gabriel Bankier Plotkin Miller Shakman & Beem LLP 180 North LaSalle Street Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 263-3700 Email: gplotkin@millershakman.com TERMINATED: 07/13/2015

Julia Kathryn Schwartz Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP 180 North LaSalle Street Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60601 312-263-3700 Email: jschwartz@millershakman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Heid Harris Locke Lord LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 443-0700 Email: kharris@lockelord.com TERMINATED: 03/17/2015
Kay L. Dawson Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP 180 N. Lasalle, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 263-3700 Email: kdawson@millershakman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Eileen Cunniff Wells Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP 180 N. Lasalle Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60602 312-263-3700 Email: mwells@millershakman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael McGivney Locke Lord, Llp 111 S. Wacker Dr. 41st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 443-0208 Email: michael.mcgivney@lockelord.com

Plaintiff Paul M Lurie

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP 180 North LaSalle Street Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 263-3700 Email: mlshak@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca L Dircks Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP 333 W. Wacker Dr. Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 212-4936 Email: rdircks@beneschlaw.com TERMINATED: 10/27/2016
Roger J Perlstadt Edelson P.C. 350 North LaSalle Street 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 589-6370 Email: rperlstadt@edelson.com TERMINATED: 07/19/2011
represented by Irina Dashevsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy M. Maggio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kenneth Ayers

Edward W. Feldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernesto R Palomo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fredrick E Vars (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2014
Gabriel Bankier Plotkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2015
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Eileen Cunniff Wells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca L Dircks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2016
Roger J Perlstadt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2011
represented by Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Feldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Bankier Plotkin

Plaintiff Darryn Jones
Plaintiff Connie Gramarossa

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2015
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Feldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Feldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Bankier Plotkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2015
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Richard Gramarossa
Plaintiff Independent Voters of IllinoisIndependent Precinct Organization

Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Feldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Bankier Plotkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2015
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Irina Dashevsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Feldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernesto R Palomo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Bankier Plotkin (See above for address)

Plaintiff Ann King
Plaintiff Stuart Majerczyk

TERMINATED: 07/13/2015
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Eileen Cunniff Wells (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca L Dircks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2016
represented by Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Feldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Bankier Plotkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2015
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Feldman

Plaintiff Michael Sullivan
Plaintiff Dorene Kuffer

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Feldman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Bankier Plotkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2015
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Bankier Plotkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2015
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William Thomas Huyck
Plaintiff Thomas Norris
Plaintiff Noreen C Lanahan

Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Bankier Plotkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2015
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian Ignatius Hays (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kay L. Dawson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Shakman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Timothy Lanahan John Lanahan 188 W. Randolph St Suite 702 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 404-2416 Email: lanahan.john@gmail.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kainon Murnan
V. Petitioner MR John Wicks
V. Defendant Democratic Organization of Cook County, The TERMINATED: 07/26/2010

represented by Carl R Draper FeldmanWasser 1307 South Seventh St. Springfield, IL 62703 (217) 544-3403 Email: cdraper@feldman-wasser.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ivan M. Rittenberg Rittenberg, Buffen, Gulbransen, Robinson & Saks Ltd. 162 N Franklin 3rd floor Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 332-5400 Email: irittenberg@rbltdlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Thomas Moran , Jr. THE MORAN LAW GROUP Suite 101 566 West Lake Street Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 405-4474 Email: johntmoran@protonmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Hubert Deceased
Myron F. Mackoff Richardson & Mackoff 208 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1666

Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 320-7233 Email: mackoff@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Maria Fallon Cook County State's Attorney 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 603-7202 Email: patricia.fallon@cookcountyil.gov TERMINATED: 05/01/2012

Stephanie L. Stewart Robinson, Stewart, Montgomery & Doppke LLC 321 S. Plymouth Ct. 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 312-782-5102 Email: sstewart@rsmdlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County, The TERMINATED: 07/26/2010

represented by Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
City of Chicago, The TERMINATED: 06/16/2014

represented by James Quinn Brennwald Edes & Rosen 180 North LaSalle Street Suite 2620 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 248-8493 LEAD ATTORNEY

Naomi Ann Avendano City of Chicago, Department of Law 121 N. LaSalle St Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744-5128 Email: naomi.avendano@cityofchicago.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Ray Patton City of Chicago 121 N. LaSalle St. Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60602 (312)744-0220 Email: stephen.patton@cityofchicago.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Justin Seery City of Chicago, Law Department Corporation Counsel 30 North LaSalle, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744-2825 Email: David.Seery@cityofchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald Hubert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/22/2007
James J. Convery Laner Muchin, Ltd. 515 North State Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60654-4688 (312) 467-9800 Email: jconvery@lanermuchin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address)

Defendant
Richard J Daley TERMINATED: 05/06/1993

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel L. Kaplan City of Chicago, Law Department Corporation Counsel 30 North LaSalle, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744-5100 TERMINATED: 12/15/2005
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy L. Swabb Law Offices of Timothy L. Swabb 6207 N. Legett Avenue Chicago, IL 60646 United Sta 773-718-5336 Email: timswabb@gmail.com TERMINATED: 04/09/2009
represented by Jay Michael Kertez City of Chicago, Law Department Corporation Counsel 30 North LaSalle, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744-8369 Email: jkertez@cityofchicago.org TERMINATED: 04/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick J. Rocks , Jr. Jackson Lewis P.C. (Chicago) 150 N. Michigan Ave Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601

Defendant Matthew Bieszczat
Defendant Claude W B Holman
Defendant Marshall Torshak

312-787-4949 Email: Patrick.Rocks@jacksonlewis.com TERMINATED: 12/15/2005
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant James Ronan
Defendant Kenneth W Campbell
Defendant George W Dunne
Defendant P J Cullerton

represented by Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Edward J Barrett
Defendant Matthew J Danaher
Defendant Chicago Park District TERMINATED: 12/22/2015

Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Hubert (See above for address)
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Annette Michele McGarry McGarry & McGarry, LLC 120 North LaSalle #1100 Chicago, IL 60602 (312)345-4600 Email: amm@mcgarryllc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Elizabeth Prayor Chicago Park District 541 N. Fairbanks Court Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 747-0978 TERMINATED: 07/19/2007

LEAD ATTORNEY
Brian Dennis McCarthy Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 2 Pierce Place, 24th Floor Itasca, IL 60143 6302854242 Email: brian_mccarthy@ajg.com TERMINATED: 08/14/2015
Donald Hubert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/22/2007
Joan Mary Fencik Commonwealth Edison Company 10 South Dearborn 35 FNE Chicago, IL 60603 312-394-4385 Email: joan.fencik@exeloncorp.com TERMINATED: 07/19/2007
Marianne C. Holzhall McGarry & McGarry, LLC 120 N. LaSalle Street Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60602 (312)345-4600 Email: mch@mcgarryllc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sally J. Scott Franczek Sullivan P.C. 300 South Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606-6785 (312) 986-0300 Email: sjs@franczek.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie L. Stewart

Defendant
Cook County TERMINATED: 10/31/2018

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William R Pokorny Franczek Radelet PC 300 South Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 786-6141 Email: wrp@franczek.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lilianna Maria Kalin Cook County State's Attorney's Office 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 603-2721 Email: lilianna.kalin@cookcountyil.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick T. Driscoll , Jr. c/o Neville and Mahoney 221 N. La Salle St. Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 236-2100 Email: ptdriscoll@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel H. Brennan , Jr. Cook County State's Attorney's Office 50 W. Washington Street 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, IL 60602 312 603 6798 Email: daniel.brennanjr@cookcountyil.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald Hubert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/22/2007

Donald J. Pechous The Khowaja Law Firm LLC 8 South Michigan Ave., 26th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 388-1198 Email: dpechous@khowajalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Charles Pullos Law Offices of Edward J. Kozel 333 S. Wabash Ave 25th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 822-4857 Email: james.pullos@cna.com TERMINATED: 09/10/2015
Kent Stephen Ray Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr. 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 603-6934 Email: kent.ray@cookcountyil.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Marie Meador Sotos Law Firm, P.C. 141 W. Jackson Blvd. #1240A Chicago, IL 60604 (630) 735-3313 Email: LMeador@jsotoslaw.com TERMINATED: 02/27/2017
Myron F. Mackoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Maria Fallon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2012
Patrick Malone Blanchard Office of Independent Inspector General, Cook County, Ill.

Defendant Richard M Daley

1160 69 West Washington Street Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 603-0364 Email: patrick.blanchard@cookcountyil.gov TERMINATED: 10/16/2008
Sean P. Connolly Epstein, Becker & Green P.C. 150 North Michigan Avenue 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (630) 986-8090 Email: sean.connolly@connollylawoffices.com TERMINATED: 02/22/2007
Shandra Lynn Leary Cook County State's Attorney's Office 50 W. Washington St. 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 603-6304 Email: Shandra.Leary@cookcountyil.gov TERMINATED: 10/10/2012
Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Edward Nowinski Cook County State's Attorneys Office 50 West Washington Avenue 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 312-603-4327 Email: tnowinski@cookcountyassessor.com TERMINATED: 05/11/2017
represented by Tyrone C. Fahner Mayer Brown LLP 71 South Wacker Drive

Defendant Chicago City Council

Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 782-0600 Email: tfahner@mayerbrown.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila Marie Finnegan Mayer Brown LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 782-0600 Email: courtnotification@mayerbrown.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Therese King Nohos Kaye Scholer 3 First National Plaza 70 West Madison Chicago, IL 60602 312-583-2453 Email: therese.nohos@kayescholer.com TERMINATED: 07/05/2007
represented by Stephen H. Pugh Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C. 330 N. Wabash 21st Floor Chicago, IL 60611-3607 (312) 840-7000 Email: spugh@burkelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tiffany Mary Ferguson T.M. Ferguson & Co. Willis Tower 222 S. Morgan St., Ste. 3B Ste. 3B Chicago, IL 60607 United Sta (312) 857-8771 Email: tm@tmfergusonandco.com TERMINATED: 04/27/2015

Defendant Unknown Cook County Sheriff TERMINATED: 04/22/2011 Defendant Cook County Sheriff TERMINATED: 04/22/2011
Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois

represented by Robert Thomas Shannon Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 151 N. Franklin Street Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 704-3901 Email: rshannon@hinshawlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Brette Bensinger Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 151 N. Franklin Street Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 704-3000 Email: bbensinger@hinshawlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brent Douglas Stratton Office of the Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601 (312)814-2560 Email: bstratton@atg.state.il.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Laurence Dryjanski Office of the Illinois Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312)814-3632 Email: adryjanski@atg.state.il.us TERMINATED: 01/06/2015
Christopher Ryan Fletcher Office Of The Illinois Attorney General

Defendant
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

100 W. Randolph 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814-6213 Email: cfletcher@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Michael Friebus Baker & Hostetler LLP One North Wacker Drive Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 312 416 6234 Email: dfriebus@bakerlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/01/2012
Deborah Joyce Allen Illinois Department of Transportation 201 West Center Court Schaumburg, IL 60196 (847) 705-4050 Email: Deborah.Allen@illinois.gov TERMINATED: 04/29/2014
Joseph Michael Gagliardo Laner Muchin, Ltd. 515 North State Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60654-4688 (312) 467-9800 Email: jgagliardo@lanermuchin.com TERMINATED: 06/12/2017
Rachel Laird Tidwell-Neal Office of the Attorney General 100 W. Randolph Street 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814-4328 Email: rtidwellneal@atg.state.il.us TERMINATED: 08/28/2015

Defendant Edmund Michalowski
Defendant Cedric Giles Defendant Timothy C. Evans
Defendant Leonard Dixon

represented by Dana L. Kurtz Kurtz Law Offices, Ltd. 32 Blaine Street Hinsdale, IL 60521 (630) 323-9444 Email: dkurtz@kurtzlaw.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heidi Karr Sleper Kurtz, Sleper & Exline, LLC 610 W. Roosevelt Road Suite A2 Wheaton, IL 60187 (630) 323-9444 Email: hsleper@kselegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Ryan Fletcher (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Aaron Kanter Illinois Attorney General 100 W. Randolph Floor 13 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814-3149 Email: jkanter@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Ryan Fletcher (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Aaron Kanter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Juvenile Treatment and Detention Center
V. Respondent Chgo, Cty of TERMINATED: 06/16/2014

represented by Christopher Ryan Fletcher (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Aaron Kanter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Naomi Ann Avendano (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Anne Naber Laner Muchin, Ltd. 515 North State Street #2800 Chicago, IL 60654-4688 (312) 467-9800 Email: jnaber@lanermuchin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Michael Gagliardo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/12/2017
Leslie Michelle Darling City of Chicago 121 N. LaSalle St. Ste 600 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744-3992 TERMINATED: 11/14/2016
Mara Stacy Georges City of Chicago Department of law 30 North LaSalle Street Room 900 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744-2002 TERMINATED: 08/24/2006

Rachel L. Kaplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2005

Stephanie L. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ted Shuya Petrovic Li The Gloor Law Group LLC 225 West Wacker Drive Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 752-3718 Email: tli@gloorlaw.com

Timothy L. Swabb (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/09/2009

Tracey Renee Ladner City of Chicago, Law Department Corporation Counsel 30 North LaSalle, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744-5100 Email: tladner@cityofchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
Forest Preserve District of Cook County

represented by Keino Richard Robinson Forest Preserve District of Cook County 69 W. Washington Suite 2010 Chicago, IL 60602 312 603 0023 Email: keino.robinson@cookcountyil.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hubert O. Thompson Brothers & Thompson, P.C. 155 N. Michigan Ave. #200 Chicago, IL 60601

Respondent Ms. Deborah Cohen
Respondent Mr. Andrew Jester
Respondent Teamsters Local 916 Respondent Christine Trucano-Hale

(312) 372-2909 Email: hthompson@brothersthompson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Thomas Shannon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen Harris Sperry Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 151 N. Franklin Street Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 (312)704-3521 Email: gsperry@hinshawlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Brette Bensinger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Thomas Shannon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen Harris Sperry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Brette Bensinger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl R Draper (See above for address)

Respondent Kainon Murnan
Respondent Kainon Murnan
Respondent Maria Cartagena Respondent Maria Cartagena Respondent Teamsters Local 700 Public Sector Labor Union
Intervenor Plaintiff John R Jackson c/o Kralovec Meenan LLP 53 W. Jackson Boulevard Suite 1102 Chicago, IL 60604 312-788-1111

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl R Draper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl R Draper (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nicole Lynn Chaney Teamsters Local 700 1300 W. Higgins Rd. Suite 301 Park Ridge, IL 60068 (847) 939-9710 Email: nicolec@teamsterslocal700.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Joseph Kralovec Kralovec Meenan LLP 53 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 1102 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 788-1111 Email: mkralovec@nlklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara R. McClain

Claimant Lauren B. Simon Claimant Gloria Melendez Court Monitor Mark J Vogel
Court Monitor Mary Robinson Court Monitor Cardelle Spangler
Court Monitor Susan G. Feibus

Kralovec McClain, LLC 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1102 Chicago, IL 60604 (773)580-9539 Email: smcclain@kralovecmcclain.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark J. Vogel Tews, Theisen & Theisen 1 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 (312)782-7320 Email: mjvogel@ameritech.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Helen Burke Law Office of Helen Burke 15375 Hillside Rd. Lakeside, MI 49116 (773)425-0984 Email: helenmburke@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 09/19/2011
represented by Elisa C Wesche Valentine Austriaco & Bueschel, P.C. 105 West Adams Street 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 312-238-9067 Email: ewesche@vablawfirm.com TERMINATED: 08/11/2017

LEAD ATTORNEY
Kathleen Holper Champagne 155 South Milton Ave. Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 (312) 209-8636 Email: kathleenchampagne10@gmail.com TERMINATED: 01/04/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Laura Beth Bacon Nixon Peabody LLP 70 W. Madison Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60602 312-977-4403 Email: lbbacon@nixonpeabody.com TERMINATED: 07/18/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Margarita Kulys Hoffman 69 West Washington Suite 1422 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 603-8096 Email: kulyshoffmanlaw@gmail.com TERMINATED: 01/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Matthew David Pryor Shakman Compliance Administrator's Office 69 W. Washington St. Suite 830 Chicago, IL 60602 312-603-8911 Email: mpryor@shakmancompliance.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dina Marie Masiello 69 W. Washington St Suite 1422 Chicago, IL 60602

Court Monitor Byron M. Wardlaw
V. Service List

(585) 738-3112 Email: dmasiello@shakmancompliance.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by C. Richard Johnson Foley & Lardner 321 North Clark Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60610-4714 (312)832-4500 Email: crjlaw@ameritech.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward R. Theobald Law Offices of Edward R. Theobald 135 South LaSalle Street Suite 1920 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 346-9246 Email: bears51@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Iris Ellen Sholder Cook County Assessor's Office 320 County Building Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 443-7512 LEAD ATTORNEY
James Bernard Murray Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 100 East Erie Street Suite 301 Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 751-6580 Email: james.murray@mwrd.org

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jerome H. Torshen Torshen, Slobig, Genden, Dragutinovich & Axel, Ltd. 105 West Adams Street Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 372-9282 TERMINATED: 10/31/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Nancy L. Kaszak
4300 N. Marine Dr.-1204 Chicago, IL 60613-1550
(773) 614-1930 Email: nkaszak@hotmail.com TERMINATED: 12/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
Peter Fitzpatrick Attorney at Law 10532 South Hoyne Chicago, IL 60643 (312) 828-1948 LEAD ATTORNEY
Randolph Thomas Kemmer State's Attorney of Cook County Richard J Daley Center #500 Chicago, IL 60602-1305
(312) 603-3316 Email: randolph.kemmer@cookcountyil.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Plotkin Robert Plotkin Law Firm 113 E. Bellevue Place Chicago, IL 60611 (312)922-1205

TERMINATED: 01/21/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY
Beth A Davis Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd. 20 South Clark Street #1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312)422-0001 Email: BDavis@kantorlaw.net TERMINATED: 08/12/2015
Daniel Patrick Slayden Hinshaw & Culbertson 4343 Commerce Ct Suite 415 Lisle, IL 60532-0924
(630) 505-0010 Email: dslayden@hinshawlaw.com
Helen Burke (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011
Jonathan P. Siner Lyric Opera of Chicago 20 N Wacker Dr Ste 860 Chicago, IL 60606-2899
(312) 827-5677 Email: jsiner@lyricopera.org TERMINATED: 12/15/2005
Jonneida Alexis Davis Office of the Inspector General, City of Chicago 740 N. Sedgwick Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60654 (773) 478-4678 Email: jdavis@chicagoinspectorgeneral.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Raymond Welsh

United States Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, DC 20230-0001
(312) 744-0451 Email: kwelsh@doc.gov
Lucy D. Schwallie City of Chicago Inspector General's Office 180 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60601 773-478-5230 Email: lschwallie@chicagoinspectorgeneral.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew David Pryor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noelle Christine Brennan Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd. 20 South Clark Street Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001 Email: nbrennan@nbrennanassociates.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Edward Deady Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose, Ltd. 321 North Clark Street Suite 1301 Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 946-1800 Email: ped@hmbr.com TERMINATED: 09/21/2006
Roger R. Fross Locke Lord LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 443-0700

Rachel S. Marrello

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Russell J. Luchtenburg Russell J Luchtendurg. Ltd. 130 S State St Ste 303 Belvidere, IL 61008-3695
(815) 547-5588 Email: russellluchtenburg@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 05/07/1993
Sarah Megan Brown Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd. 20 S. Clark Street Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603-1824 312 422 0001 Email: sbrown@nbrennanassociates.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Soo Choi 312-505-4501 Email: soo.choi@cityofchicago.org
Susan G. Feibus Law Offices of Susan G. Feibus 105 West Adams St. 35th floor Chicago, IL 60603 312-343-0221 Email: susan@feibuslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tiffany L. Amlot (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Amicus Ex. In. Sp. Gen' Ricardo Meza

represented by Aaron Scott Chait Assistant Attorney General

Material Witness Doris Gershon

Office of the Illinois Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street, 11th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 312-814-3659 Email: AChait@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher J. Kim Office Of The Attorney General - State Of Illinois 100 West Randolph Street 11th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 793-2403 Email: ckim@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Francis Neil MacDonald Office of the Illlinois Attorney General Special Litigation Bureau 100 West Randolph 11tth Floor Chicago, IL 60601 312-814-5194 Email: FMacdonald@atg.state.il.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant Employees Various

represented by Dana L. Kurtz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Unknown Forest Perserve District of Cook County, Illinois TERMINATED: 02/04/2013

represented by Keino Richard Robinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Zachary Ferguson TERMINATED: 07/30/2020
Movant Eduardo Hower
Movant Proviso Township Democratic Organization

Nicholas George Grapsas Nicholas G. Grapsas, Ltd. 1630 Colonial Parkway 2nd Floor Inverness, IL 60067 847 963 0100 Email: nick@grapsaslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Janet H. Gilbert Fletcher & Sippel LLC 29 N. Wacker Drive Suite 920 Chicago, IL 60606-2832 708-252-1500 Email: jgilbert@fletcher-sippel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chloe G. Pedersen Fletcher & Sippel LLC 29 N. Wacker Drive Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60606-3208 312 252 1510 Email: cpedersen@fletcher-sippel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Andrew Kurtzman Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila 70 West Madison Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 471-8714 Email: jkurtzman@rshc-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough
V.

Patricia Brown Holmes Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP 70 West Madison St Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 471-8745 Email: pholmes@rshc-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Janet H. Gilbert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chloe G. Pedersen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Andrew Kurtzman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Elizabeth Jaffe Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP 70 West Madison Street Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60602 312-471-8726 Email: LJaffe@rshc-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie Dean Davis Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 471-8727 Email: ldavis@rshc-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Brown Holmes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Chicago City Council Black Caucus
Intervenor Alderman Ed Smith
Intervenor County Municipal Employees, Supervisors, and Foremans Unions, Local Number 1001
Intervenor Water Pipe Extension, Bureau of Engineering Laborers Local 1092

represented by Charles James Holley Golden Holley James LLP 55 E. Monroe Street Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 960-0770 Email: cholley@goldenholleyjames.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles James Holley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Limo T. Cherian Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose, Ltd. 321 North Clark Street Suite 1301 Chicago, IL 60654 312 946 1800 Email: Limo.Cherian@klgates.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Cleveland Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose, Ltd. 321 N. Clark Suite 1301 Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 946-1800 Email: mjc@hmbr.com TERMINATED: 02/26/2020
represented by Limo T. Cherian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew James Cleveland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2020

Intervenor Chicago Federation of Labor

represented by Edward M. Hogan Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose, Ltd. 321 N. Clark Street Suite 1301 Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 946-1800 Email: EMH@hmbr.com TERMINATED: 02/26/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY

Limo T. Cherian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew James Cleveland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2020

Intervenor
Chicago & Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council

represented by Edward M. Hogan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY

Limo T. Cherian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew James Cleveland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2020

Intervenor
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399

represented by Edward M. Hogan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY

Intervenor Patrick E Burke Intervenor Executive Director Anthony O Boswell Executive Director, Office of Compliance
Intervenor Noreen C Lanahan

Limo T. Cherian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew James Cleveland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2020
represented by Torrick Alan Ward Law Office of Torrick Ward 4007 N. Broadway Suite 209 Chicago, IL 60612 (312) 720-7522 Email: torrick.ward@torrick.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/21/1969
05/01/1972

# Docket Text

5272

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings October 21, 1969 before the Abraham L. Marovitz (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

5283

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings October 23, 1969 before the Honorable Abraham L. Marovitz (Notice of filing) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

09/27/1972 06/18/1975 06/18/1975 11/23/1988 10/28/1992 10/29/1992

5286

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings November 5, 1971, before the Honorable Abraham L. Marovitz (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

5268

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings January 28, 1975 before the Honorable Bernard M. Decker (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

5293

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings January 27, 1975, before the Honorable Bernard M. Decker (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

5270

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings August 2, 1988 before the Honorable Nicholas J. Bua (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

5605

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance by The City of Chicago: July 1, 1992 through September 30, 1992 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

5603

COOK COUNTY CLERK'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for July 1, 1992 to September 30, 1992 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

10/29/1992 10/30/1992 10/30/1992 11/18/1992 11/23/1992

5604

COOK COUNTY CLERK'S AFFIDAVIT of Compliance with paragraph I of the Consent Decree (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

5606

SHERIFF of COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE for July 1, 1992 to September 30, 1992 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

5607

SHERIFF of COOK COUNTY'S 1991 ANNUAL REPORT (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

5608

SEVENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT to Part G of the Schedule of Exempt Positions (Notice) Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

5609

COOK COUNTY DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS to certain petitions for attorney fees (Notice) Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

11/24/1992 11/30/1992 11/30/1992 12/14/1992 12/22/1992 01/06/1993

5610

MINUTE ORDER dated 11/24/1992 by Hon. Ann C. Williams. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

5611

MINUTE ORDER dated 11/30/1992 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall: All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, this case is being return to Judge Williams. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

5612

COOK COUNTY TREASURER'S AMENDED LIST OF EXEMPT POSITIONS (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg,) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

5613

NOTICE of change of address (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

5614

MINUTE ORDER dated 12/22/1992 by Hon. Ann Claire Williams. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

5615

MINUTE ORDER dated 01/06/1993 by Hon. Ann Claire Williams: Plaintiffs oral motion to compel production of documents is granted. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)

01/07/1993 01/07/1993 01/08/1993 01/12/1993 01/21/1993 01/21/1993

5625

MOTION to amend the Chicago Park District Schedule of exempt positions (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

5626

MINUTE ORDER dated 01/07/1993 by Hon. Ann Claire Williams: Motion to amend the defendant/Chicago Park District's schedule of exempt positions is granted. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

5627

CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT RESPONSES to audit: June 20, 1990 to June 19, 1991 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

5628

SEVENTY-EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO PART G of the schedule of exempt positions (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

5629

PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENT TO FEE PETITIONS (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

5630

AFFIDAVIT of Michael L. Shakman in support of supplement to fee petitions (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record,

01/21/1993 01/22/1993 01/29/1993 01/29/1993 01/29/1993 01/29/1993

this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

5631

AFFIDAVIT of Roger R. Fross in support of supplement to fee petitions (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

5633

MINUTE ORDER dated 1/22/1993 by Hon. Ann Claire Williams (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

5634

COOK COUNTY CLERK'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of COMPLIANCE for October 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992 (Notice) (Exhibits) (bg, ) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

5635

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEED'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of COMPLIANCE for October 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

5636

TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S 1986-1992 COMBINED ANNUAL REPORT (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

5637

TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of COMPLIANCE for August 20, 1986 to December 31, 1992 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record,

01/29/1993 02/04/1993 02/05/1993
02/08/1993 02/09/1993

this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

5638

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of COMPLIANCE for October 1, 1992 December 31, 1992 (Notice) (Exhibits) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

5639

SHERIFF of COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of COMPLIANCE for October 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

5641

MINUTE ORDER dated 2/05/1993 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs clarifying the fee litigation issues in dispute by February 24, 1993. At the previously set status on March 5, 1993, the parties are also ordered to explain why it is appropriate to reconsider the fee structure already established in this case. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

5515

QUARTERLY affidavit of compliance by The City of Chicago: October 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992 (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/15/2017)

5640

SEVENTY-NINTH AMENDMENT TO PART G OF THE SCHEDULE OF EXEMPT POSITIONS (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)

02/16/1993 02/18/1993 02/24/1993 02/24/1993 03/01/1993
03/02/1993

5574

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of The Clerk of The Circuit Court October 1, 1992 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg,) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

5575

EIGHTIETH AMENDMENT to part G of the Schedule of Exempt Positions (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg,) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

5576

NOTICE of filing (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

5578

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM on remaining issues in fee litigation (Notice) (Exhibits) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

5579

MINUTE ORDER of 03/01/1993 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Defendants' renewal of motion for reconsideration of 12/16/87order is denied. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the denial of risk multiplier is denied as moot. Plaintiffs are ordered to file brief on request for modification of delay adjustment by 4/1/93. Response is due by 4/19/1993. Reply is due by 4/30/93. All other briefs are stricken. Status hearing set for 3/5/93 is stricken. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

5581

SHERIFF of COOK COUNTY'S 1992 ANNUAL REPORT (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this

03/10/1993 03/10/1993 03/10/1993
03/10/1993 03/30/1993 03/31/1993

document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5583

AGREED MOTION for entry of Judgment (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5585

STIPULATION (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5586

MINUTE ORDER of 03/10/1993 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Plaintiffs agreed motion for entry of judgment is granted. Enter judgment for costs in favor of plaintiffs and against the City of Chicago in the amount of $3,281.08 plus interest at the rate of 6% per year until satisfied in full. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5587

JUDGMENT signed by Ann Claire Williams 3/10/1993 (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5588

EIGHTY-FIRST AMENDMENT to Part G of the Schedule of Exempt Positions (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5590

ANNUAL REPORT AND APPENDIX 1992 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

03/31/1993 04/01/1993 04/02/1993 04/02/1993 04/07/1993 04/15/1993

5591

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' 1992 ANNUAL REPORT (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5592

MEMORANDUM on delay of adjustment by Plaintiffs (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5593

MOTION to Amend the Chicago Park District Schedule of Exempt Positions (Notice of Motion) (bg, ) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5595

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Ann C. Williams: Motion to amend the defendant. Chicago Park District's schedule of exempt positions is granted. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5594

CORRECTION TO EIGHTY-FIRST AMENDMENT TO PART G OF THE SCHEDULE OF EXEMPT POSITIONS (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

5596

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for January, 1 1993 March 31, 1993 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

04/22/1993 04/22/1993 04/30/1993 04/30/1993 04/30/1993 05/03/1993

5597

MOTION for extension of time (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

5598

MINUTE ORDER of 04/22/1993 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Cook County defendants motion for extension of time to file response to plaintiff's memorandum on delay adjustment is granted to and including May 6, 1993. Reply extended to May 20, 1993. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

5599

COOK COUNTY CLERK'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE for January 1, 1993 to March 31, 1993 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

5600

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for January 1, 1993 to March 31, 1993 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

5601

TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for January 1, 1993 to March 31, 1993 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

5602

REPORT on Annual Audit of The Cook County Clerk's Plan of Compliance for the period from June 1, 1992 through December 1, 1992 (Notice) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the

05/04/1993 05/06/1993 05/21/1993 06/04/1993 06/04/1993

record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/21/2017)

5649

NOTICE of filing Sheriff of Cook County's quarterly affidavit of compliance for 01/01/93 to 03/31/93 (Exhibit). (fce) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). Modified on 1/9/2018 (ks, ). (Entered: 05/06/1993)

5650

RESPONSE by Cook County defendants to plaintiffs' memorandum of delay adjustment (Attachments); Notice of filing. (fce) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 05/07/1993)

5651

MOTION by Mildred D Tom to set trial date ; Notice of motion. (smm) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2017: # 1 Main Document) (ks, ). (Entered: 05/21/1993)

5654

REPLY memorandum by Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie on delay adjustment; Notice of filing. (smm) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks,(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) ). (Entered: 06/07/1993)

5655

MOTION by Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie for extension of time in which to file reply memorandum on delay adjustment ; Notice of motion. (smm) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public

06/04/1993
06/04/1993 06/04/1993 06/04/1993 06/16/1993
06/18/1993
07/16/1993

access terminals.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2017: # 1 Main Document) (ks, ). (Entered: 06/08/1993)

5656

MINUTE ORDER of 6/4/93 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time in which to file reply memorandum on delay adjustment is granted to and including 6/4/93 [0-1]. No notice. (smm) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 06/08/1993)

5653 MOTION by Cook Co Clk to amend plan of complaince ; Notice of motion. (smm) (ks, ). (Entered: 06/09/1993)

5652 MINUTE ORDER of 6/4/93 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Motion of Cook County Clerk to amend plan of complaince is granted [0-1]. No notice. (smm) (ks, ). (Entered: 06/09/1993)

AMENDED plan of compliance Cook County Clerk's Office (smm) (Entered: 06/09/1993)

5657

JANUARY 1, 1993 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of the Clerk of the Circuit Court (Attachments); Notice of filing. (fce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2017: # 1 Main Document) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 06/16/1993)

5722

EIGHTY-SECOND AMENDMENT to party G of the schedule of exempt positions by defendant City of Chicago; Notice of filing. (fce) (ks, ). (ks, ). Modified on 1/9/2018 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 06/21/1993)

5658

1992 annual affidavit of complaince for the Chicago Park District; Notice of filing. (smm) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this

07/16/1993 07/29/1993 07/29/1993 07/30/1993
07/30/1993
08/02/1993

document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 07/19/1993)

QUARTERLY affidavit of compliance for 4/1/93 - 6/30/93 (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (smm) (Entered: 07/19/1993)

5659

COOK county clerk's quarterly affidavit of complaince for 4/1/93 to 6/30/93 (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (smm) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 07/30/1993)

COOK county recorder of deeds' quarterly affidavit of compliance for 4/1/93 to 6/30/93 (Attachment); Notice of filing. (smm) (Entered: 07/30/1993)

5661

MOTION by plaintiff Mildred D Tom for extension of time to file a brief in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment ; Notice of motion. (smm) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 08/02/1993)

5660

MINUTE ORDER of 7/30/93 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Petition of Treasurer of Cook County to approve his remedial action is stricken with leave to reinstate within 30 days of completion of final reports. Mailed notice (lal) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 08/09/1993)

5662

TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance of Martin Lynch for 4/1/93 to 6/30/93 (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (smm) (ks, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2018: # 1 Main Document) (ks, ). Modified on 1/9/2018 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 08/03/1993)

08/02/1993 08/06/1993 08/11/1993 08/20/1993 08/20/1993

5732

SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of complaince of George S. Rieg VI for 4/1/93 to 6/30/93 (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (smm) (ks, ). Modified on 1/31/2018 (ks, ). Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals. (Entered: 08/03/1993)

5663

UNOPPOSED MOTION by Mildred D Tom for extension of time to file a brief in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment ; Notice of motion. (smm) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 08/09/1993)

5664

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Glenn E. Carr of compliance by the City of Chicago 4/1/93 through 6/30/93 (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (smm) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 08/12/1993)

5266

MOTION by Barbara M King Assistant General Attorney Chicago Park District to amend the Chicago Park District schedule of exempt positions ; Notice of motion. (smm) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 08/24/1993)

5267

MINUTE ORDER of 8/20/93 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Motion to amend the defendant/Chicago Park District's schedule of exempt positions is granted [0-1]. Mailed notice. (smm) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic

10/22/1993 10/22/1993 10/29/1993 11/02/1993 11/30/1993

record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 08/24/1993)

5271

MOTION by Chgo Pk Dist to amend the Chicago Park District schedule of exempt positions ; Notice of motion (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.)(eaa, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 10/26/1993)

5272

MINUTE ORDER of 10/22/93 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting motion to amend the Chicago Park District schedule of exempt positions [0-1] Mailed notice (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 10/26/1993)

5273

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 07/01/93 - 09/30/93 Forrest Claypool (Attachments); Notice of filing. (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 11/01/1993)

5274

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE by The City of Chicago: 07/01/93 through 09/30/93;Notice of filing. (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 11/03/1993)

5278 EIGHTY-THIRD AMENDMENT to part G of the schedule of exempt positions; Notice of filing by defendant Chgo, Cty of (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote

12/06/1993 12/06/1993 12/06/1993 12/06/1993

access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 12/01/1993)

5284

REPORT on annual audit of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' plan of compliance for the period from 05/22/92 through 12/31/92 (Attachment); Notice of filing. (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 12/20/1993)

5282

AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 07/01/93 to 09/30/93 of Sheriff of Cook County's quarterly by George S. Rieg VI (Attachments). (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 12/20/1993)

5281

AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 07/01/93 to 09/30/93 of Cook County Clerk's quarterly by Tricia Teater (Attachment); Notice of filing. (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 12/20/1993)

5279

AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 07/01/93 to 09/30/93 of Treasurer of Cook County's quarterly by Martin Lynch (Attachments); Notice of filing. (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 12/20/1993)

12/06/1993
12/06/1993 12/10/1993 12/10/1993 12/10/1993
12/10/1993

5280

AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 07/01/93 to 09/30/93 for Cook County Recorder of Deeds' quarterly by Irene Lyons (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 12/20/1993)

MOTION by defendants' to substitute attorney and , file this appearance (lal) (Entered: 12/20/1993)

AGREEMENT, CONSENT AND MOTION of plaintiffsa and defendants' Richard J. Phelan, Individually and as president of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County and the Forset Preserve District of Cook County for order to provide for a hearing with respect to the entry of the judgment. Notice of motion (lal) (Entered: 12/20/1993)

NOTICE OF HEARING on proposed hiring and exemptions consent judmgent in Shakman case with respect to defendants President of the Board of Commissioners and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. (lal) (Entered: 12/20/1993)

5287

ORDER regarding motion for order to provide for a hearing with respect to the entry of the judgment. [0-1] (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 12/20/1993)

5285

MINUTE ORDER of 12/10/93 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Agreement, consent and motion of plaintiffs and defendants Richard J. Phelan, Individually and as President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County for entry of order to provide for a hearing with respect to the entry of the judgment is granted. [0-1] Hearing with respect to the entry of the judgment is set for 01/07/94 at 10:00 a.m. No notice (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's

01/06/1994 01/06/1994 01/07/1994 01/07/1994
01/21/1994

Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 12/20/1993)

5288

AFFIDAVIT of Susan B. Annable (Attachments); Notice of filing. (fce) Modified on 01/14/1994 (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 01/14/1994)

5289

AFFIDAVIT of C. Richard Johnson of notice of hearing (fce) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 01/14/1994)

5290

JUDGMENT (Attachment). (fce) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 01/14/1994)

5291

MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Hearing with respect to entry of judgment held. Status hearing set for 02/11/94 at 9:30 a.m. Enter judgment upon the consent of the plaintiffs and of defendants The County of Cook, Illinois, Richard J. Phelan, individually and as president of its board of commissioners, and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois. No notice (fce) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 01/14/1994)

5292 MOTION by Service List to withdraw Robert Plotkin as attorney ; Notice of motion and certificate of service. (lal) (Pursuant to the

01/21/1994 01/27/1994 01/28/1994 01/28/1994

March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 01/25/1994)

5294

MINUTE ORDER of 1/21/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting motion to withdraw Robert Plotkin as attorney of record for the plaintiffs and the plaintiff classes. [0-1] attorney Robert Plotkin for Service List. Mailed notice (lal)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 01/25/1994)

5295

ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX A attached to judgment entered 01/07/94 filed by defendants'; Notice of filing. (lal) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 01/31/1994)

5297

APPLICATION by Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson to prohibit use of personal service contracts by City of Chicago (Attachments). (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/03/1994)

5298

NOTICE of filing by Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson of application to prohibit use of personal service contracts by City of Chicago [0-1]. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the

01/28/1994
01/28/1994 01/28/1994 01/28/1994

record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/03/1994)

5296

MINUTE ORDER of 1/28/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Application of Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay and Debra Ferguson to prohibit use of personal service contracts by City of Chicago is entered and continued to February 25, 1994. Leave is granted to file appearance on behalf of applicants. Pretrial conference set for 25 Feb 94 at 2:30 p.m. No notice (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/03/1994)

5299

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson by Gilbert A. Cornfield, Mark Shale Stein. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/03/1994)

5300

RULE 39 Affidavit of Gilbert A. Cornfield. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/03/1994)

5301

RULE 39 Affidavit of Mark Shale Stein. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic

02/02/1994 02/02/1994
02/08/1994 02/09/1994 02/10/1994

record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/03/1994)

5303

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/03/1994)

5302

MINUTE ORDER of 2/2/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Pursuant to memorandum opinion and order, plaintiffs motion to reconsider is granted. The court will rely on the prime rate in calculating the delay adjustment for all attorneys fees awarded in this case. Parties are directed to discuss any and all remaining issues on this matter at the status hearing scheduled for February 11, 1994 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/03/1994)

5620

1994 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiffs' to fee petition to include time on case after November 30, 1992 (Attachments). (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.)(eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5304

NOTICE by Pope Cahill & Devine of change of firm name. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/9/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5584 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for October 1, 1993 December 31, 1993 by Forrest Claypool (Exhibits); Notice of filing.

02/10/1994 02/10/1994 02/10/1994 02/10/1994

(vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.)(eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5580

EIGHTY FOURTH AMENDMENT to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by defendant Chgo, Cty of; Notice of filing. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5582

COOK county clerk's quarterly affidavit of compliance for October 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 by Tricia Teater (Attachments). (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.)(eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5618

TREASURER of Cook County's quarterly affidavit of compliance for October 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 by Martin F. Lynch (Attachments). (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.)(eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5617

NOTICE of filing by Jack O'Malley regarding Trasurer of Cook County's quarterly affidavit of compliance for 10/1/93 to 12/31/93 [01]. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an

02/10/1994 02/10/1994 02/10/1994 02/10/1994 02/11/1994

electronic record. No action needed at this time.)(eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5621

SHERIFF of Cook County's quarterly affidavit of compliance for October 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 by George S. Rieg VI (Exhibit). (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.)(eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5589

NOTICE of filing by John J Murphy regarding Sheriff of Cook County's quarterly affidavit of compliance for 10/1/93 to 12/31/93 [01]. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.)(eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5619

COOK COUNTY Recorder of Deeds' quarterly affidavit of compliance for October 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 by Irene Lyons (Exhibit). (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5616

NOTICE of filing of Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 10/1/93 to 12/31/93 by John J Murphy [0-1]. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/14/1994)

5622 MINUTE ORDER of 2/11/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Status hearing held; continued to 11 Mar 94 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that

02/18/1994 02/25/1994 02/25/1994 02/28/1994

remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (eaa, ). (Entered: 02/18/1994)

5623

AFFIDAVIT of Susan B. Annable (Attachments); Notice of filing. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.)(eaa, ). (Entered: 02/22/1994)

5665

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance by City of Chicago 10/1/93 through 12/31/93 (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Main Document 5665 replaced on 1/9/2018) (ks, ). (Entered: 02/28/1994)

5624

MINUTE ORDER of 2/25/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Pretrial conference held; continued to 31 Mar 94 at 9:00 a.m. Application to prohibit use of personal service contracts by City of Chicago is continued to March 31, 1994. No notice (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.)(eaa, ). (Entered: 03/02/1994)

5666

CALCULATION of amount of the attorneys' fee award for work on merits through October, 1984 by plaintiffs' (Attachments). (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Main Document 5666 replaced on 1/31/2018) (ks, ). (Entered: 03/01/1994)

03/02/1994 03/11/1994
03/11/1994
03/11/1994
03/11/1994 03/11/1994

5667 1993 ANNUAL AFFIDAVIT of compliance for The Chicago Park District by Sharon E. Prayor; Notice of filing. (vmj) (ks, ). (Entered: 03/03/1994)

5669

MINUTE ORDER of 3/11/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Status hearing held; continued to 22 Apr 94 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ).(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 03/17/1994)

5668

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Chgo Pk Dist by Sharon Elizabeth Prayor, Joan Mary Fencik. (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Main Document 5668 replaced on 1/9/2018) (ks, ). (Entered: 03/17/1994)

5724

AGREED MOTION by defendant Chgo Pk Dist to amend the Chicago Park District 1991 amended plan of compliance for seasonal hiring ; Notice of motion. (vmj) Modified on 03/17/1994 (ks, ). Modified on 1/18/2018 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (ks, ). (Entered: 03/17/1994)

AMENDMENT by defendant Chgo Pk Dist for seasonal to the 1991 amended plan of compliance [0-1] (Attachments). (vmj) Modified on 03/17/1994 (Entered: 03/17/1994)

5670

MINUTE ORDER of 3/11/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Granting agreed motion to amend the Chicago Park District 1991 amended plan of compliance for seasonal hiring [0-1]. Mailed notice (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 03/17/1994)

03/23/1994 03/24/1994
03/31/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994

5671

SUPPLEMENT to fee petition for merits after October, 1984 by plaintiffs'. (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 03/24/1994)

5672

MINUTE ORDER of 3/24/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Motion by Mildred D. Tom filed May 21, 1993 to set trial date [0-1], motion filed July 30, 1993 for extension of time to file a brief in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment [0-1] and unopposed motion filed August 6, 1993 for extension of time to file a brief in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment [0-1] are stricken as moot. Motion by defendants to substitute attorney and [01] motion to file appearance [0-2] are granted. No notice(vmj) Modified on 03/25/1994 (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 03/25/1994)

5673

MINUTE ORDER of 3/31/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Pretrial conference reset for 11 May 94 at 9:00 a.m. Application to prohibit is continued to May 11, 1994. Mailed notice (vmj) Modified on 04/01/1994 (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 04/01/1994)

5674

ANNUAL REPORT for 1993 by Daniel C. Nestor; Notice of filing. (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 04/11/1994)

5678

MOTION by defendant Chgo Pk Dist to amend schedule of exempt positions . (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is

04/08/1994
04/08/1994 04/08/1994 04/08/1994
04/22/1994
04/22/1994 04/28/1994

restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 04/15/1994)

5677

NOTICE of motion by defendant Chgo Pk Dist regarding motion to amend schedule of exempt positions [0-1]. (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 04/15/1994)

ORDER. (vmj) (Entered: 04/15/1994)

ORDER regarding motion to amend schedule of exempt positions [01]. (vmj) (Entered: 04/15/1994)

5676

MINUTE ORDER of 4/8/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Granting motion to amend the Chicago Park District schedule of exempt positions [0-1]. Enter order granting said motion. Enter order granting agreed motion to amend the Chicago Park District 1991 amended plan of compliance for seasonal hiring. Mailed notice (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2017: # 1 Main Document) (ks, ). (Entered: 04/15/1994)

5675

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/6/87 Before Honorable Nicholas J. Bua. (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 04/25/1994)

MINUTE ORDER of 4/22/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Status hearing held; continued to 27 May 94 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (vmj) (Entered: 04/26/1994)

5679

MOTION by defendant Chgo Pk Dist to amend schedule of exempt positions (Attachments); Notice of motion. (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the

04/29/1994
04/29/1994 05/06/1994
05/11/1994 05/17/1994 05/17/1994 05/18/1994 05/18/1994

record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 04/29/1994)

5680

ORDER regarding motion to amend schedule of exempt positions [01]. (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 05/03/1994)

MINUTE ORDER of 4/29/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Granting motion to amend the Chicago Park District schedule of exempt positions [0-1] filed April 28, 1994. No notice (vmj) (Entered: 05/03/1994)

5681

AFFIDAVIT of compliance for January 1, 1994 - March 31, 1994 by Forrest Claypool (Attachments); Notice of filing. (vmj) (ks, ). Modified on 12/11/2017 (ks, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (Entered: 05/09/1994)

5382

MINUTE ORDER of 5/11/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Pretrial conference held; continued to 13 Jun 94 at 9:00 a.m. Application to prohibit is continued to June 13, 1994. No notice (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/13/1994)

5383 SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY's QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for January 1, 1994 to March 31, 1994 by George S. Rieg VI (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/19/1994)

5384 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for January 1, 1994 to March 31, 1994 by Irene Lyons; Notice of filing. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/19/1994)

5386

TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY's QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for January 1, 1994 to March 31, 1994 by Martin F. Lynch (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Main Document 5386 replaced on 11/14/2017) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/19/1994)

5385 COOK COUNTY CLERK's QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for January 1, 1994 to March 31, 1994 by Tricia Teater

05/27/1994 05/31/1994 06/10/1994
06/10/1994
06/13/1994
06/17/1994 06/21/1994 06/21/1994 06/24/1994 06/30/1994

(Exhibits); Notice of filing. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/19/1994)

5387 MINUTE ORDER of 5/27/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Status hearing held; continued to 08 Jul 94 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/31/1994)

AFFIDAVIT of Compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Catherine O'Keeffe (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 07/26/1995 (Entered: 06/07/1995)

5388

PETITION by plaintiffs to permit independent auditor of Sheriff's office to conduct certain depositions and other necessary discovery (Exhibits); Notice of motion (is) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/15/1994)

5389

MINUTE ORDER of 6/10/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting plaintiffs petition to permit independent auditor of Sheriff's office to conduct certain depositions and other necessary discovery [0-1]. Status hearing set for 08/03/94 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (is) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/15/1994)

5390

MINUTE ORDER of 6/13/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held; continued to 06/24/94 at 3:30 p.m. Application to prohibit use of personal service contracts by City of Chicago is continued to June 24, 1994. No notice (is) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/15/1994)

5391 EIGHTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT to Part G by defendant Chgo, Cty of the schedule of exempt positions; Notice of filing. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/21/1994)

5392 COOK COUNTY Clerk's 1993 Annual Report by Tricia Teater. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/22/1994)

NOTICE of filing by John J Murphy regarding Cook County Clerk's 1993 Annual Report [0-1]. (vmj) (Entered: 06/22/1994)

5393

MINUTE ORDER of 6/24/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Pretrial conference held; continued to 25 Jul 94 at 9:00 a.m. Application to prohibit is continued to July 25, 1994. No notice (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/29/1994)

5394 TREASURER of Cook County's 1993 Annual Report by Martin Lynch; Notice of filing. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/01/1994)

06/30/1994 06/30/1994 07/06/1994 07/07/1994 07/08/1994 07/21/1994 07/21/1994 07/21/1994 07/25/1994
07/27/1994 07/29/1994 07/29/1994

5395 AFFIDAVIT as to employee notice of remedial action by Martin F. Lynch (Exhibits). (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/01/1994)

5396 COOK County Recorder of Deeds' 1993 Annual Report by Irene Lyons; Notice of filing. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/05/1994)

5397 PRESIDENT'S progress report by Richard Phelan; Notice of filing. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/07/1994)

5398 MINUTE ORDER of 7/7/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Status hearing reset for 05 Aug 94 at 9:30 a.m. Status hearing set for August 3, 1994 is stricken. Mailed notice (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/08/1994)

5399 MINUTE ORDER of 7/8/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing held; continued to 8/5/94 at 9:30 am to stand. No notice (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/13/1994)

5400 REPORT of annual audit of the Cook County Clerk's plan of compliance for the period from January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993 by Franklin Schwerin. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/22/1994)

5401 AFFIDAVIT by Tricia Teater in respnse to the 1993 annual audit [01]. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/22/1994)

5402 NOTICE of filing by John Murphy regarding affidavit [0-1], regarding remark [0-1]. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/22/1994)

5403

MINUTE ORDER of 7/25/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held; continued to 08/10/94 at 2:00 p.m. Application to prohibit use of personal service contracts by City of Chicago is stricken. Application to prohibit use of personal service contracts by City of Chicago, response in opposition and reply in support of said application to be filed 08/29/94. Mailed notice (fce) Modified on 08/30/1994 (kms, ). (Entered: 07/27/1994)

5404 QUARTERLY affidavit of compliance for April 1, 1994 - June 30, 10094 by Forrest Claypool (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/28/1994)

5406 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS'QUARTERLY affidavit of compliance for April 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994 by Irene Lyons. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/03/1994)

5410 NOTICE of filing by John J Murphy regarding Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for April 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994 [0-1]. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/03/1994)

07/29/1994 07/29/1994 07/29/1994 07/29/1994 07/29/1994 08/05/1994 08/10/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/29/1994 08/29/1994

5405 COOK COUNTY CLERK'S QUARTERLY affidavit of compliance for April 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994 (2d quarter 1994) by Tricia Teater (Exhibits). (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/03/1994)

5407

NOTICE of filing by John J Murphy regarding Cook County Clerk's Quarterly affidavit of compliance for April 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994 (2d quarter 1994). (vmj) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/03/1994)

5408

TREASURER of Cook County's Quarterly affidavit of compliance for April 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994 (2d quarter 1994) by Martin F Lynch (Exhibits). (vmj) Modified on 08/03/1994 (kms, ). (Entered: 08/03/1994)

5409 TREASURER of Cook County's supplemental affidavit of compliance for 1993 by Martin F Lynch. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/03/1994)

5411

NOTICE of filing by John J Murphy regarding Treasurer of Cook County's Quarterly affidavit of compliance for April 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994 (2d quarter 1994) and a supplemental affidavit for 1993. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/03/1994)

5412 MINUTE ORDER of 8/5/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Status hearing reset for 07 Oct 94 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/09/1994)

5413 MINUTE ORDER of 8/10/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams: Pretrial conference held. No notice (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/12/1994)

5414 1993 ANNUAL report by Sheriff of Cook County. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/29/1994)

5415

SHERIFF of Cook County's Quarterly Affidavit of Complaince for April 1, 1994 to June 30, 1994 (2nd Quarter 1994) by George S. Rieg VI (Exhibits). (vmj) Modified on 08/30/1994 (kms, ). (Entered: 08/29/1994)

5416 NOTICE of filing of Annual Report and Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for the period 4/1/94 to 6/30/94 (2nd quarter 1994) by Jack O'Malley. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/29/1994)

5417

APPLICATION to prohibit use of personal service contracts by City of Chicago by Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia NewmanPolk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson (Attachments). (vmj) Modified on 08/30/1994 (kms, ). (Entered: 08/30/1994)

08/29/1994 08/30/1994 08/30/1994 08/30/1994 09/20/1994 09/20/1994 09/29/1994
10/07/1994 10/12/1994 10/14/1994 10/28/1994

5418

REPLY MEMORANDUM by Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson in support of application to prohibit use of personal service contracts [0-1] (Exhibit). (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/30/1994)

5419 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Susan B. Annable (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/01/1994)

5420 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Catherine O'Keeffe (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/01/1994)

5421 RESPONSE by defendant Chgo, Cty of to plaintiffs' application to prohibit use of personal service contracts (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/01/1994)

5422 PLAN of compliance Cook County recorder of deeds (Appendix). (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/22/1994)

5423 NOTICE of filing regarding plan of compliance Cook County recorder of deeds [0-1] (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/22/1994)

5424

MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE by plaintiffs Michael L Shakman and Paul M Lurie to application to prohibit use of personal service contrcts by City of Chicago; Notice of filing (ar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/30/1994)

5425

MINUTE ORDER of 10/7/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing held; continued to 12/02/94 at 9:00 am. Parties to appear and report on the status regarding fees on 11/18/94 at 9:00 am. No notice (ar) Modified on 10/13/1994 (kms, ). (Entered: 10/13/1994)

5426

COOK COUNTY RECORD OF DEEDS' QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Irene Lyons of compliance for 07/01/94 to 09/30/94 (Exhibit); Notice of filing (ar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Exhibit) (kms, ). (Entered: 10/13/1994)

5427 EIGHTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT by defendant City of Chicago to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions; Notice of filing (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 10/21/1994)

5428

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Tricia Teater of Cook County Clerk of compliance for 07/01/94 to 09/30/94 (3rd Quarter 1994) (Exhibits); Notice of filing (ar) Modified on 11/01/1994 (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/01/1994)

10/28/1994 10/31/1994 11/18/1994 11/29/1994 11/29/1994 12/01/1994 12/05/1994 12/09/1994
12/09/1994 01/04/1995

5429

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Martin F. Lynch of Cook County of compliance for 07/01/94 to 09/30/94 (3rd Quarter 1994) (Exhibits); Notice of filing (ar) Modified on 11/01/1994 (kms, ). (Entered: 11/01/1994)

5430 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Forrest Claypool of compliance for 07/01/94-09/30/94 (Attachments); Notice of filing. (1 vol.) (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/01/1994)

SCHEDULE set on 11/18/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing regarding fees held on 11/18/94. Status hearing set for 12/2/94 is stricken and reset to 12/9/94 at 9:00 a.m. No notice (dl) (Entered: 11/18/1994)

5431

AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Catherine O'Keefe (Exhibits); Notice of filing (ar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/01/1994)

5432

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Susan B. Annable for third quarter, 1994 (Exhibits); Notice of filing (ar) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Exhibits) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/01/1994)

5433

OPINION AND AUDIT REPORT of independent auditor pursuant to order entered 07/01/92 relating to the Office of the Sheriff of Cook County; Notice of filing (ar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/02/1994)

5434

REPORT ON ANNUAL AUDIT of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Plan of Compliance for the period from 01/01/93 through 12/31/93; Notice of filng (ar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/06/1994)

5435

STIPULATION that the Cook County and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County may complete and file their respective lists of exempt positions and plans of compliance by 01/02/95; Notice of filing (ar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/13/1994)

SCHEDULE set on 12/9/94 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing is stricken by agreement of parties. Telephoned notice (dl) (Entered: 12/14/1994)

5306 AGREEMENT, CONSENT and motion of plaintiffs and defendant Thomas C. Hynes, individually, and as assessor or Cook County, Illinois, regarding supplement to the complaint, consent judgment and

01/04/1995 01/04/1995 01/04/1995 01/04/1995 01/17/1995 01/25/1995
01/25/1995 01/26/1995 01/26/1995

order; Notice of motion (ar) Modified on 01/05/1995 (kms, ). (Main Document 5306 replaced on 11/13/2017) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/05/1995)

MOTION by plaintiffs and defendant Thomas C. Hynes, individually, and as Assessor of Cook County, Illinois to supplement the first amended complaint , for consent judgment , for order regarding hearing ; agreement and consent; Notice of motion (ar) Modified on 01/05/1995 (Entered: 01/05/1995)

5307 PLAN OF COMPLIANCE by Cook County Assessor's office (Exhibit) (Attachments) (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/05/1995)

ORDER (ar) (Entered: 01/05/1995)

5308

MINUTE ORDER of 1/4/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Enter order granting agreement, consent, and motion of plaintiffs and defendant Thomas C. Hynes, individually, and as Assessor of Cook County, Illinois. Hearing on the settlement is set for 01/25/95 at 9:30 am . No notice (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/05/1995)

5309 EIGHTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by City of Chicago and its Mayor; Notice of filing (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/18/1995)

5310

MINUTE ORDER of 1/25/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference set for 02/17/95 at 3:00 pm. The application of Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay and Debra Ferguson to prohibit the City of Chicago's use of personal service contracts is denied. This matter is set for a pre-trial conference in chambers on 02/17/95 at 3:00 pm. (See reverse of minute order). Mailed notice (ar) Modified on 01/30/1995 (kms, ). (Entered: 01/26/1995)

5311 MINUTE ORDER of 1/25/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Hearing on settlement is reset to 02/01/95 at 9:30 am. Telephoned notice (ar) Modified on 01/27/1995 (kms, ). (Entered: 01/27/1995)

5312

AFFIDAVIT of Patricia Mulligan of circulation of notice of hearing to employees of the Cook County Assessor (Attachment); Notice of filing (ar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 2 attachment) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/27/1995)

5313 CERTIFICATE of publication regarding notice of hearing (Attachment) (ar) (kms, ). (Main Document 5313 replaced on

01/31/1995 01/31/1995 01/31/1995 02/01/1995 02/01/1995 02/01/1995 02/08/1995 02/08/1995 02/10/1995

11/13/2017) (kms, ). (Main Document 5313 replaced on 11/13/2017) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/27/1995)

5314

COOK COUNTY CLERK'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Tricia Teater of compliance for 10/01/95 to 12/31/94 (4th quarter 1994) (Exhibits); Notice of filing (ar) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/01/1995)

5316

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Irene Lyons of compliance for 10/01/94 to 12/31/94 (Exhibits); Notice of filing (ar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/01/1995)

5315

TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Martin F. Lynch of compliance for 10/01/94 to 12/31/94 (Exhibits); Notice of filing (ar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/01/1995)

5317 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Forrest Claypool of compliance for 10/01/94 - 12/31/94 (Exhibits); Notice of filing (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/02/1995)

5318 JUDGMENT (Exhibit) (Attachment) (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/07/1995)

5319

MINUTE ORDER of 2/1/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Hearing on settlement held. The court approves settlement between plaintiffs and defendant Thomas C. Hynes, individually and as Assessor of Cook County, Illinois and enters jugment upon the consent of said parties. No notice (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/07/1995)

5320

MOTION by applicants Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson for extension of time to file amended application ; Notice of motion (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/10/1995)

5321

MINUTE ORDER of 2/8/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Applicants Pennick, Edwards, Newman-Polk, Ricks, Seay and Ferguson's motion for extension of time to file amended application [0-1], with affidavits, is granted to an including 02/10/95. Mailed notice (ar) Modified on 02/10/1995 (kms, ). (Entered: 02/10/1995)

5322

AMENDED APPLICATION by Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson prohibit the City of Chicago from employing city employees through the devices of personal service contracts [0-1] [0-1] and

02/17/1995
03/02/1995 03/02/1995 03/10/1995 03/10/1995 03/13/1995 03/17/1995 03/17/1995 03/17/1995 03/17/1995 03/17/1995

temporary agency contracts (Exhibits); Notice of filing (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/13/1995)

5323

MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing set for 03/17/95 at 9:00 am. Pretrial conference held. Response to amended application to prohibit the City from employing city employees through the devices of personal service contracts and temporary agency contracts [0-1] to be filed by 03/10/95. Mailed notice (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/22/1995)

5324

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT Fourth Quarter, 1995 of Robert F. Furniss (Attachments)(Exhibit); Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 03/06/1995 (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/06/1995)

5325

AFFIDAVIT of compliance of Forest Preserve District of Cook County; Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 03/06/1995 (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/06/1995)

5326 AFFIDAVIT of Patricia Mulligan (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/14/1995)

5327 EIGHTY-EIGHTH AMENDMENT by defendant Chgo, Cty of to part G of the schedule of exempt positions; Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/14/1995)

5328 EIGHTY-NINTH AMENDMENT by defendant Chgo, Cty of to part G of the schedule of exempt positions; Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/14/1995)

5333 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Chgo, Cty of by James Quinn Brennwald, David J. Seery (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/21/1995)

5330 MOTION by Applicants Pennick, et al to compel City to produce witnesses for deposition (Exhibits); Notice of motion. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/21/1995)

5331 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago leave to file additional appearance ; Notice of motion. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/21/1995)

5332 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for extension of time to respond to the amended application file by the Pennick petitioners ; Notice of motion. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/21/1995)

5329 MINUTE ORDER of 3/17/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing held; continued to 04/21/95 at 9:00 a.m. Applicants Pennick,

03/23/1995 03/24/1995
03/27/1995 03/29/1995 03/29/1995 03/29/1995 04/05/1995 04/05/1995

et al., motion to compel City to produce witnesses for deposition [0-1] is moot pursuant to agreement of parties. Deposition of Michael Sulewski to proceed on 03/30/95 and deposition of Chandra Woods to proceed on 04/05/94. Defendant City of Chicago's motion leave to file additional appearance of James Brennewald and David Seery and [01] motion for extension of time to respond to the amended application file by the Pennick petitioners are granted. [0-1] Response due 03/24/95. Reply due 04/04/95. Mailed notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/21/1995)

5334 NOTICE of change of address of the firm Phelan, Pope, Cahill, Devine & Quinlan, Ltd. (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/28/1995)

5335

RESPONSE to Amended Application to prohibit the City of Chicago from Employing City Employees through the Devices of Personal Service contracts and Temporary Agency Contracts" by City (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit II, # 6 Exhibit AA, # 7 Exhibit BB, # 8 Exhibit CC, # 9 Exhibit III) (kms). (Entered: 03/27/1995)

5336 1994 AFFIDAVIT of compliance for the Chicago Park District; Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Main Document 5336 replaced on 11/14/2017) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/28/1995)

5337 MOTION by Chicago Park District to amend the Chicago Park District 1991 amended plan of compliance for seasonal hiring ; Notice of motion. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/03/1995)

5338

MINUTE ORDER of 3/29/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting agreed motion to amend the Chicago Park District 1991 amended plan of compliance for seasonal hiring. [0-1] No notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/03/1995)

5339 AMENDMENT for seasonal hiring to the 1991 Amended Plan of Compliance of the Chicago Park District (Attachments). (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/03/1995)

5340

MOTION by applicants Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay and Debra Ferguson for extension of time to file reply in support of amended application ; Notice of motion (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/10/1995)

5341

MINUTE ORDER of 4/5/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting applicants motion for extension of time to file reply in support of amended application [0-1] to and including 04/11/95. Mailed notice (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/10/1995)

04/11/1995 04/21/1995 04/21/1995
04/28/1995 04/28/1995 04/28/1995 05/05/1995
05/12/1995 05/25/1995 05/26/1995

5342

REPLY MEMORANDUM by applicants Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay Debra Ferguson support in support of amended application (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/12/1995)

5343 MOTION by respondent Chgo, Cty of for leave to file surreply in opposition to the amended application ; Notice of motion (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/01/1995)

5344

MINUTE ORDER of 4/21/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing held; continued to 06/02/95 at 9:00 a.m. Granting respondent's motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to the amended application [0-1]. Memorandum of law to be filed on 05/05/95. Surreply to be filed on 04/28/95. No notice (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/01/1995)

5345 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 01/01/95 to 03/31/95 (1st Quarter-1995) by Treasurer of Cook County (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 05/02/1995 (kms, ). (Entered: 05/02/1995)

5346

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 01/01/95 to 03/31/95 (1st Quarter - 1995) of Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/02/1995)

5347 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 0r1/01/95 to 03/31/95 (1st Quarter 1995) of Cook County Clerk (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 07/26/1995 (kms, ). (Entered: 05/02/1995)

5348

MEMORANDUM of law concerning the amended application to prohibit the City of Chicago from hiring city employees through the devices of personal service contracts and temporary agency contracts by plaintiff (Exhibits). (fce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/10/1995)

5349 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 02/01/95 to 03/31/95 (1st quarter 1995) by Cook County Assessor; Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 07/26/1995 (kms, ). (Entered: 05/15/1995)

SCHEDULE set on 5/25/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing reset to 9:00 6/9/95 . Telephoned notice (dl) (Entered: 05/25/1995)

5350 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT, First Quarter, 1995 of Robert F. Furness (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 07/26/1995 (kms, ). (Entered: 06/07/1995)

06/08/1995 06/09/1995 06/30/1995 07/19/1995 07/19/1995 07/19/1995 07/19/1995 07/21/1995 07/24/1995
07/27/1995 07/28/1995 08/01/1995

5352 NINETIETH amendment to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by defendant Chgo, Cty of; Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/16/1995)

SCHEDULE set on 6/9/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing held and continued to 12:00 6/30/95 by telephone . No notice (dl) Modified on 06/09/1995 (Entered: 06/09/1995)

SCHEDULE set on 6/30/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing held and continued to 9:30 7/19/95 . No notice (dl) (Entered: 07/05/1995)

SCHEDULE set on 7/19/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing held. Pretrial conference set to 10:30 7/24/95 No notice (dl) (Entered: 07/24/1995)

5355 1994 ANNUAL REPORT by Cook County Recorder of Deeds; Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/26/1995)

5354 1994 ANNUAL REPORT of Cook County Clerk (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 07/26/1995 (kms, ). (Entered: 07/26/1995)

5353 1994 ANNUAL REPORT by Treasurer of Cook County; Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/26/1995)

5356 NINETY-FIRST AMENDMENT to Part G of the Schedule of exempt positions by City of Chicago; Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/26/1995)

5357

MINUTE ORDER of 7/24/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held & continued to 10:30 9/6/95 Final response to be filed by 08/07/95. Pretrial conference on 09/06/95 to be held by telephone. Mailed notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/26/1995)

1 CORRECTION TO NINETY-FIRST AMENDMENT to Part G of the Schedule of exempt positions by City of Chicago; Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/14/1995)

5358 COOK COUNTY CLERK'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 04/01/95 to 06/30/95 (2nd Quarter 1995) (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/14/1995)

5360

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE for 04/01/95 to 06/30/95 (2nd Quarter, 1995) (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/14/1995)

08/01/1995 08/07/1995
08/15/1995 08/24/1995 08/25/1995 08/25/1995 08/25/1995 09/06/1995
09/06/1995 09/06/1995 09/06/1995 09/06/1995

5359 TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 04/01/95 to 06/30/95 (2nd Quarter-1995) (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/14/1995)

5361

RESPONSE to "Plaintiffs' memorandum of law concerning the amended application to prohibit the City of Chicago from hiring city employees through the devices of personal service contracts and temporary agency contracts" by City of Chicago ; Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/14/1995)

5362 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 04//01/95 to 06/30/95 (2nd Quarter 1995) by Cook County Assessor. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/22/1995)

5363 REPORT on annual audit of the Cook County Clerk's plan of compliance for the period from 01/01/94 through 12/31/94; Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/08/1995)

5364 NINETY-SECOND AMENDMENT to part G of the schedule of exempt positions; Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/08/1995)

5365 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County of Catherine O'Keeffe (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/08/1995)

5366 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT Second quarter, 1995 of Robert F. Furniss (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/08/1995)

SCHEDULE set on 9/6/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held and continued to 11:30 10/13/95. Parties to file proposed discovery plans by September 20, 195. No notice (dl) (Entered: 09/11/1995)

5367 MOTION by Treas Cook Co for approval of Cook County Treasurer's remedial action petition ; Notice of motion. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/13/1995)

5368 SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL ACTION petition for the Treasurer of Cook County (Exhibits). (tlm) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/14/2017: # 1 Exhibit) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/13/1995)

5369 ORDER (fce) (kms, ). (Main Document 5369 replaced on 11/14/2017) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/15/1995)

5370 MINUTE ORDER of 9/6/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting Treasurer of Cook County's motion for approval of Cook County

10/13/1995 10/17/1995 10/18/1995 10/18/1995
10/27/1995 10/27/1995 10/27/1995 11/01/1995 11/02/1995 11/21/1995 11/27/1995

Treasurer's remedial action petition [0-1] No notice (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/15/1995)

SCHEDULE set on 10/13/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held and continued to 9:00 11/21/95 No notice (dl) (Entered: 10/17/1995)

2 NINETY-THIRD AMENDMENT by Defendant City of Chicago to Part G of the Schedule of Exempt Positions; Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 10/18/1995)

5371 MOTION by defendant Chgo, Cty of for a stay of discovery ; Notice of motion (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 10/20/1995)

5372

MINUTE ORDER of 10/18/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting defendant City of Chicago's motion for a stay of discovery [0-1] until 11/21/95 and so ordered. Mailed notice (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 10/20/1995)

5373 COOK COUNTY CLERK'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Tricia Teater of compliance for 07/01/95 to 09/30/95 (3rd quarter 1995) (Attachment); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/02/1995)

5374 COOK COUNTY RECORDER of deeds' quarterly affidavit of Irene Lyons of compliance for 07/01/95 to 09/30/95 (3rd quarter, 1995) (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/02/1995)

5375 TREASURER of Cook County's Quarterly affidavit of Martin F. Lynch of compliance for 07/01/95 to 09/30/95 (3rd quarter 1995) (Attachment); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/02/1995)

5376 COOK COUNTY Assessor's quarterly affidavit of Patricia Mulligan of compliance for 07/01/95 to 09/30/95 (3rd quarter 1995) (Attachment); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/02/1995)

5377 AFFIDAVIT of Martin F. Lynch as to distribution of remedial action notice (Attachment); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/06/1995)

SCHEDULE set on 11/21/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset to 10:00 12/12/95 Telephoned notice (dl) (Entered: 11/22/1995)

5380 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 12/01/1995 (kms, ). (Entered: 12/01/1995)

11/27/1995 12/06/1995 12/12/1995 01/03/1996 01/03/1996 01/03/1996 01/08/1996 01/18/1996
01/23/1996 01/31/1996

5378 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT Third Quarter, 1995 of The Shakman Compliance Officer (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/01/1995)

5381 REPORT of annual audit of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Plan of compliance for the period from 01/01/94 through 12/31/94 by defendant; Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/13/1995)

SCHEDULE set on 12/12/95 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held and continued to 1:30 12/20/95 No notice (dl) (Entered: 12/12/1995)

5436

MOTION by Cook County for leave to file exempt positions list instanter (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/05/1996)

5437 MOTION by Forest Preserve Dist for leave to file exempt positions list, instanter (Exhibits); Revised notice of motion. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/05/1996)

5305

MINUTE ORDER of 1/3/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Cook County & Forest Preserve District's motions to file [0-1] for leave to file exempt positions list instanter [0-1] are granted. Mailed notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/05/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 1/8/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference set to 1/22/96 at 11:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (smm) (Entered: 01/08/1996)

5438

MINUTE ORDER of 1/18/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Ameded application to prohibit the City of Chicago from employing through personal service contracts, filed 02/10/95 [0-1], response filed 03/24/95, [0-1], reply filed 04/11/95 [0-1], and surreply filed 05/05/95 are stricken with leave to reinstate [0-1] pending settlement discussions now underway. Mailed notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/19/1996)

5439

MOTION by Forest Preserve District for reassignment based on relatedness (Exhibits); Notice of motion; Amended notice of motion. (maf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/06/1996)

5440

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Cook County Recorder of Deeds of compliance for 10/01/95 to 12/31/95 (4th quarter, 1995) (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (maf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Exhibit A) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/06/1996)

01/31/1996 01/31/1996 01/31/1996 02/02/1996 02/05/1996 02/09/1996 02/13/1996 02/15/1996 02/15/1996

5441

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Treasurer of Cook County of compliance for 10/01/95 to 12/31/95 (4th quarter-1995) (Attachments); Notice of filing. (maf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/06/1996)

5442

MOTION by plaintiffs for extension of time to file objections to the proposed exempt positions filed by Cook County and the Cook County Forest Preserve District pursuant to the 01/07/94 judgment ; Notice of motion (fce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Motion) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/21/1996)

5443

MINUTE ORDER of 1/31/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Granting plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file objections to the proposed exempt positions filed by Cook County and the Cook County Forest Preserve District pursuant to the 01/07/94 judgment [01] Mailed notice (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/21/1996)

5444

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Cook County Clerk of compliance for 10/01/95 to 12/31/95 (4th quarter 1995) (Attachments); Notice of filing. (maf) Modified on 02/06/1996 (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/06/1996)

5445

OBJECTIONS by County of Cook, Forest Preserve District of Cook County to plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file objections to Cook County and Forest Preserve exempt positions lists; Notice of filing. (maf) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/06/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 2/9/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset to 9:30 2/20/96 No notice (dl) (Entered: 02/20/1996)

5446

COOK County Asssesor's quarterly affidavit of compliance for 10/01/95 to 12/31/95 (4th quarter 1995) (Attachment); Notice of filing (fce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/15/1996)

5447

MOTION by Cook Co Forest Preserve District for extension of time to file its response to Frank LaCoco's petition for contempt ; Notice of motion. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Motion) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/28/1996)

5448 AFFIDAVIT of Michael I. Rothstein regarding Forest Preserve's motion for extension of time to file its response to Frank LaCoco's petition for contempt. [0-1] (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/28/1996)

02/20/1996 02/21/1996 02/21/1996 02/29/1996 02/29/1996 03/01/1996 03/11/1996 03/13/1996 03/26/1996 03/27/1996 04/03/1996

SCHEDULE set on 2/20/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held and continued to 11:30 3/11/96 No notice (dl) (Entered: 02/22/1996)

5449

MOTION by Cook Co Forest for leave to file response to petition for contempt of court instanter ; Notice of motion. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Motion) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/28/1996)

5450

RESPONSE by Cook Co Forest Preserve District to Frank LaCoco's petition to hold the Forest Preserve District in civil contempt of court; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/28/1996)

5451 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Robert F. Furniss fourth quarter, 1995 (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (fce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/11/1996)

5452

AFFIDAVIT of Catherine O'Keefe of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Attachments); Notice of filing. (fce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/11/1996)

5453 COOK COUNTY assessor's 1995 annual report; Notice of filing. (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/11/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 3/11/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset to 9:15 3/13/96 Telephoned notice (dl) (Entered: 03/11/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 3/13/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held and continued to 12:00 3/29/96 No notice (dl) (Entered: 03/13/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 3/26/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset to 11:30 4/12/96 Telephoned notice (dl) (Entered: 03/26/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 3/27/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing set to 9:00 4/19/96 . Status hearing held. Objections to Forest Perserves exemption positions to be filed by 5/3/96. No notice (dl) (Entered: 03/28/1996)

5454 1995 ANNUAL REPORT by Cook County Recorder of Deeds; Notice of filing (eav) Modified on 04/11/1996 (kms, ). (Entered: 04/04/1996)

04/09/1996 04/11/1996 04/15/1996 04/15/1996 04/19/1996 04/26/1996 04/30/1996 04/30/1996 04/30/1996 05/01/1996 05/10/1996

5455 TREASURER of Cook County's 1995 annual report; Notice of filing (fce) Modified on 04/11/1996 (kms, ). (kms, ). (Entered: 04/10/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 4/11/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset to 1:30 4/26/96 Telephoned notice (dl) (Entered: 04/11/1996)

5456

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 01/01/96 to 03/31/96 (1st Quarter, 1996) by Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/16/1996)

5457 1995 ANNUAL REPORT by Cook County Clerk; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/16/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 4/19/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing held and continued to 9:30 5/1/96 . No notice (dl) (Entered: 04/24/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 4/26/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset to 1:30 5/17/96 Telephoned notice (dl) (Entered: 04/30/1996)

5458

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 01/01/96 to 03/31/96 (1st Quarter-1996) by Treasurer of Cook County (Attachments); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/01/1996)

5459

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 01/01/96 to 03/31/96 (1st Quarter 1996) by Cook County Clerk (Attachment); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/01/1996)

5460

REPORT ON ANNUAL AUDIT of the Cook County Assessors' Plan of compliance for the period from 02/01/95 through 12/31/95; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/01/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 5/1/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Status hearing is stricken. No notice (dl) (Entered: 05/08/1996)

5461

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 01/01/96 to 03/31/96 (1st quarter 1996) (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (fce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/13/1996)

05/17/1996 05/29/1996 05/31/1996 06/04/1996 06/05/1996 06/19/1996 06/28/1996 07/08/1996 07/16/1996 07/23/1996 07/25/1996

SCHEDULE set on 5/17/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held and continued to 9:15 6/4/96 No notice (dl) (Entered: 05/23/1996)

5462 QUARTERLY affidavit first quarter, 1996; Notice of filing by Jack O'Malley (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/29/1996)

5463

AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County of Catherine O'Keeffe; Notice of filing (fce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/31/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 6/4/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference held and continued to 9:15 7/1/96 No notice (dl) (Entered: 06/07/1996)

5464

REPORT ON ANNUAL AUDIT of the Cook Co Recorder of Deeds' Plan of Compliance for the period from 01/01/95 through 12/31/95; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/07/1996)

5465 NINETY-FOURTH AMENDMENT to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by Chgo, Cty of; Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/28/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 6/28/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset to 10:00 7/16/96 Telephoned notice (dl) (Entered: 06/28/1996)

5466 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 04/01/96 to 06/30/96 (2nd Quarter-1996) by Treasurer of Cook County (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/09/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 7/16/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset to 9:30 a.m. 8/1/96 Telephoned notice (dl) (Entered: 07/16/1996)

5467

REPORT on annual audit of the Cook County Clerk Plan of Compliance for the period from 01/01/95 through 12/31/95; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/26/1996)

SCHEDULE set on 7/25/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference reset to 9:30 a.m. 8/5/96. Pretrial conference set for 8/1/96 is stricken. Mailed notice (dl) (Entered: 07/25/1996)

07/25/1996 07/29/1996 07/29/1996 08/01/1996 08/02/1996 08/05/1996
08/07/1996 08/07/1996

5468 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for 04/01/96 to 06/30/96 (2nd Quarter 1996) by Cook County Clerk; Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/26/1996)

5469

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 04/01/96 to 06/30/96 (2nd Quarter 1996) by Cook Co Assessor (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/01/1996)

5470

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 04/01/96 to 06/30/96 (2nd Quarter, 1996) by Cook Co Recorder of Deeds (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/01/1996)

5471 CITATION of additional authority in support of the amended application by plaintiffs (Exhibits); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/05/1996)

5472

MOTION by Michael L Shakman & Paul M Lurie, and Forest Preserve District of Cook County to amend the Forest Preserve District of Cook County's list of exempt positions ; Notice of motion. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Motion) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/13/1996)

5473

MINUTE ORDER of 8/5/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pretrial conference is stricken. Amended application to prohibit the City of Chicago from employing through personal service contracts filed 02/10/95, response filed 03/24/95, reply filed 04/11/95, and surreply filed 05/05/95 are reinstated and taken under advisement. Ruling to be made by mail. Defendant Chicago Park District's motion for reassignment based on relatedness [0-1]; defendant Cook County Forest Preserve District's motion for extension of time to file its response to Frank LaCoco's petition for contempt [0-1]; and motion for leave to file response to petition for contempt of court instanter [01] are terminated pursuant to orders entered on 01/23/96, 02/15/96 and 02/21/96 in case 95 C 7256 No notice (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/08/1996)

5474 RESPONSE by defendant Chgo, Cty of to plaintiffs citation of additional authority in support of the amended application; Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/08/1996)

5475

AMENDED list of exempt positions by The Forest Preserve District of Cook County; Notice of filing (fce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/08/1996)

08/07/1996 08/15/1996 08/29/1996 08/30/1996 10/23/1996 10/25/1996 10/31/1996 10/31/1996 11/01/1996 11/29/1996

5476

MINUTE ORDER of 8/7/96 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Agreed motion to amend the Forest Preserve District of Cook County's list of exempt positions is granted. [0-1] Mailed notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/13/1996)

5477

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Forest Preserve Dist by William R. Quinlin, Michael I. Rothstein & Mark L. Durbin with Rule 39 affidavits; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/15/1996)

5478

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT second quarter, 1996 by plaintiffs (Exhibits) (Attachments); Notice of filing (kmt) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Exhibits) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/30/1996)

5479

AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Catherine O'Keeffe ; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/09/1996)

5480

REPORT on the Annual Audit of the Cook County Assessors' Plan of Compliance for the Period from 02/01/96 through 12/31/96; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 10/25/1996)

5481

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for 07/01/96 to 09/30/96 (3rd Quarter, 1996) by Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Attachments); Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 10/31/1996 (kms, ). (Entered: 10/31/1996)

5482

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 07/01/96 to 09/30/96 (3rd Quarter 1996) by Cook Count Clerk (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Motion) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/08/1996)

1 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of complinace for 07/01/96 to 09/30/96 (3rd Quarter-1996) by Treasurer of Cook County (Exhibit); NOtice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/08/1996)

5483

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 07/01/96 to 09/30/96 by Cook County Assessor (Attachment); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/08/1996)

5484 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT Third Quarter, 1996 by Cook County Department of Human Resources (Attachment); Notice of filing. (tlm)

12/06/1996
01/30/1997 01/30/1997 01/31/1997
01/31/1997
02/27/1997 02/28/1997 02/28/1997 02/28/1997 03/07/1997 04/17/1997

(Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Exhibits) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/09/1996)

5485

AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Attachment); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/09/1996)

5486 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Tricia Teater of compliance for 10/01/96 to 12/31/96 (4th quarter 1996) (attachments); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/30/1997)

5487 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Irene Lyons of compliance for 10/01/96 to 12/31/96 (4th quarter, 1996) (Exhibit); Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/30/1997)

5488

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for 10/01/96 TO 12/31/96 (4th Quarter 1996) of Patricia Mulligan (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 02/03/1997 (kms, ). (Entered: 02/03/1997)

5489

TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of of compliance for 10/01/96 to 12/31/96 (4th Quarter-1996) by Martin F. Lynch (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/03/1997)

5490 AFFIDAVIT of Catherine O' Keeffe in compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County; Notice of filing (yap) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/05/1997)

5498 1996 ANNUAL REPORT by Cook County Assessor; Notice of filing. (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/03/1997)

5491 REPORT on annual audit of the Cook County Assessors' plan of compliance for the period from 1/1/96 through 12/31/96; Notice of filing. (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/03/1997)

5492 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT fourth quarter 1996 of Robert F. Furniss (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/03/1997)

5493 1996 ANNUAL REPORT by Cook Co Recorder of Deeds; Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/12/1997)

5494

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Cook County Recorder of Deeds of compliance for 1/1/97 to 3/31/97 (1st quarter, 1997) (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (fce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/18/1997)

04/25/1997 04/25/1997 04/25/1997
04/29/1997
04/29/1997 05/01/1997 05/01/1997 05/01/1997 05/27/1997 05/28/1997

5495

REPORT ON ANNUAL AUDIT of the Cook county Recorder of Deeds' Plan of Compliance for the period from 01/01/96 through 12/31/96; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/30/1997)

5497 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/30/1997)

5496

MINUTE ORDER of 4/25/97 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Pursuant to Memorandum Opinion and Order, amended application to enforce the consent judgment of 06/20/83 against defendants City of Chicago and its Mayor filed 02/10/95 is denied. [0-1] Mailed notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/30/1997)

5499

1996 ANNUAL REPORT of Treasurer of Cook County; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Main Document 5499 replaced on 11/15/2017) (kms, ). (Attachment 1 replaced on 11/15/2017) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/30/1997)

5500

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for 01/01/97 to 03/31/97 (1st Quarter-1997) by Treasurer of Cook County (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/30/1997)

5501

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 01/01/97 to 03/31/97 (1st Quarter 1997) of Cook County Assessor ; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/06/1997)

5502

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 01/01/97 to 03/31/97 (1st Quarter 1997) of Cook County Clerk ; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/06/1997)

5503 1996 ANNUAL REPORT by Cook County Clerk; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/06/1997)

5504 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT first quarter, 1997 of Robert F. Furniss (Attachment); Notice of filing (kmt) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/28/1997)

5505

AFFIDAVIT of Catherine O'Keefe of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County; Notice of filing (ar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/29/1997)

06/06/1997 06/09/1997 06/11/1997
06/16/1997 06/19/1997 06/24/1997 06/25/1997 07/07/1997 07/10/1997

5506

MOTION by class plaintiffs to reconsider the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of 04/25/97 (Exhibits); Notice of motion. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/18/1997)

5508

MOTION by Applicants Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson, Cynthia Pennick to reconsider the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of 04/25/97 ; Notice of motion. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/18/1997)

5509

MINUTE ORDER of 6/11/97 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Response to class plaintiffs motion to reconsider the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of 04/25/97 [0-1] and the applicants' motion to reconsider the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of 04/25/97 [0-1] to be filed by 06/25/97. Reply to be filed by 7/7/97. Ruling on motions to reconsider to be made by mail. Mailed notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/18/1997)

5510

REPORT ON ANNUAL AUDIT of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Plan of Compliance for the period from 01/01/96 through 12/31/96; Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/18/1997)

5511 NINETY-FIFTH AMENDMENT to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by Chgo, Cty of; Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/23/1997)

5512 CORRECTION TO ninty-fifth amendment to Part G of the Schedule of Exempt Positions by Chgo, Cty of ; Notice of filing. (tlm) Modified on 06/25/1997 (kms, ). (Entered: 06/25/1997)

5513

RESPONSE by respondent, Chgo, Cty of to plaintiffs' and applicatins' motion to reconsider the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of 04/25/97 (Exhibits); Notice of filing. [0-1] (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C, # 3 Exhibit D) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/27/1997)

5514 REPLY by class plaintiffs to City of Chicago's response to plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of 04/25/97 ; Notice of filing. [0-1] (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/09/1997)

5516

MOTION by Applicants, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson, Cynthia Pennick for leave to file reply to motion to reconsider instanter ; Notice of motion. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/21/1997)

07/16/1997 07/16/1997 07/29/1997 07/31/1997 08/06/1997 08/13/1997
08/22/1997 08/27/1997 08/29/1997

5517 MINUTE ORDER of 7/16/97 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Applicants motion for leave to file reply to motion to reconsider instanter is granted. [0-1] Mailed notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/21/1997)

5518

REPLY by Applicants Edwards, Newman-Polk, Ricks, Seay, Ferguson, & Pennick to response to motion to reconsider the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of 04/25/97 [0-1] (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/21/1997)

5519

AFFIDAVIT by Cook County Recorder of deeds' quarterly for compliance for 4/1/97 to 6/30/97 (2nd quarter, 1997) (yap) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/30/1997)

5520

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 04/01/97 to 06/30/97 (2nd Quarter-1997) by Martin F. Lynch for Treasurer of Cook County (Attachments); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/05/1997)

5522

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 04/01/97 to 06/30/97 92nd Quarter 1997) of Patricia Mulligan for Cook County Assesor (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/07/1997)

5523

MINUTE ORDER of 8/13/97 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : The court construes the letter filed by defendant City of Chicago on 07/23/97 as a motion to file a 3-page surreply, which the court now grants. Any sur-sur-reply to the City's sur-reply [0-1] must be limited to three pages and filed on or before 08/29/97. In the future, the parties should not file briefs in the form of letters unless the court instructs them to do so. Mailed notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/14/1997)

5524

SUR-REPLY by Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson, Cynthia Pennick to City of Chicago's surreply (Exhibit). [0-1] (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/26/1997)

5526

AFFIDAVIT of Compliance of The Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/28/1997)

5527

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT, Second Quarter 1997, of Cook County Dept Human Resources (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Exhibit 1) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/03/1997)

10/09/1997 10/20/1997 10/30/1997 10/30/1997 11/10/1997 11/12/1997 11/21/1997 11/24/1997 01/28/1998 01/30/1998

5528

MINUTE ORDER of 10/9/97 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Class plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of 04/25/97 is granted. [0-1] (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 10/10/1997)

5529 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE for 07/01/97 to 09/30/97 (3rd Quarter, 1997) of Irene Lyons for Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 10/22/1997)

5530

COOK COUNTY CLERK'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 07/01/97 to 09/30/97 (3rd Quarter 1997) by Tricia Teater ; (Attachments) Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/03/1997)

5531

TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 07/01/97 to 09/30/97 (3rd Quarter - 1997) by Martin F. Lynch (Attachments); Notice of filing. (tlm) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/03/1997)

5532

REPORT on annual audit of the Cook County Clerk's plain of compliance for the period from 1/1/96 through 12/31/96; Notice of filing (mjc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/12/1997)

5533

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT by defendant Cook County Assessor of compliance for 7/1/97 to 9/30/97 3rd quarter 1997 by defendant Democratic Org Cook; Notice of filing (mjc) Modified on 11/18/1997 (kms, ). (Entered: 11/14/1997)

5535

AFFIDAVIT of Catherine O'Keeffe of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (dmkf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/24/1997)

5534 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Robert F. Furniss third quarter, 1997 (Attachments); Notice of filing (mjc) Modified on 12/01/1997 (kms, ). (Entered: 11/25/1997)

5536

AFFIDAVIT of Catherine O'Keeffe of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County; Notice of filing (mjc) Modified on 01/29/1998 (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/29/1998)

5537

QUARTERLY affidavit by Treasurer of Cook County Martin F. Lynch of compliance for 10/1/97 to 12/31/97 (4th quarter-1997) (Exhibit); Notice of filing (mjc) Modified on 02/06/1998 (kms, ). (Entered: 02/02/1998)

01/30/1998
01/30/1998
02/06/1998 02/18/1998 02/27/1998 02/27/1998 02/27/1998 02/27/1998 02/27/1998 04/14/1998 04/15/1998 04/30/1998

5538

QUARTERLY affidavit by Cook County Recorder of Deeds Irene Lyons of compliance for 10/1/97 to 12/31/97 (4th quarter, 1997) (Exhibit); Notice of filing (mjc) Modified on 02/06/1998 (kms, ). (Entered: 02/02/1998)

5539

QUARTERLY affidavit of Cook County Clerk Tricia Teater compliance for 10/1/97 to 12/31/97 (4th quarter 1997) (Attachments); Notice of filing (mjc) Modified on 02/06/1998 (kms, ). (Entered: 02/02/1998)

5540 QUARTERLY affidavit of compliance by Cook County Assessor of compliance for 10/1/97 to 12/31/97 4th Quarter 1997; Notice of filing (fce) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/09/1998)

5541 COOK COUNTY Recorder of Deeds' 1997 Annual Report by Regina W. Calabro; Notice of filing (mjc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/19/1998)

5542 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT fourth quarter, 1997 of Robert F. Furniss (Exhibits), Notice of filing (mjc) Modified on 03/04/1998 (kms, ). (Entered: 03/02/1998)

5543 COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR Patricia Mulligan's 1997 annual report Notice of filing (mjc) Modified on 03/04/1998 (kms, ). (Entered: 03/02/1998)

5544 TREASURER of Cook County Martin Lynch's 1997 annual report; Notice of filing (mjc) Modified on 03/26/1998 (kms, ). (Entered: 03/02/1998)

5545 REPORT on annual audit of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' plan of compliance for the period from 1/1/97 through 12/31/97; Notice of filing (mjc) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/02/1998)

5546 COOK COUNTY CLERK'S 1997 ANNUAL report; Notice of filing (ar) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/02/1998)

5547 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Irene Lyons, Cook County Recorder of Deeds' of compliance for 1/1/98 to 3/31/98 (1st Quarter, 1998) (Exhibits); Notice of filing (mjc) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/15/1998)

5548 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs concerning discovery relating to a certain pending application (mjc) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/16/1998)

5549 REPORT of annual audit of the Cook County Assessors' plan of compliance for the period from 1/1/97 through 12/31/97; Notice of filing (mjc) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/01/1998)

04/30/1998 04/30/1998 04/30/1998 05/01/1998 05/29/1998 05/29/1998 06/19/1998 06/22/1998 06/22/1998 07/13/1998
07/22/1998

5550

COOK County Clerk's Quarterly affidavit of Tricia Teater compliance for 1/1/98 to 3/31/98 (lst Quarter 1998) (Exhibits); Notice of filing (mjc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/01/1998)

5551 TREASURER of Cook County's Quarterly affidavit of Martin F. Lynch compliance for 1/1/98 to 3/31/98 (1st Quarter-1998); Notice of filing (mjc) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/01/1998)

5552

NINETY-SIXTH AMENDMENT by defendant Chgo, Cty to part G of the schedule of exempt positions; Notice of filing [0-1] (mjc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/06/1998)

5553

QUARTERLY affidavit of Patricia Mulligan, Cook County Assessor of compliance for 1/1/98 to 3/31/98 (lst Quarter 1998) (Exhibits); Notice of filing (mjc) Modified on 06/03/1998 (kms, ). (Entered: 05/04/1998)

5554 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Robert F. Furniss first quarter, 1998 (Exhibits); Notice of filing (mjc) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/01/1998)

5555

AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Louise Greene; Notice of filing (fce) Modified on 06/02/1998 (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/02/1998)

5525

NINETY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT by defendant Chgo, Cty of to part G of the schedule of exempt positions; Notice of filing (mjc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/22/1998)

5556 NOTICE of filing by The Cook County Forest Preserve Dist of second amended exempt positions list (Exhibits); Notice of filing (mjc) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/23/1998)

5557 SECOND AMENDED list of exempt positions by The Forest Preserve Dist of Cook County (mjc) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/23/1998)

5558

SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION by plaintiffs for fees 01/01/93 12/31/97 with respect to City of Chicago (Exhibits); Notice of motion. (tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-1, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit B-1, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit C-1, # 7 Exhibit D) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/24/1998)

1 MINUTE ORDER of 7/22/98 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Plaintiffs' supplemental fee petition 01/01/93 - 12/31/97 with respect to City of

07/27/1998 07/27/1998 07/30/1998 07/30/1998 07/30/1998 07/31/1998 08/28/1998 09/02/1998
09/30/1998

Chicago is granted without objections. [0-1] Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 07/24/1998)

2 ORDER concerning fee petition (hp) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/28/1998)

5559 MINUTE ORDER of 7/27/98 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Enter order concerning fee petition. Mailed notice (hp) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/28/1998)

5560 COOK COUNTY CLERK'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Tricia Teater of compliance for January 1, 1998 to March 31, 1998 (1st Quarter 1998); Notice of filing (hp) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/04/1998)

5561

COOK COUNTY RECORDED OF DEEDS QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Irene Lyons of compliance for April 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998 (2nd quarter, 1998) (Exhibit) (hp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/04/1998)

5562 TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Martin f. Lynch of compliance for April 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998 (2nd quarter-1998) (Attachment) (hp) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/04/1998)

3 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Cook County Assessor of compliance for 04/01/98 to 06/30/98 (2nd Quarter l998)(Attachment/Exhibit); Notice of filing. (mak) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/03/1998)

5564

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Robert F. Furniss of compliance for the Second Quarter, of 1998 by the Cook County Department of Human Resources (Exhibits); Notice of filing (hp) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/31/1998)

4 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of The Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Louise Greene (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (lal) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/6/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.)(jjr, ) Modified on 11/6/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 09/03/1998)

5 MOTION by defendant Chgo, Cty of to withdraw David J. Seery to withdraw appearance and to substitute appearance of Assistants Corporation Counsel Naomi Avendano, Rachhel Kaplan and Timothy Swabb ; Notice of motion. (mak) (Entered: 10/09/1998)

10/07/1998
10/27/1998 11/09/1998 11/09/1998
11/10/1998 11/20/1998

6 MINUTE ORDER of 10/7/98 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Respondent, City of Chicago's motion to withdraw appearance of David J. Seery [5-1] and to substitute appearance of Assistants Corporation Counsel Naomi Avendano, Rachel Kaplan and Timothy Swabb aad counsel [52] are granted. Mailed notice (mak) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/6/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/09/1998)

5565

QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Irene Lyons of compliance for 6/1/98 to 9/30/98 (3rd quarter, 1998) by Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Exhibits); Notice of filing (eav) Modified on 10/28/1998 (kms, ). (Entered: 10/28/1998)

7 TREASURER of Cook County's Quarterly affidavit of compliance for July 1, 1998 to September 30, 1998 (3rd quarter-1998) (Attachments); Notice of filing (yap) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/6/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/18/1998)

8 COOK COUNTY CLERK's quarterly affidavit of compliance for July 1, 1998 to September 30, 1998 (3rd quarter 1998) (Attachment); Notice of filing (yap)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/6/2017 (jjr, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2017: # 1 Exhibit A and Exhibit B) (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/18/1998)

5566

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR'S quarterly affidavit of Patricia Mulligan of compliance for July 1, 1998 to September 30, 1998 - 3rd Quarter 1998; Notice of filing (hp) Modified on 11/30/1998 (kms, ). (Entered: 11/30/1998)

9 AFFIDAVIT of Louise Greene of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County; Notice of filing (Attachment) (rmm) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office

11/30/1998
12/01/1998 01/07/1999 01/26/1999 01/26/1999 01/29/1999

public access terminals.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/8/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/24/1998)
10 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT third quarter, 1988 of Robert F. Furniss (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (lal) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2017: # 1 Cook County Clerk's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2000 (2nd Quarter 2000)) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/01/1998)
11 COOK COUNTY PLAN OF COMPLIANCE by Bd of Comm of Cook Co; (Exhibits); Notice of filing (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/03/1998)
12 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 10/1/98 to 12/31/98 (4th Quarter, 1998) by Irene Lyons for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Exhibit); Notice of filing. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 01/12/1999)
13 1998 ANNUAL REPORT by Cook County Recorder of Deeds; Notice of filing (fce) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 01/28/1999)
14 REPORT of annual audit of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' plan of compliance for the period from 1/1/98 through 12/31/98; Notice of filing (fce) (jjr, ). (Entered: 01/28/1999)
15 1998 ANNUAL REPORT by Cook County Clerk; Notice of filing. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy

01/29/1999 01/29/1999 02/09/1999 02/09/1999 02/23/1999

requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/05/1999)
16 QUARTERLY affidavit of compliance for 10/1/98 to 12/31/98 (4th Quarter-1998) by Treasurer of Cook Co (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/05/1999)
17 1998 ANNUAL REPORT by Treasurer of Cook County; Notice of filing. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/05/1999)
18 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT by Cook County Assessor of compliance for 10/1/98 to 12/31/98 (4th Quarter 1998) (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/10/1999)
19 ANNUAL report by Cook County Assessor; Notice of filing. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/10/1999)
20 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Exhibit); Notice of filing (rmm) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ).

02/26/1999 03/04/1999 03/12/1999 03/24/1999 04/20/1999

(Additional attachment(s) added on 11/8/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/24/1999)
21 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT, fourth quarter, 1998, of Robert F. Furniss; (Exhibits); Notice of filing. (emd) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/01/1999)
22 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 10/01/98 to 12/31/98 (4th quarter) of Cook County Clerk; Notice of filing. (mak) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/8/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/05/1999)
25 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for respondent Chgo, Cty of by Naomi Avendano, Rachel Kaplan and Timothy Swabb; Notice of filing.(mbw)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 03/24/1999 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/19/1999)
26 REPORT by defendants on annual audit of the Cook County Clerk's plan of compliance for the period from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997 ; Notice of filing. (fce)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 03/31/1999 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/25/1999)
27 AFFIDAVIT of Irene Lyons regarding Cook County Recorder of Deeds' quarterly affidavit of compliance for January 1, 1999 to March 31, 1999 (1st Quarter, 1999); Notice of filing (jmp)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is

04/27/1999 04/30/1999 04/30/1999 06/01/1999 06/18/1999

restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 04/21/1999)
28 Treasurer of Cook County's Quarterly AFFIDAVIT of Martin F. Lynch of compliance for 01/01/99 to 03/31/99 (1st Quarter 1999) (Attachments); Notice of filing (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 04/28/1999)
29 REPORT ON ANNUAL AUDIT of the Cook County Assessors' plan of compliance for the period from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998 by plaintiffs'; Notice of filing (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/03/1999)
30 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for January 1, 1999 to March 31, 1999 (1st Quarter 1999) by Cook County Clerk; Notice of filing (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/03/1999)
31 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Robert F. Furniss regarding First Quarter, 1999 (Attachments); Notice (jmp) Modified on 06/02/1999 (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 06/02/1999)
32 NINETH-EIGHTH AMENDMENT to part G of the schedule of exempt positions by defendants'; Notice (jmp)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is

06/25/1999 06/28/1999 07/15/1999 07/19/1999 07/28/1999

restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 06/21/1999)
33 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Cynthia Pennick, Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay and Debra Ferguson by Robert A. Seltzer (jmp)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 06/28/1999)
34 NOTICE by Darryl Edwards, Virginia Newman-Polk, Napoleon Ricks, Ardine Seay, Debra Ferguson, Cynthia Pennick of change of address (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 06/29/1999)
35 COMPLIANCE AUDIT of the implementation of the Shakman judgment for 1997 and 1998 by Cook Co (Attachments); Notice (jmp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 07/17/1999)
36 TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S quarterly affidavit of compliance for 04/01/99 to 06/30/99 (2nd quarter-1999); Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 07/20/1999)
37 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Personnel Diretor; Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is

07/30/1999 07/30/1999 07/30/1999 08/26/1999 08/31/1999 09/28/1999

restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (jjr, ). (Entered: 07/29/1999)
38 AFFIDAVIT of Cook County Recorder of Deeds' of compliance for April 1, 1999 to June 3, 1999 (2nd quarter, 1999); Notice (jmp) (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/02/1999)
39 AFFIDAVIT of Cook County Assessor's quarterly of compliance for April 1, 1999 to June 30, 1999 (2nd Quarter 1999) (Attachments); Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.)(jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/02/1999)
40 AFFIDAVIT of Cook county Clerk's quarterly of compliance for April 1, 1999 to June 30, 1999 (2nd Quarter 1999); Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.)(jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/02/1999)
41 REPORT by defendant Democratic Org Cook on annual audit of the Cook County Clerk's plan of compliance for the period from 1/1/98 through 12/31/98; Notice (meg) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/27/1999)
42 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Shankman Compliance Officer regarding Second Quarter, 1999 (Attachments); Notice (jmp)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.)(jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 09/02/1999)
44 MOTION by county defendants' re consolidated fee petitions (Attachment); (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference

09/28/1999 09/30/1999 09/30/1999 10/12/1999 10/13/1999
10/26/1999

Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit Loose Pleadings vol. 16 of 30). (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/15/1999)
45 NOTICE of motion by county defendants' of motion re consolidated fee petitions [44-1] (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/15/1999)
SCHEDULE set on 9/30/99 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Noticed motion set for 9:30 10/13/99 No notice (dl) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
43 AFFIDAVIT of Compliance of Forest Preserve District of Cook county; Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/13/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/01/1999)
SCHEDULE set on 10/12/99 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Noticed motion hearing held. No notice (dl) (Entered: 10/12/1999)
46 MINUTE ORDER of 10/13/99 by Hon. Ann C. Williams : Plaintiffs motion re consolidated fee petitions-County defendants is granted without objections [44-1]. Enter order concerning fee petition. (Entered order concerning fee petition). Mailed notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/15/1999)
47 AFFIDAVIT of Paula K. Bouldon regarding Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly affidavait of compliance for July 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999 (3rd Quarter, 1999) (Attachment); Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office

10/27/1999 10/29/1999 11/02/1999 11/30/1999 01/14/2000

public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/27/1999)
48 COOK COUNTY CLERK'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Tricia Teater regarding compliance for July 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999 (3rd Quarter 1999); Notice (jmp) Modified on 11/03/1999 . (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/27/1999)
49 AFFIDAVIT of Catherine D. Jones regarding Treasurer of Cook County's Quarterly affidavit of compliance for July 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999 (3rd Quarter - 1999); Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/02/1999)
50 AFFIDAVIT of Patricia Mulligan regarding Cook County Assessor's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for July 1, 1999 to September 30, 19999 (3rd Quarter 1999); Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/03/1999)
51 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT third quarter, 1999 by Robert F. Furniss Shakman Compliance Officer (Attachments); Notice (las) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/02/1999)
52 TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Catherine D. Jones for compliance for 10/01/99 to 12/31/99 (4th Quarter-1999) (jmp) Modified on 02/03/2000. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of

01/28/2000 01/31/2000 02/09/2000 02/18/2000 02/24/2000

previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 01/18/2000)
53 AFFIDAVIT of compliance for October 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 (4th Quarter, 1999) by Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Attachments); Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 01/31/2000)
54 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT for compliance for 10/01/99 to 12/31/00 (7th Quarter 1999) by Cook County Clerk's; Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/01/2000)
55 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT FOR COMPLIANCE of Cook County Assessor by Patricia Mulligan for 10/01/99 to 12/31/00 (4th Quarter 1999) ; Notice (jmp) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/10/2000)
56 MOTION by defendant Chgo, Cty of for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests (Attachments); Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/23/2000)
57 REASSIGNMENT ORDER of 2/24/00 Case reassigned to Hon. Wayne R. Andersen from Hon. Ann C. Williams pursuant to Local Rule 2.30G. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned

02/25/2000 03/01/2000 03/01/2000 03/03/2000 03/07/2000

versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/25/2000)
58 Cook County Assessor's 1999 Annuan Report; Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/25/2000)
59 MINUTE ORDER of 3/1/00 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests is withdrawn [56-1]. Mailed notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/01/2000)
60 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT fourth quarter, 1999 of Robert F. Furniss (Attachment); Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.)(jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/02/2000)
61 Cook county Clerk's 1999 annual report; Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/06/2000)
62 1999 ANNUAL REPORT by Cook County Recorder of Deeds; Notice (jmp) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/13/2000)

03/21/2000 03/28/2000 04/25/2000 04/25/2000 04/27/2000 04/28/2000

63 MOTION by Chgo, Cty of for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests ; Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/30/2000)
64 MINUTE ORDER of 3/28/00 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Defendant City of Chicago's motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests is withdrawn [63-1]. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/30/2000)
65 AFFIDAVIT of Compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County from 7/1/99 through 9/30/99 (Attachment). (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 04/26/2000)
66 AFFIDAVIT of Compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County from 10/1/99 through 12/31/99 (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 04/26/2000)
67 QUARTERLY affidavit of compliance for 1/1/00 to 3/31/00 (1st Quarter 2000) by Cook County Clerk (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/01/2000)
68 COOK County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly affidavit of compliance for 1/1/00 to 3/31/00 (1st Quarter, 2000) by Paula K Bouldon (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper

04/28/2000 04/28/2000 05/03/2000 05/03/2000 06/06/2000

documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/02/2000)
69 TREASURER of Cook County's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 1/1/00 to 3/31/00 (1st Quarter-2000) by Catherine D Jones (Attachments); Notice. (vmj)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/02/2000)
70 REPORT on Annual Audit of the Cook County Assessors' Plan of Compliance for the Period from 1/1/99 through 12/31/99 by Gila J Bronner; Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/02/2000)
71 QUARTERLY Affidavit of Compliance for 1/1/00 to 3/31/00 (1st Quarter 2000) by Cook County Assessor, Patricia Mulligan (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/04/2000)
72 REPORT on Annual Audit of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Plan of Compliance for the Period from 1/1/99 through 12/31/99 (Attachments); Notice. (vmj)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/04/2000)
73 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Albert S. Porter (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public

06/15/2000 06/22/2000 07/25/2000 07/26/2000 08/30/2000

access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 06/07/2000)
74 Ninety ninth amendment to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by Daniel C Nestor; Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 06/15/2000)
75 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT, First Quarter, 2000 of Robert F. Furniss ( Attachment) ; Notice. (tlm) Modified on 11/02/2001. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 06/28/2000)
77 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance of Treasurer of Cook County, Catherine D. Jones, for 04/01/00 to 06/30/00 (2nd quarter2000) (Attachments); Notice. (kef) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 07/31/2000)
76 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for 04/01/00 to 06/30/00 (2nd Quarter 2000) of Cook County Assessor (Attachments); Notice. (tlm) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 07/28/2000)
78 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Forest Preserve Dist by Jasmina Djordjevic; Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/31/2000)

08/30/2000 08/31/2000
09/07/2000 09/15/2000 09/15/2000 09/26/2000

79 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of The Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/31/2000)
80 SUPPLEMENTAL fee petition 1-1-98 - 12-31-99 with respect to City of Chicago by plaintiffs' (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit Loose Pleadings Vol. 17 of 30). (jjr, ). Modified on 11/15/2017 (jjr, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2017: # 1 Notice of Motion) (jjr, ). (Entered: 09/11/2000)
81 MINUTE ORDER of 9/7/00 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Plaintiffs' supplemental fee petition 1-1-98 through 12/31/99 with respect to City of Chicago is entered and continued to 9/28/00 at 9:00 a.m. No notice (vmj) (Entered: 09/11/2000)
82 LETTER from Roger R Fross to court dated 9/15/00 regarding summary of status of case. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/16/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 09/19/2000)
83 BACKGROUND and summary of status of case by plaintiffs' (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) Modified on 09/19/2000. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/16/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 09/19/2000)
84 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT second quarter, 2000 of Robert F. Furniss (Attachment); Notice. (mw) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public

09/28/2000 10/11/2000
10/12/2000 10/26/2000
10/31/2000
11/01/2000

access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/16/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 09/27/2000)
SCHEDULE set on 9/28/00 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing reset to 9:00 10/12/00. Status hearing set for 9/28/00 is stricken. Mailed/Telephone notice (tsa) (Entered: 09/29/2000)
85 OBJECTIONS by respondent Chgo, Cty of to plaintiffs' fourth petition for attorney's fees and costs (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/16/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/12/2000)
SCHEDULE set on 10/12/00 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held. No notice (tsa) (Entered: 10/13/2000)
86 TREASURER of Cook County's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 7/1/00 to 9/30/00 (3rd Quarter-2000) of Catherine D. Jones (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) Modified on 10/27/2000. (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/16/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/27/2000)
87 AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 7/1/00 to 9/30/00 (3rd Quarter, 2000) by Cook County Recorder of Deeds' (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/16/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/03/2000)
88 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for 7/1/00 to 9/30/00 (3rd Quarter 2000) by Cook County Clerk (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/16/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/03/2000)

11/01/2000 11/02/2000 11/03/2000 11/21/2000 11/28/2000

89 REPORT on Annual Audit by Cook County Clerk's plan of Compliance for the period from 1/1/99 through 12/31/99; Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.)(jjr, ). Modified on 11/16/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/03/2000)
90 REPLY by plaintiffs' to defendant City of Chicago's objections to plaintiffs' fourth petition for attorney's fees and costs [85-1] (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) (U.S. court of Appeals Seventh Circuit Loose Pleadings Vol. 18 of 30). (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/03/2000)
91 COOK County Assessor's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 7/1/00 to 9/30/00 (3rd Quarter 2000) by Patricia Mulligan; Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/06/2000)
92 SUR-REPLY by defendant City of Chicago in opposition to plaintiffs' fourth petition for attorneys' fees and cost [80-1]; Notice. (mw) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/27/2000)
93 MINUTE ORDER of 11/28/00 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: The plaintiffs and the City of Chicago agree that the Court's order setting the time for the filing of the plaintiffs' reply to the City's objections to the plaintiffs' fee petition be modified as follows: The plaintiffs shall file their reply by 11/2/00. (Entered Agreed Order) Mailed notice (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's

11/29/2000 01/10/2001 01/26/2001 01/26/2001 01/26/2001

Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/01/2000)
94 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Albert S. Porter (Attachments); Notice. (kef) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/01/2000)
95 QUARTERLY affidavit Third Quarter, 2000 by Robert F. Furniss (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 01/16/2001)
96 COOK COUNTY RECORDER of Deeds', Paula Bouldon, quarterly affidavit of compliance for 10/1/00 to 12/31/00 (4th quarter, 2000) (Attachments); Notice. (kef) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.)(jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 01/29/2001)
97 TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY'S, Catherine D. Jones, quarterly affidavit of compliance for 10/1/00 to 12/31/00 (4th Quarter - 2000) (Attachments); Notice. (kef) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 01/29/2001)
98 2000 ANNUAL REPORT by Paula Bouldon, Cook County Recorder of Deeds; Notice. (kef) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 01/29/2001)

01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 02/08/2001 02/23/2001

99 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for 10/1/00 to 12/31/00 (4th Quarter 2000) by Cook County Clerk (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
100 2000 ANNUAL report by Cook County Assessor; Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.)(jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
101 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 10/1/00 to 12/31/00 (4th Quarter 2000) by Patricia Mulligan, Cook County Assessor (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
102 2000 ANNUAL Report by Cook County Clerk Tricia Teater; Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.)(jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/01/2001)
103 2000 ANNUAL Report by Catherine D. Jones, Treasurer of Cook County; Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/09/2001)
104 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Albert S. Porter; Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of

03/02/2001 03/02/2001 03/02/2001 03/08/2001

previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (jjr, ). (Entered: 02/27/2001)
105 MOTION by plaintiffs for partial summary judgment on the issue oa liability ; Memorandum in support (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/21/2017: # 1 Notice of Motion, # 2 U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit Loose Pleadings Vol. 19 of 30) (jjr, ). Modified on 11/21/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/13/2001)
106 APPENDIX by plaintiffs to motion for partial summary judgment on the issue oa liability [105-1] [2 vols: 106-1, 106-2] (vmj) (U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit Loose Pleadings Vol. 21 of 30) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit Loose Pleadings Vol. 20 of 30) (Main Document 106 replaced on 12/5/2017) (jjr, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/5/2017: # 1 Volume 106-2) (jjr, ). Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/13/2001)
107 STATEMENT of material facts in support of their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Locl Rule 56.1 by plaintiffs. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/13/2001)
108 MINUTE ORDER of 3/8/01 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability [105-1] is entered and briefed as follows: Response by 5/9/01. Reply by 5/30/00. Ruling set for 6/28/01 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/13/2001)

03/13/2001 03/21/2001 04/11/2001 04/30/2001 04/30/2001

109 ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Forest Preserve Dist by John Francis Kennedy; Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/15/2001)
110 QUARTERLY Affidavit, Fourth Quarter, 2000 by Robert F. Furniss (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 03/23/2001)
111 AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 1/1/01 to 3/31/01 (1st Quarter-2001) by Catherine D. Jones, Treasurer of Cook County (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 04/13/2001)
112 COOK County Quarterly AFFIDAVIT of complaince for 1/1/01 to 3/31/01 (1st Quarter 2001) by Tricia Teater (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/01/2001)
113 COOK County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly AFFIDAVIT of Complaince for 1/1/01 to 3/31/01 (1st Quarter, 2001) by Darlena Williams-Burnett (Attachment). (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/01/2001)

04/30/2001 05/04/2001 05/10/2001 05/14/2001 05/17/2001 05/24/2001

114 REPORT of Annual Audit of the Cook County Assessors' Plan of Compliance for the period from 1/1/00 through 12/31/00 by Richard A Devine; Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/02/2001)
115 REPORT on Annual Audit of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Plan of Compliance for the Period from 1/1/200 through 12/31/00. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/07/2001)
117 MOTION by Chgo, Cty of to stay briefing on plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment ; Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/18/2001)
116 AMENDED Cook County Assessor's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 1/1/01 to 3/31/01 (1st Quarter 2001) by Martin Wise; Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/15/2001)
118 MINUTE ORDER of 5/17/01 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Defendant City of Chicago's motion to stay briefing on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [117-1] is entered and continued to 5/24/01 at 8:45 a.m. No notice (vmj) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
119 MINUTE ORDER of 5/24/01 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Defendant's response brief to motion to stay briefing on plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment [117-1] to be filed by 6/8/01.

05/29/2001 06/08/2001 06/13/2001 07/02/2001 07/13/2001

Plaintiffs' reply by 6/29/01 at 9:00 a.m. Ruling set for 9/13/01 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
120 AFFIDAVIT of Compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County; Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 05/30/2001)
121 RESPONSE by defendant City of Chicago to plaintiffs' Local Rule 56.1 (a)(3) statement [107-1] (Attachments); Notice. (fce) (jjr, ). (U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit Loose Pleadings Vol. 22 of 30). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 06/13/2001)
122 ONE hundredth amendment to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by respondent Chgo, Cty of; Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 06/14/2001)
123 LETTER from Pamela Bradley of the Kane County State's Attorney's office regarding their correct address as Kane County State's Attorney's Office, Civil Division, 100 S. Third Str., 4th FL, Geneva, IL 60134. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 07/03/2001)
124 REPLY brief by plaintiffs in support of their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue on the issue of liability [105-1] (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public

07/13/2001 08/07/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/14/2001

access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 07/17/2001)
125 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant City of Chicago's Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) statement of additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment (Attachments). (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 07/17/2001)
126 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT first quarter, 2001 of Robert Furniss; (Attachments) Notice. (cgb) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/4/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/08/2001)
127 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for 4/1/01 to 6/31/01 (2nd Quarter, 2001) by Cook County Recorder of Deeds'; Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/14/2001)
128 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for 4/1/01 to 6/30/01 (2nd Quarter-2001) by Treasurer of Cook County; Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/14/2001)
129 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Compliance for 4/1/01 to 6/30/01 (2nd Quarter, 2001) by Cook County Assessor, Martin Wise (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public

08/14/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/25/2001
09/27/2001
10/03/2001
10/04/2001

access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/15/2001)
INMATE installment payment in the amount of $ 9.00 paid on 8/14/01, receipt # 10615414 99 A 3818. (vmj) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
130 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for unknown Forest Preserve Dist by James R. Carroll. (air) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
132 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Forest Preserve District of Cook County by James R Carroll (cdy) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/01/2001)
136 MOTION by Forest Preserve Dist's counsel John F. Kennedy to withdraw as counsel (Attachment); Notice. (lc) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/15/2001)
131 MINUTE ORDER of 9/27/01 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : We grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of the City's liability for a violation of the Consent Judgment [105-1]. We order the plaintiffs to file a rule to show cause on or before 10/10/01. The City may file a response to the rule on or before 10/23/01. Plaintiffs shall reply on or before 10/30/01. The court will set this matter for hearing at 10:00 am on 11/08/01. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
133 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT by Cook County Clerk Tricia Teater, of compliance for 04/01/01 to 6/31/01 (2nd quarter 2001); Notice. (yp) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/04/2001)
134 MOTION by plaintiffs to modify scheduling order (Attachment). (yp) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing

10/04/2001 10/05/2001 10/30/2001
10/30/2001
11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001

scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/09/2001)
137 MINUTE ORDER of 10/4/01 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Motion by John F. Kennedy to withdraw as counsel is granted [136-1]. John F. Kennedy is given leave to withdraw his appearance as counsel for defendant Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois. Mailed notice (lc) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
135 MINUTE ORDER of 10/5/01 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiff's rule to show cause will be filed on or before 11/9/01. Defendants' response will be filed on or before 12/7/01. Plaintiffs' reply will be filed on or before 12/21/01. Mailed notice (yp) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
138 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT, 2nd Quarter 2001 by Robert F. Furniss (Attachments); Notice. (cdy) Modified on 11/02/2001 (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/31/2001)
139 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT, 3rd Quarter 2001, by Robert F. Furniss (Attachments); Notice. (cdy) Modified on 11/02/2001 (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 10/31/2001)
149 MOTION by plaintiff for entry of rule to show cause why the City of Chicago and its mayor should not be held in civil contempt of court and various relief granted (Attachments); Memorandum in support. (vmj) Modified on 12/21/2001 (Entered: 12/21/2001)
150 LOCAL Rule 78.5 motion by plaintiff requesting a decision on the supplemental fee petition 1/1/98 - 12/31/99 ; Notice. (vmj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). (Entered: 12/21/2001)
151 FEE petition for work performed on the Pennick application from 1/1/98 - 10/19/01, and related matters by plaintiff (Attachments).

11/13/2001 11/27/2001 11/29/2001 11/30/2001 12/04/2001 12/07/2001

(vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibits) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/21/2001)
140 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT by Cook Co Assessor of compliance for 07/01/01 to 09/03/01 (3rd Quarter, 2001); Notice. (mw) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/14/2001)
141 AFFIDAVIT of compliance by Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 11/28/2001)
142 MINUTE ORDER of 11/29/01 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Status hearing held. Oral motions regarding fee petitions and rule to show cause motions are entered and continued to 11/30/01 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (vmj) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
143 MINUTE ORDER of 11/30/01 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Briefing schedule regarding the 1998-1999 fee petition is as follows: Response by 12/7/01. Reply by 12/14/01. Ruling set for 12/20/01 at 10:00 a.m. Briefing schedule regarding the 2000-2001 briefing schedule is as follows: Response by 1/11/02. Reply by 2/1/01. Ruling set for 2/28/02 at 10:00 a.m. Motion for entry of rule to show cause shall be briefed as follows: Response by 1/11/02. Reply by 2/1/02. Ruling set for 2/28/02 at 10:00 a.m. No notice (vmj) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
144 TREASURER OF Cook County quarterly affidavit of compliance for 7/1/01 to 9/30/01 (3rd Quarter-2001); Notice (yap) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/05/2001)
145 RESPONSE by defendants' to plaintiffs' Local Rule 78.5 motion for ruling on their pending petition for attorneys' fees and costs through 12/31/99; Notice. (vmj)(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial

12/07/2001 12/12/2001 12/14/2001 12/20/2001 01/10/2002

Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (Main Document 145 replaced on 12/5/2017) (jjr, ). Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/10/2001)
146 COOK County Clerk's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 7/1/01 to 9/30/01 (3rd Quarter 2001) by Tricia Teatrer; Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/10/2001)
148 AFFIDAVIT of Darlena Williaims-Burnett regarding Cook County Recorder of Deeds Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 7/1/01 to 9/1/01 (3rd Quarter, 2001) (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (jjr, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/18/2001)
147 REPLY brief by plaintiffs in support of their Local RUle 78.5 motion requesting a decision on the supplemental fee petition 1/1/98 12/31/99 (Attachment). (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (Main Document 147 replaced on 12/5/2017) (jjr, ). Modified on 12/5/2017 (jjr, ). (Entered: 12/17/2001)
152 MINUTE ORDER of 12/20/01 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Local Rule 78.5 motion requesting a decision on the supplemental fee petition 1/1/98 - 12/31/99 [150-1] is taken under advisement. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
157 MOTION by Chgo, Cty of to vacate the 6/20/83 hiring consent decree ; Notice. (vmj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is

01/10/2002
01/11/2002 01/11/2002 01/11/2002 01/16/2002 01/17/2002 01/17/2002
01/18/2002 02/15/2002

restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 01/24/2002)
158 RULE 7.1 MOTION by Chgo, Cty of for leave to file memorandum in support of its motion to vacate the 6/20/83 hiring consent decree (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Unpublished Opinions) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/24/2002)
153 RESPONSE by defendants' to plaintiffs' proposed remedial action order (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 01/14/2002)
154 MEMORANDUM by Chgo, Cty of in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for entry of rule to show cause [149-1] (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 01/14/2002)
159 MOTION by defendants' for an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' fee petition ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
160 MOTION by defendants' to withdraw , and to substitute attorney ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
155 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Richard J Daley by Jay Michael Kertez, Patrick J. Rocks Jr., Mara S. Georges. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 01/18/2002)
161 MINUTE ORDER of 1/17/02 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Motion for an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' fee petition is granted [159-1]. Reply by 3/18/02. Ruling set for 4/11/02 at 10:00 a.m. Defendant City of Chicago's motion to vacate the 6/20/83 hiring consent decree is entered. Draft order to follow. All parties are given leave to file briefs in excess of fifteen (15) pages. Motion to withdraw (noticed for 1/24/02) is granted. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
156 OBJECTIONS by defendant Chgo, Cty of to plaintiffs' 1/18/02 draft scheduling order; Notice. (vmj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). (Entered: 01/22/2002)
162 Cook County Assessors' Office Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 10/1/01 to 12/31/01 (4th Quarter, 2001) (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/19/2002)

02/19/2002 02/20/2002 02/22/2002
02/27/2002 03/07/2002 03/11/2002 04/05/2002
04/05/2002 04/05/2002

163 RESPONSE by defendants' to plaintiffs' fee petition for work performed from 1/1/98 to 10/19/01 (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
164 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Albert S. Porter; Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/21/2002)
165 MINUTE ORDER of 2/22/02 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Decision on the motion for entry of rule to show cause [149-1] is set for 4/11/02 at 10:00 a.m. Defendant City of Chicago's Local Rule 7.1 motion for leave to file defendant City of Chicago's memorandum in support of its motion to vacate the 6/20/83 hiring consent decree is granted [158-1]. (Entered Scheduling Order) Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
166 2001 ANNUAL REPORT by Cook County Assessor; Notice. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/28/2002)
167 MINUTE ORDER of 3/7/02 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: By agreement of the parties, briefs due on 3/18/02 have been extended to 4/8/02. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
168 MINUTE ORDER of 3/11/02 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Motion to stay briefing on plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied as moot [117-1]. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
169 MINUTE ORDER of 4/5/02 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Briefing schedule on motion for entry of rule to show cause why the City of Chicago and its mayor should not be held in civil contempt of court and various relief granted [149-1] is modified by agreement as follows. Plaintiff to file their reply in support by 4/15/02. Plaintiff to file their reply brief to motion requesting a decision on the supplemental fee petition 1/1/98 - 12/31/99 [150-1] by 4/15/02. Plaintiff to file response to motion [157-1] by 4/15/02. Plaintiff to file a reply in support of entry of remedial action order by 4/15/02. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
170 COOK County Recorder of Deeds 2001 Annual Report by Darlena Williams-Burnett; Notice. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/08/2002)
171 COOK County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 10/1/01 to 12/31/01 (4th Quarter, 2001) (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/08/2002)

04/05/2002 04/05/2002 04/16/2002
04/16/2002 04/16/2002 04/19/2002 04/25/2002 04/30/2002 05/15/2002 05/15/2002

172 QUARTERLY Affidavit Fourth Quarter, 2001 by Robert F Furniss; Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/08/2002)
173 COOK County Clerk's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 10/1/01 to 12/31/01 (4th Quarter 2001) by Tricia Teater (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/08/2002)
174 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendants' motion to vacate the 6/20/83 hiring consent decree [157-1] (Attachments). (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 EX 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/17/2002)
175 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of their fee petition for work performed from 1/1/98 to 10/19/01 (Attachments). (vmj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (tc, ). (Entered: 04/17/2002)
176 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of the entry of rule to show cause why the City of Chicago and its mayor should not be held in civil contempt of court [149-1] (Attachments). (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5) (kms, ). (Entered: 04/17/2002)
177 MINUTE ORDER of 4/19/02 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: It is hereby ordered that defendant City of Chicago is granted to 5/17/02 to file its reply brief in further support of its Rule 60(b) motion. (Entered Order) Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 4/25/02 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing reset to 10:45 7/18/02. Status hearing and ruling set for 4/25/2002 is stricekn. Mailed notice (tsa) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
178 REPORT of Annual Audit of the Cook County Assessors' Plan of Compliance for the Period from 1/1/01 through 12/31/01 by Lynn Train; Notice. (vmj) Modified on 05/01/2002 (kms, ). (Entered: 05/01/2002)
179 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Albert S. Porter; Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/16/2002)
180 AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 1/1/02 to 3/31/02 (1st Quarter, 2002) by Cook County Assessor Martin Wise; Notice. (vmj) (Additional

05/17/2002
05/28/2002
05/28/2002 05/28/2002
05/31/2002 05/31/2002 06/04/2002 06/14/2002 06/21/2002

attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/16/2002)
181 MINUTE ORDER of 5/17/02 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : By agreement of the parties, The City's request to change the date for filing the City's reply brief in support of its motion to vacate is granted to 6/21/02. No notice (eav) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
182 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Robert F. Furniss for Fourth Quarter, 2001 (Attachments); First Quarter, 2002; Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 First Quarter 2002, # 2 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/30/2002)
183 REPORT on annual audit of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Plan of Compliance for the period from 1/1/01 through 12/31/01 by City of Chicago; Notice. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/30/2002)
184 AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 1/1/02 to 4/30/02 (1st Quarter, 200) for the Cook COunty Recorder of Deeds by Darlena Williams-Burnett (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/30/2002)
185 COOK County Clerk's Office 2001 Annual Report by Tricia L Teater; Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Notice of Filing) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/03/2002)
186 COOK County Clerk's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 1/1/02 to 3/31/02 (1st Quarter 2002) by Tricia Teater; Notice. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/03/2002)
187 ONE hundred first amendment to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
188 ONE hundred second amendment to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by Chgo, Cty of; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
261 REPLY memorandum by Chgo, Cty of in further support of its motion to vacate the 6/20/83 hiring consent decree [157-1] (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.)Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 08/03/2004)

07/29/2002 07/30/2002 08/01/2002 08/01/2002 08/01/2002 08/20/2002 08/20/2002 09/04/2002
09/11/2002 11/07/2002

189 COOK County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 4/1/02 to 6/30/02 (2nd Quarter, 2002) by Darlena WilliamsBurnett (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Exhibits) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/30/2002)
190 COOK County Assessor's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 4/1/02 to 6/30/02 (2nd Quarter, 2002) by Martin Wise (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) Modified on 07/31/2002 (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Exhibits) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/31/2002)
191 TREASURER of Cook County's Quarterly affidavit of compliance for 10/1/01 to 12/30/01 (4th Quarter-2001) by Christina Kalliris (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
192 TREASURER of Cook County's Quarterly Affidavit of COmpliance for 1/1/02 to 4/30/02 (1st Quarter-2002) by Christina Kalliris (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
193 TREASURER of Cook County's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 4/1/02 to 6/30/02 (2nd Quarter-2002) Attachments; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
194 COOK County Clerk's Quarterly affidavit of Compliance for 4/1/02 to 6/30/02 (2nd Quarter 2002) by Tricia Teater (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
195 MINUTE ORDER of 8/20/02 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Defendants' motion to substitute attorney is granted [160-2]. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
196 FEE PETITION by plaintiffs - 10/20/01 to 7/31/02 with respect to City of Chicato (Attachments) (eav) (kms, ). (Main Document 196 replaced on 11/16/2017) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2017: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-1, # 3 Exhibit A-2, # 4 Exhibit A-3, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit B-1, # 7 Exhibit B-2, # 8 Exhibit B-3) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/05/2002)
197 AMENDED EXHIBIT B-2 to fee petition 10/20/01 to 7/31/02 with respect to City of Chicago by plaintiff. (vmj) (kms, ). (Entered: 09/12/2002)
198 RESPONSE by defendants' to plaintiffs' fee petition for 10/20/01 to 7/31/02 with respect to the City of Chicago (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4A, # 5 Exhibit 4B, # 6 Exhibit 4C, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Unpublished Opinions) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/08/2002)

11/08/2002 11/08/2002 11/15/2002 11/25/2002 02/06/2003 02/11/2003 02/20/2003 02/21/2003 02/26/2003 02/27/2003
03/11/2003

199 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT second quarter, 2002 by Robert F. Furnissi; Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/12/2002)
200 QUARTERLY affidavit, third quarter, 2002 by Robert F. Furniss; Notice. (vmj) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Exhibit) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/12/2002)
201 COOK county Assessor's quarterly affidavit of compliance for 7/1/02 to 9/30/02 (3rd Quarter, 2002); Notice, (vmj) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
202 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Albert S. Porter (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
203 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of their fee petition for 10/20/01 to 7/31/02 with respect to the City of Chicago (Attachments). (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Unpublished Opinions) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/07/2003)
204 COOK County Assessor's Quarterly affidavit of compliance for 10/1/02 to 12/31/02 (4th Quarter, 2002) by Martin Wise (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
207 MOTION by defendant Chgo, Cty of for leave to file supplemental authority in further support of its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for the entry of a rule to show cause (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
205 COOK County Assessor's 2002 Annual Report by Martin Wise; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
206 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forst Preserve District of Cook County, Albert S. Porter; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
208 MINUTE ORDER of 2/27/03 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Defendant City of Chicago's motion for leave to file supplemental authority in further support of its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for the entry of a rule to show cause is granted [207-1]. Plaintiff to file response on 3/11/03. City to file reply on 3/24/03. No notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
209 RESPONSE by plaintiffs' to defendant City of Chicago's supplemental authority (Attachments). (vmj) (Entered: 03/12/2003)

03/21/2003 03/24/2003 03/31/2003
04/28/2003 04/28/2003 04/28/2003 04/28/2003 05/06/2003 05/16/2003 05/20/2003 05/23/2003 06/12/2003 07/25/2003

210 Quarterly Affidavit Fourth Quarter, 2002 by Robert F Furniss (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
211 REPLY by defendant Chgo, Cty of to plaintiff's response to its supplemental authority [209-1]; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/25/2003)
212 MINUTE ORDER of 3/31/03 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Plaintiff's local rule 78.5 motion requesting a decision on the supplemental fee petition 1/1/98 - 12/31/99 is granted [150-1]. Ruling on the supplemental fee petition to be made by mail. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
213 2002 ANNUAL Report by Cook County Recorder of Deeds; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
214 2001 ANNUAL Report by Cook County Recorder of Deeds; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
215 QUARTERLY affidavit of compliance for 10/1/02 to 12/31/02 (4th Quarter, 2002) by Cook County Recorder of Deeds; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
216 QUARTERLY Affidavit of Compliance for 7/1/02 to 9/30/02 (3rd Quarter, 2002) by Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
217 COOK County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly affidavit of compliance for 1/1/03 to 4/30/03 (1st Quarter, 2003) by Dalena Williams-Burnett (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
218 AFFIDAVIT of Martin Wise, quarterly affidavit of compliance for 01/01/03 to 03/31/03 (1st quarter, 2003) (Attachment); Notice. (jmp) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
219 REPORT of Annual Audit of The Cook County Assessors' Plan of compliance for the period from 1/1/02 through 12/31/02; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
220 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook COunty by Albert S. Porter (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
221 ONE hundred third amendment to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by Chgo, Cty of; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
222 REPORT on Annual Audit of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Plan of Compliance for the period from 1/1/02 through 12/31/02; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 07/28/2003)

08/13/2003 08/29/2003
08/29/2003 09/04/2003 11/19/2003 11/20/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003 02/18/2004 02/27/2004

223 COOK County Assessor's Quarterly affidavit of compliance for 4/1/03 to 6/30/03 (2nd Quarter, 2003) by Martin Wise (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
224 QUAETERLY AFFIDAVIT, First Quarter, 2003 by Robert F. Furniss (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). Modified on 7/15/2010 (hp, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 09/02/2003)
225 AFFIDAVIT of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Carl McCormick (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
226 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 4/1/03 to 6/30/03 (2nd Quarter, 2003) by Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
227 COOK COUNTY ASSESORS' QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance for 7/1/03 to 9/30/03 (3rd quarter, 2003) by Paulette Rogers (Attachment); Notice (rmm) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
228 COOK County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly affidavit of compliance for 7/1/03 to 9/30/03 (3rd Quarter, 2003) of Darlena Williams-Burnett (Attachment). (vmj) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 11/25/03 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : No notice (tbk) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 11/25/03 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held & continued to 2:00 12/4/03 . No notice (tsa) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
229 AFFIDAVIT of Carl McCormick of compliance of the Forest Preserve Disrict of Cook County and affidavit of compliance of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County; Notice. (jmp) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
230 2003 Annual Report by Cook County Assessor; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/01/2004)

02/27/2004 03/05/2004 03/24/2004 03/24/2004
03/26/2004 03/30/2004
04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/23/2004 04/28/2004

231 QUARTERLY Affidavit of Compliance for 10/1/03 to 12/31/03 (4th Quarter, 2003) by Cook County Assessor (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
232 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT, Third Quarter, 2003 by Robert F. Furniss (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
233 COOK County Recorder of Deeds 2003 Annual Report by Darlena Williams-Burnett; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
234 COOK County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly affidavit of compliance for 10/1/03 to 12/31/03 (4th Quarter, 2003) by Darlena WilliamsBurnett (Attachment). (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 03/25/2004)
236 ONE hundred fourth amendment to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by Chgo, Cty of; Notice. (vmj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). (Entered: 03/30/2004)
235 MINUTE ORDER of 3/30/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : We deny the motion of the City of Chicago and Mayor Richard M. Daley to vacate the 06/20/83 Consent Judgment [157-1]. This matter is set for status on 04/22/04 at 8:45 a.m. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mailed notice (tlm) Modified on 4/1/2010 (aac, ). (Entered: 03/30/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 4/22/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held & continued to 8:45 5/20/04 . No notice (tsa) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
237 MOTION by plaintiffs for entry of revised plan of compliance and renewed motion for rule to show cause why the City of Chicago and its mayor should not be held in civil contempt (Attachments). (vmj) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
238 MOTION by plaintiffs for entry of revised plan of compliance and renewed motion for rule to show cause why the City of Chicago and its Mayor should not be held in civil contempt (Attachments). (vmj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). (Entered: 04/26/2004)
239 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Chgo, Cty of motion minute order [235-3], Scheduling order Entered Memorandum Opinion and

04/28/2004 04/29/2004 04/30/2004 05/03/2004 05/10/2004 05/12/2004 05/13/2004 05/17/2004 05/20/2004
06/01/2004 06/03/2004 06/09/2004

Order. [235-2] ( Fee Paid) (dj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). (Entered: 04/29/2004)
240 DOCKETING STATEMENT by respondent Chgo, Cty of appeal [239-1] regarding appeal [239-1] . (dj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). (Entered: 04/29/2004)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal appeal [239-1] . Mailed notice to all counsel. (dj) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
241 REPORT of Annual Audit of the by Cook County Assessoris' Plan of COmpliane for the period from 1/1/03 through 12/31/03; Notice. (vmj) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). (Entered: 05/03/2004)
242 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal [239-1] USCA 04-2105. (vmj) Modified on 4/1/2010 (aac, ). (Entered: 05/04/2004)
243 SEVENTH CIRCUIT transcript information sheet by plaintifs.f (vmj) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
244 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/22/04 appeal [239-1] Before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (eav) (kms, ). (Entered: 05/13/2004)
245 LETTER from Hugh S. Balsam to Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court dated 05/13/04 (Attachment) (cdy) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
246 QUARTERLY Affidavit First Quarter, 2004 by Robert F. Furniss (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 5/20/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held & continued to 8:45 6/3/04. Oral motion for leave to file appearance of Brian Hayes is granted. No notice (tsa) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
247 COOK COUNTY Assessor's QUARTERLY affidavit of compliance for 1/1/04 to 3/31/04 (1st Quarter, 2004) by Paulette Rogers; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
SCHEDULE set on 6/3/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing reset to 8:45 6/24/04 . Telephone notice (tsa) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
248 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Timothy M. Maggio, Brian Ignatius Hays. (vmj) Modified on 4/1/2010 (aac, ). (Entered: 06/10/2004)

06/09/2004 06/09/2004
06/10/2004 06/18/2004
06/23/2004 06/24/2004 06/24/2004 07/09/2004 07/12/2004

250 AGREED MOTION by plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman, and Forest Preserve Dist for leave to file plan of compliance (Attachments); Notice. (jmp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Preliminary Approval Order Draft) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/21/2004)
257 AGREED MOTION by plaintiffs and The Forest Preserve Dist of Cook County for leave to file plan of compliance (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (bg, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 11/6/2017 (bg, ). (Entered: 07/14/2004)
249 MINUTE ORDER of 6/10/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Hearing set for 9:00 a.m. on 7/15/04. (Entered Preliminary Approval Order) Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
251 MINUTE ORDER of 6/18/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiff's agreed motion for leave to file plan of compliance is granted [250-1]. (Entered preliminary approval order. A hearing shall be held 9:00 a.m. on 07/15/04 for the purpose of determining whether the Court should approve the proposed plan of compliance. See order for further details. (Entered Preliminary Approval Order). Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
252 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to stay proceedings. (rbf) Modified on 3/31/2010 (gej, ). (Entered: 06/24/2004)
253 REVISED EXHIBITS by plaintiffs to motion for entry of revised plan of compliance [238-1] and renewed renewed motion for rule to show cause why the City of Chicago and its Mayor should not be held in civil contempt [238-2] (Attachment); Notice. (air) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/25/2004)
254 MINUTE ORDER of 6/24/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Motion [237-1] and motion to stay, as well as all pending motions are taken under advisement [238-1], [238-2], [237-2], [149-1]. Status hearing set for 1:30 p.m. on 7/7/04. Mailed notice (air) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
255 AFFIDAVIT of Robert Kinchen; Notice. (vmj) Modified on 4/7/2010 (aac, ). (Entered: 07/12/2004)
256 AFFIDAVIT of Brian I. Hays of proof of publication of notice of hearing on proposed plan of compliance and exemptions from Shakman judgment with respect to the Forest Preserve District of

07/13/2004 07/13/2004 07/15/2004
07/30/2004 07/30/2004

Cook County (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (bg, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 11/6/2017 (bg, ). (Entered: 07/13/2004)
458 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal no. 042105 consisting of 9 volumes of pleadings, 30 volumes of loose pleadings and 2 transcripts. [239-1] Mailed notice to all counsel. (dj) . (Entered: 07/13/2004)
258 MINUTE ORDER of 7/13/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Agreed motion of plaintitts and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County for leave to file plan of compliance is granted [257-1]. Nunc pro tunc 6/10/04. Mailed notice (vmj) (bg, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) Modified on 11/7/2017 (bg, ). (Entered: 07/14/2004)
259 MINUTE ORDER of 7/15/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Status hearing held. Plaintiffs shall file their petition for attorneys' fees and costs within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order. (Entered Approval Order regarding the proposed plan of compliance) Mailed notice (vmj) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ). Modified on 11/7/2017 (bg, ). (Entered: 07/19/2004)
260 MOTION by Chgo, Cty of to supplement (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) Modified on 4/7/2010 ((aac, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 08/03/2004)
262 MINUTE ORDER of 7/30/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Defendant City of Chicago's agreed motion to supplement the Record on Appeal is granted [260-1]. It is hereby ordered that defendant City

08/02/2004 08/03/2004 08/04/2004 08/05/2004 08/13/2004
08/13/2004 08/16/2004

of Chicago's reply memorandum in further support of its motion to vacate the 6/20/83 hiring consent decree was filed with this court on 6/21/02 but omitted from the docket and should be added to the docket and made part of the record. The clerk of the district court is directed to prepare and certify a supplemental record that includes defendant City of Chicago's reply memorandum in further support of its motion to vacate the 6/20/1983 hiring consent decree and forward that supplemental record to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (Entered Agreed Order to Supplement the Record on Appeal) Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
263 MINUTE ORDER of 8/2/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: An agreed order regarding the motion to supplement was entered on 7/30/04. Parties need not appear in court on 9/2/04, which is when this motion was set to be heard. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
457 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement to appeal no. 04-2105 consisting of Defendant, City of Chicago's reply memorandum in further support of its motion to vacate the 6/20/1983 hiring consent decree dated 6/22/02. Mailed notice to all counsel. (vmj) . Modified on 5/23/2006 (amb, ). (Entered: 08/03/2004)
264 SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD LIST by defendant Chgo, Cty of (Attachments) (dj) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/05/2004)
459 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement to appeal no. 04-2105 consisting of 1 volume of pleadings (doc# 261, 263 & 264) Mailed notice to all counsel. (dj) . (Entered: 08/05/2004)
265 COOK County Assessor's quarterly affidavit of compliance for 4/1/04 to 6/30/04 (2nd quarter, 2004) by Paulette Rogers (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) Modified on 4/9/2010 (aac, ).(Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 08/16/2004)
266 SUPPLEMENTAL fee petition with respect to Forest Preserve District of Cook County' Affidavit in support (Attachments) by plaintiff. (vmj) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
267 REPLY by Chgo, Cty of in further support of its motion to stay proceedings; Notice of filing. (vmj) Modified on 4/9/2010 (aac, ). (Entered: 08/17/2004)

08/16/2004
08/16/2004 08/20/2004 09/02/2004 09/03/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/29/2004 11/04/2004

268 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance by Darlena WilliamsBurnett for 4/1/04 to 6/30/04 (2nd Auarter, 2004) for Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) Modified on 4/9/2010 (aac, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 08/17/2004)
269 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of compliance by Darlena WilliamsBurnett for 1/1/04 to 4/30/04 (1st Quarter, 2004) for Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) Modified on 4/9/2010 (aac, ). (Entered: 08/17/2004)
270 MOTION by plaintiffs for entry of supplemental fee petition with respect to Forest Preserve District of Cook County ; Notice. (vmj) Modified on 4/9/2010 (aac, ). (Entered: 09/07/2004)
272 MINUTE ORDER of 9/2/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Motion for entry of supplemental fee petition with respect to Forest Preserve District of Cook County is granted [270-1] in the amount of $57,905.76, consisting of $56,134.00 in fees and $1,771.76 in costs. No notice (vmj) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
271 RESPONSE by Chgo, Cty of to motion for entry of revised plan of compliance [238-1] and renewed motion for rule to show cause why the City of Chicago should not be held in civil contempt [238-2]; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
273 BRIEF by applicants' in support of plaintiffs' motion for entry of revised plan of compliance, etc., and in reply to defendant City of Chicago's response to said motion [238-1]. (jmm) Modified on 4/7/2010 (aac, ). (Entered: 10/27/2004)
274 DECLARATION of Peter Schmalz. (jmm) Modified on 4/7/2010 (aac, ). (Entered: 10/27/2004)
275 REPLY by plaintiff in support of the entry of rule to show cause why the City of Chicago and its Mayor should not be held in civil contempt [238-2] (Attachments). (vmj) Modified on 4/7/2010 (aac, ). (Entered: 11/02/2004)
276 REPORT by Cook County Recorder of Deeds on Annual Audit of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Plan of Compliance for the period from 1/1/03 through 12/31/03; Notice. (cem) (Entered: 11/09/2004)

11/29/2004 12/02/2004
12/08/2004
12/22/2004 12/22/2004
01/28/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005

277 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff to supplement the record on appeal (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (kms, ). (Entered: 12/06/2004)
278 MINUTE ORDER of 12/2/04 by Hon. Wayne R. Andersen: Plaintiff's unopposed motion is granted to supplement [277-1] the attached Exhibits A through D (10-17-1969, copy of the complaint); (10-141971, plaintiff's first amended complaint) (5-6-1977, defendant City of Chicago's answer to plaintiffs' request for admissions); (5-201983t, Motion of City of Chicago and its Mayor to enter judgment). Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
456 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement to appeal no. 04-2105: 1 volume of pleadings consisting of Exhibits A through D (copies of complaint dated 10/17/1969, plaintiffs first amended complaint dated 10/14/1971, defendant City of Chicago's Answer to plaintiff's Request for Admissions dated 5/6/1977 and Motion by City of Chicago and Its Mayor to enter judgment dated 5/20/1983. Mailed notice to all counsel. (vmj) Modified on 5/23/2006 (amb, ). (Entered: 12/08/2004)
279 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Andre B. Ashmore, second quarter, 2004; Notice. (gma) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
280 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT of Andre B. Ashmore, third quarter, 2004; Notice. (gma) Modified on 4/7/2010 (aac, ). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals. Paper document scanned to create an electronic record. No action needed at this time.) (Modified on 11/8/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 12/23/2004)
281 Cook Conty Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 7/1/04 to 9/30/04 (3rd Quarter, 2004); Notice. (vmj, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
282 COOK County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 10/1/04 to 12/31/04 (4th Quarter, 2004); Notice. (vmj, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
283 COOK County Assessor's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 7/1/04 to 9/30/04 (3rd Quaerter, 2004); Notice. (vmj, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)

02/15/2005 02/16/2005 03/24/2005
03/24/2005 04/19/2005 04/19/2005 04/20/2005 04/21/2005 04/22/2005 04/25/2005 04/25/2005

284 Cook County Assessor's 2004 Annual Report by Paulette Rogers, as the Shakman Compliance Officer, for the Cook County Assesor; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
285 COOK County Assessor's Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 10/1/04 to 12/31/04 (4th Quarter, 2004); Notice; Exhibits. (vmj, ) Modified on 2/24/2006 (ym, ). (Entered: 02/22/2005)
286 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, the City's motion to stay these proceedings is denied. Plaintiffs' motion for entry of a rule to show cause why the city should not be held in civil contempt is denied, and request for injunctive relief is granted 149 , 237 , 238 . The plaintiffs' motion for entry of a revised plan of compliance is denied without prejudice 237 , 238 . The court reserves judgment on the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees to a later date. Mailed notice (vmj, ) (Entered: 03/24/2005)
287 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 3/24/2005 (vmj, ) (Entered: 03/24/2005)
288 MOTION by City of Chicago to clarify the court's order dated March 24, 2005 (gma, ) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
289 NOTICE by City of Chicago of filing MOTION by City of Chicago to clarify the court's order dated March 24, 2005 288 (gma, ) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
291 QUARTERLY Affidavit Fourth Quarter, 2005 by Phillip S Montgomery; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 04/25/2005)
290 NOTICE of Motion by all defendants for presentment of motion by plaintiff to clarify the court's order dated 04/24/05 288 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2005 at 09:00 AM. (rbf, ) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
293 DOCKETING Statement by City of Chicago, The regarding notice of appeal 292 (dj, ) (Entered: 04/25/2005)
292 NOTICE of appeal by City of Chicago, The regarding orders 287 , 286 ; Filing fee $ 255.00 paid; Receipt number 10327476 (dj, ) (Entered: 04/25/2005)
294 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 292 . Notified counsel (dj, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/25/2005 (dj, ). (Entered: 04/25/2005)

04/28/2005 04/29/2005 05/04/2005 05/05/2005 05/13/2005 05/13/2005 05/31/2005
06/02/2005 06/03/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005
06/20/2005 06/22/2005

295 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Motion to clarify 288 is granted. Status hearing set for 5/5/2005 at 09:00 AM. Draft order to follow. No notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
296 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice of appeal 292 , 239 ; USCA Case No. 05-2134 (vmj, ) (Entered: 05/04/2005)
298 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's motion to clarify (vmj, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
297 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing stricken. No notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/05/2005)
299 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Enter order modifying the injunction entered on 3/24/05. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
300 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 5/13/2005.(mjc, ) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
301 TRANSMITTED to the USCA for the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal 292 (USCA no. 05-2134) consisting of 1 volume of pleadings. (dj, ) Modified on 6/1/2005 (dj, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 6/6/2005 (dj, ). (Entered: 05/31/2005)
303 COOK County Recorder of Deeds' Quarterly Affidavit of Compliance for 1/1/05 to 4/30/05 (1st Quarter, 2005); Notice.(vmj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
302 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT, First Quarter, 2005 by Phillip S Montgomery; Notice. (vmj, ) Modified on 4/11/2007 (cdy, ). (Entered: 06/08/2005)
304 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago to adjust the time to respond to plaintiffs' fourth fee petition (gma, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
305 NOTICE of Motion by Jay Michael Kertez for presentment of MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago to adjust the time to respond to plaintiffs' fourth fee petition 304 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/23/2005 at 09:00 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
306 ONE hundred fifth amendment to Part G of the schedule of exempt positions by Chgo, Cty of; Notice. (vmj, ) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
308 FEE petition supplemental delay and Pennick attorneys' fees 1/3 adjustment requests to 4/1/05 with respect to City of Chicago by plaintiffs; Notice. (vmj, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/22/2005 06/23/2005
07/26/2005 07/26/2005
07/26/2005
07/27/2005 08/01/2005 08/02/2005
08/02/2005 08/08/2005

309 FEE petition 8/1/02 through 4/1/05 with respect to City of Chicago by plaintiffs(Exhibits).(vmj, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
307 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Defendant City of Chicago's motion to adjust the time 304 to respond to plaintiffs' fourth fee petition is granted. Responses due by 8/19/2005. Replies due by 9/2/2005. Rulings will be made by mail. Judicial staff mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
310 APPLICATION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie to hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor in civil contempt for violations of the court orders (gma, ) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
311 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of APPLICATION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie to hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor in civil contempt for violations of the court orders 310 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/28/2005 at 09:00 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
312 APPENDIX by plaintiffs of documents incorporated into APPLICATION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie to hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor in civil contempt for violations of the court orders 310 (gma, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/26/2005)
313 REPORT of Annual Audit of the Cook County Assessors' Plan of Compliance for the Period from 1/1/04 through 12/31/04 by Chgo, Cty of; Notice. (vmj, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
314 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Michael L Shakman by Adam T Waskowski (vmj, ) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
315 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen: Plaintiff's motion to hold the City of Chicago and Mayor Daley in civil contempt 310 is entered and continued to 9/6/05 at 1:30 p.m. Enter order appointing court monitor and counsel. No notices required, advised in open court (vmj, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
316 ORDER Appointing Court Monitor and Counsel Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 8/2/2005.(vmj, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
317 APPLICATION for clarification of appointment order by Noelle C. Brennan. (Entered: 08/10/2005)

08/08/2005 08/08/2005 08/11/2005 08/15/2005
08/16/2005
08/18/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005

318 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen: Court Monitor's application for clarification of appointment order 317 is granted. Enter agreed order. Notices mailed by judge's staff (vmj, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
319 AGREED ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 8/8/2005(vmj, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
320 QUARTERLY AFFIDAVIT, Third Quarter, 2005 by Phillip S. Montgomery; Notice.(vmj, ) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
321 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 8/2/05; Before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen. (vmj, ) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ). Modified on 11/7/2017 (bg, ). (Entered: 08/17/2005)
322 ATTORNEY Appearance for Cook County States' Attorney, Cook County Assessor, Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Cook County Treasurer, Cook County Clerk, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Cook County Sheriff by Patrick T. Driscoll, Patrick M. Blanchard, Sean P. Connolly (rmm, ) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
875 FORWARDED Supplemental Record on Appeal letter, Transcript of Proceedings, document number 321 and certified copy of Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit (PREVIOUSLY MISPLACED DOCUMENT) (cdy, ) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
323 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for leave to file a memorandum in excess of fifteen pages. (lcw, ) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
324 NOTICE of Motion by City of Chicago for presentment of unopposed motion to file a memorandum in excess of fifteen pages 323 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/8/2005 at 09:00 AM. (lcw, ) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
325 MOTION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie to file a reply brief in excess of fifteen pages. (Attachments: # 1 plaintiffs' reply in support of their fee petition)(td, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
326 NOTICE of Motion by all plaintiffs for presentment of motion to file a reply brief in excess of fifteen pages 325 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/8/2005 at 09:00 AM. (td, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)

09/06/2005 09/06/2005 09/08/2005
09/08/2005
10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 11/02/2005 11/02/2005 11/02/2005 11/02/2005

327 FIRST Report of Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Exhibit). (vmj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
329 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing set for 10/11/2005 at 01:00 PM. The Court gives parties leave to file fee petition is granted.Telephoned notice. Modified on 4/6/2006 (smm, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
328 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file memorandum in excess of fifteen pages 323 is granted. Plaintiffs motion for leave to file reply brief in excess of fifteen pages 325 is granted. Judicial staff mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
333 COMBINED RESPONSE by Defendants Chgo, Cty of, Defendant Richard M Daley to plaintiffs' fee petition for 08/01/02 through 04/01/05 and to plaintiffs' supplemental delay and Pennick Attorneys' fees 1/3/ adjustment requests to 04/01/05 with respect to the City of Chicago (Exhibits).(tlm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (kms, ). (Entered: 10/27/2005)
330 CERTIFICATE of Service and Notice of Filing by Ines M. Monte on behalf of Noelle C Brennan (Monte, Ines) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
331 STATUS Report of the Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Monte, Ines) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
332 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held on 10/18/2005 and continued to 1/12/2006 at 09:00 AM. No notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
334 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie by Roger J Perlstadt (Perlstadt, Roger) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
335 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie by Edward W. Feldman (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
336 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie by Fredrick E Vars (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
337 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held and continued to 12/7/2005 at 01:00 PM. Edward Feldman's oral motion for leave to file additional appearance on behalf of plaintiff is granted. Fred Vars and Roger Perlstadt are also given leave to file

11/02/2005 11/02/2005 11/14/2005 11/16/2005 11/16/2005
11/16/2005 11/16/2005
11/17/2005 11/17/2005 11/22/2005

their additional appearance on behalf of plaintiff. Mailed notice (cem) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
338 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Enter agreed order. Mailed notice (hp, ) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
339 AGREED ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 11/2/2005:Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
340 NOTICE by Cook County (Attachments: # 1 1999 Annual Audit# 2 2000 Annual Audit# 3 2001 Annual Audit# 4 2004 Annual Audit)(Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
343 OPINION from the USCA for the 7th Circuit; Argued 4/14/05; Decided 10/24/05 in USCA case no. 04-2105 (eav, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
344 MANDATE of USCA dated 10/24/05 regarding notice of appeal 292 ; USCA No. 04-2105. The judgment of the District Court denying the City's motion to vacate is Reversed. The case is Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The City may recover its costs in this court. The above is in accordance with the decision of this court entered on this date. (eav, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
345 BILL of Costs by the Court of Appeals (eav, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
346 LETTER from the Seventh Circuit returning the record on appeal in USCA no. 04-2105 consisting of 10 volumes of pleadings, 32 volumes of loose pleadings, 2 volumes of transcripts and 1 exhibit (eav, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
341 NOTICE by Cook County (Attachments: # 1 Correction to Defendant Cook County's November 14, 2005 Notice of Filing)(Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
342 NOTICE by Cook County (Attachments: # 1 Annual Audit for 2003)(Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
347 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 11/2/05; Before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (eav, ) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ). Modified on 11/7/2017 (bg, ). (Entered: 11/23/2005)

11/29/2005 11/29/2005 12/07/2005 12/07/2005 12/07/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005
12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005
12/16/2005

349 MOTION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie to File Second Supplement to First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Feldman, Edward) Modified on 11/30/2005 (rbf, ). (Entered: 11/29/2005)
350 NOTICE of Motion by Edward W. Feldman for presentment of motion to supplement 349 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/8/2005 at 09:00 AM. (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
351 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to substitute attorney (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
352 NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion to substitute attorney 351 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/15/2005 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
353 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiff's motion to supplement 349 is entered and continued to 12/15/2006. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
354 STATUS Report of Shakman Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Monte, Ines) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
358 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Motion to supplement 349 1st amended complaint is denied. The Court gives the plaintiff leave to file a 2nd amended complaint by 1/11/2006. The defendants shall be served a copy on or before 1/6/2006. Defendant to answer or otherwise plead by 2/24/2006. Advised in open court (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
359 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Chgo, Cty of by Tracey Renee Ladner (eav, ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
360 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Chgo, Cty of by Mara Stacy Georges (eav, ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
364 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Motion to substitute attorney 351 is granted. Mara S. Georges and Tracy R. Ladner are given leave to file their appearances. Patrick J. Rocks, Rachel Kaplan, and Jonathon Siner should be removed as attorneys of record in this case. Attorney Jonathan P. Siner; Rachel L. Kaplan and Patrick J. Rocks, Jr terminated. Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
355 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct Clerical Error in the Court's 1985 Order (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/16/2005)

12/16/2005 12/19/2005 12/23/2005 12/23/2005 12/23/2005 12/27/2005
12/27/2005
12/27/2005
12/27/2005

356 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct 355 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/22/2005 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
357 CERTIFICATE of Service by Ines M. Monte on behalf of Noelle C Brennan regarding status report 354 (Monte, Ines) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
361 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to vacate The June 20, 1983 Hiring Consent Decree (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
362 Defendant, City of Chicago NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion to vacate 361 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/17/2006 at 10:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
363 MEMORANDUM by City of Chicago, The in Support of motion to vacate 361 The June 20, 1983 Hiring Consent Decree (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
366 CERTIFIED copy of order dated December 14, 2005 from the Seventh Circuit regarding notice of appeal 239 ; Appellate case no. : 05-2134. On consideration of Appellees' petition for panel rehearing, filed on 11/30/05, the judges on the panel have voted to deny the petition. Accordingly, It is Ordered that the petition for rehearing is denied. (eav, ) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
367 MANDATE of USCA dated Submitted 4/26/05;Decided 11/17/05 regarding notice of appeal 292 , notice of appeal 239 ; USCA No. 052134. The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with out opinion in Shakman v. City of Chicago, 426 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2005.) The parties shall bear their own costs in this court. (eav, ) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
368 USCA JUDGMENT dated 11/17/05 regarding notice of appeal 292 , notice of appeal 239 ; USCA No. 05-2134. The judgment of the District Court is Vacated, and this case is Remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Shakman v. City of Chicago, 426 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2005.) The above is in accordance with the decision of this court entered on this date. The parties shall bear their own costs in this court. (eav, ) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
369 LETTER from the Seventh Circuit returning the record on appeal in USCA no. 05-2134 consisting of 11 volume of pleadings, 32 volumes

12/29/2005 12/29/2005 01/03/2006 01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/10/2006 01/11/2006
01/12/2006 01/12/2006 01/19/2006

of loose pleadings, 4 volumes of transcripts and 1 volume of exhibits (eav, ) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
365 Defendant City of Chicago's Amended NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion to vacate 361 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/19/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
370 AMENDED by City of Chicago, The 106th Amendment To Part G Of The Schedule of Exempt Positions (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
371 AMENDED by City of Chicago, The Amended One Hundred Sixth Amendment To Part G Of The Schedule Of Exempt Positions (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
372 NOTICE by Cook County that the Quarterly Affidavits of Compliance for the amended second and third quarter of 2005 were filed on January 6, 2006 (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
373 AFFIDAVIT of Phillip S. Montgomery by Cook County Amended Second Quarterly Affidavit (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
374 AFFIDAVIT of Phillip S. Montgomery by Cook County Amended Quarterly Affidavit for Third Quarter 2005 (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
375 NOTICE by Brian Ignatius Hays of Change of Address (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
376 SECOND AMENDED complaint by Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of Illinois, Ann King, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan, Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie against all defendants (Attachments: # 1 Part 2# 2 Exhibit 1)(Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
377 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to amend/correct Schedule of Exempt Positions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chart)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
378 Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion to amend/correct 377 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/19/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
379 STATUS Report of the Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Monte, Ines) (Entered: 01/19/2006)

01/19/2006 01/20/2006 01/23/2006 01/23/2006 01/26/2006 02/07/2006
02/07/2006 02/15/2006 02/15/2006 02/21/2006

383 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Motion to vacate 361 is entered and continued. Motion to amend/correct 377 is granted. Status hearing set for 3/9/2006 @ 8:45 a.m. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
380 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Noelle C Brennan by Susan E. Cox (Cox, Susan) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
381 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to amend/correct the Detailed Hiring Provisions for Compliance With the Shakman Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit IG's Office Hiring Procedures)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
382 Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion to amend/correct 381 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/26/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
384 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Agreed motion to amend/correct detailed hiring 381 provisions is granted. Draft order to follow. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
385 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Enter order. This matter coming before the Court on defendant City of Chicago's agreed motion to amend the detailed hiring provisions, due notice having been given and counsel for plaintiffs having agreed to the motion, it is hereby ordered that defendant City's motion is granted and that the City's detailed hiring provisions are amended by adding thereto the Inspector General's Office Hiring Procedures in the forms submitted to the Court, a copy of which being attached hereto, such amendment to be effective immediately. Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
386 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 2/7/2006:Mailed notice(eav, ) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
387 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to reassign case (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-4# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 515)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
388 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to reassign case 387 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/23/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
389 Amended NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to reassign case 387 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/2/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

02/24/2006 02/24/2006
02/24/2006 02/24/2006
02/24/2006 03/02/2006 03/02/2006 03/02/2006 03/02/2006
03/03/2006 03/03/2006 03/07/2006 03/08/2006

390 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to dismiss The Second Amended Complaint (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
391 Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion to dismiss 390 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/2/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
392 DUPLICATE filing of document number 393. (Entered: 02/24/2006)
393 MEMORANDUM by City of Chicago, The in Support of motion to dismiss 390 Defendant City of Chicago's Amended Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
394 NOTICE of Correction regarding memorandum in support of motion 392 . (air, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
395 AFFIDAVIT of Phillip S. Montgomery by Cook County for the Fourth Quarter of 2005 (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
396 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiff's motion to reassign case 387 . Defendant City shall file a reponse to the motion by 3/10/2006. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
397 NOTICE by Cook County re affidavit 395 (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
398 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Joseph Gagliardo is given leave to file an additional appearance on behalf of the City of Chicago. Attorney Joseph Michael Gagliardo for Chgo, Cty of added. Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
MAILED Rule 83.16 letter and appearance form to attorney Joseph Gagliardo (eav, ) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
399 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Chgo, Cty of by Joseph Michael Gagliardo (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
400 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing set for 3/9/2006 is stricken and reset for 3/23/2006 at 03:45 AM. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
402 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 8/2/05 and 10/18/05; Before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (2 volumes) (eav, ) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record,

03/09/2006 03/10/2006 03/21/2006 03/22/2006 03/23/2006 03/24/2006 04/04/2006 04/04/2006 04/05/2006 04/07/2006

this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ). Modified on 11/7/2017 (bg, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Part 1) (kms, ). (Entered: 03/09/2006)
401 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : In document 400 , the correct time should read 8:45 a.m., not 3:45 a.m. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
403 MEMORANDUM by City of Chicago, The in Opposition to motion to reassign case 387 Based On Relatedness (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Unpublished Opinions)(Kertez, Jay) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
404 REPLY by Michael L Shakmanin Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to reassign case 387 (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
405 STATUS Report of the Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
406 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiff's motion to reassign case 387 is taken under advisement. Status hearing set for 4/28/2006 at 08:45 AM. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
407 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiffs' motion 387 for reassignment based on relatedness pursuant to Local Rule 40.4 is granted. Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
408 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to amend/correct the Detailed Hiring Provisions to Add the Student Worker Hiring Procedures (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
409 Defendant City of Chicago's Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion to amend/correct 408 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/6/2206 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
410 Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion to amend/correct 408 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/6/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
411 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to amend/correct notice of motion 378 Motion To File Part G Of The Schedule Of Exempt Positions As The 108th Amendment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part G

04/07/2006
04/07/2006
04/07/2006 04/13/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/28/2006

Schedule of Exempt Positions 108th Amendment)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
412 Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion to amend/correct, motion for relief,, 411 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/13/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service April 7, 2006)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
413 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to amend/correct MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to amend/correct the Detailed Hiring Provisions to Add the Student Worker Hiring Procedures 408 Agreed (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and proposed order)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
414 Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion to amend/correct, motion for relief,, 413 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/13/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
415 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Defendant's agreed motion to amend/correct the detailed hiring provisions to add the student worker hiring proceedures 413 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
416 MOTION to intervene (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
417 Intervenors' NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer Kay Soule for presentment of motion to intervene 416 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
418 MEMORANDUM by Chicago City Council Black Caucus, Alderman Ed Smith in Support of motion to intervene 416 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
419 NOTICE by Chicago City Council Black Caucus, Alderman Ed Smith re memorandum in support of motion 418 (Soule, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
420 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held on 4/28/2006. Oral motion for Stephanie Stewart, Michael Mikoff and Mr. Hubert are given leave to file their appearances for the City of Chicago is granted. Black Caucus' and Alderman's motion to intervene 416 as a party is entered and continued to 5/19/06 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/04/2006 05/05/2006 05/05/2006 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 05/08/2006
05/08/2006 05/08/2006 05/10/2006

MAILED Rule 83.16 letter and appearance form to attorney Stephanie Stewart (eav, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
422 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants by Stephanie L. Stewart (eav, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
423 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants by Myron F. Mackoff (eav, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
424 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants by Donald Hubert ; Notice of filing (eav, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
421 MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for hearing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order Entered 11-02-05)(Monte, Ines) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
430 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Enter agreed order. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
431 AGREED ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 5/5/2006.(mjc, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
425 ATTORNEY Appearance for County Municipal Employees, Supervisors, and Foremans Unions, Local Number 1001 (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
426 MOTION by Intervenor County Municipal Employees, Supervisors, and Foremans Unions, Local Number 1001 to intervene (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
427 MEMORANDUM by County Municipal Employees, Supervisors, and Foremans Unions, Local Number 1001 in Support of motion to intervene 426 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
428 NOTICE of Motion by Matthew James Cleveland for presentment of motion to intervene 426 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/19/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
429 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor County Municipal Employees, Supervisors, and Foremans Unions, Local Number 1001 by Limo T. Cherian (Cherian, Limo) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
432 ATTORNEY Appearance (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2006)

05/10/2006 05/10/2006 05/10/2006
05/10/2006 05/10/2006 05/11/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006

433 MOTION by Intervenor County Municipal Employees, Supervisors, and Foremans Unions, Local Number 1001 to intervene (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
434 MOTION by Water Pipe Extension, Bureau of Engineering Laborers Local 1092 to intervene (AMENDED) (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
435 MEMORANDUM by Water Pipe Extension, Bureau of Engineering Laborers Local 1092 in Support of motion to intervene 434 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
436 NOTICE of Motion by Matthew James Cleveland for presentment of motion to intervene 434 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/19/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
437 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Water Pipe Extension, Bureau of Engineering Laborers Local 1092 by Limo T. Cherian (Cherian, Limo) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
438 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Water Pipe Extension, Bureau of Engineering Laborers Local 1092 by Matthew James Cleveland (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
439 ATTORNEY Appearance (Hogan, Edward) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
440 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Chicago Federation of Labor by Limo T. Cherian (Cherian, Limo) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
441 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Chicago Federation of Labor by Matthew James Cleveland (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
442 ATTORNEY Appearance (Hogan, Edward) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
443 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Chicago & Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council by Limo T. Cherian (Cherian, Limo) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
444 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Chicago & Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council by Matthew James Cleveland (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
445 ATTORNEY Appearance (Hogan, Edward) (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/15/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006
05/15/2006 05/15/2006
05/18/2006

446 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399 by Limo T. Cherian (Cherian, Limo) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
447 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399 by Matthew James Cleveland (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
448 MOTION by Intervenor Parties Chicago Federation of Labor, Chicago & Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399 to intervene (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
449 MEMORANDUM by Chicago Federation of Labor, Chicago & Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399 in Support of motion to intervene 448 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Memo in Support of Joint Motion to Intervene# 2 Exhibit Exibit B - Memo in Support of Joint Motion to Intervene# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C - Memo in Support of Joint Motion to Intervene)(Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
450 NOTICE of Motion by Matthew James Cleveland for presentment of motion to intervene 448 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/19/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Cleveland, Matthew) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
451 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER:Case referred to Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier to conduct hearings and enter appropriate orders on the following pretrial motion/matter: discovery supervision. Discovery matters related to pending City's renewed motion to vacte the June 30, 1983 hiring consent decree, the plaintiffs' application to hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor in civil contempt, and the City of Chicago's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, are hereby referred to a magistrate judge. All discovery related to the City's renewed motion to vacate and the City's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint shall be completed by the parties by September 1, 2006. All discovery related to the plaintiffs' application to hold the City of Chicago and its Mayor in civil contempt shall be completed by the parties by December 22, 2006. The actual commencement of discovery related to the foregoing matters is stayed until May 30, 2006.. Signed by Judge Executive Committee on 5/15/06. (cdy, ) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
452 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status hearing set for 6/6/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 05/18/2006)

05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/19/2006 05/19/2006
06/06/2006 06/23/2006
07/12/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006

454 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Parties Chicago City Council Black Caucus, Alderman Ed Smith by Charles James Holley (kmt, ) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
455 NOTICE by Chicago City Council Black Caucus, Alderman Ed Smith re attorney appearance 454 (kmt, ) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
453 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Chicago Federations of Labors motions to intervene 426 , 433 , 434 , 448 are withdrawn. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
460 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Alderman Smith and the Black Caucus' motion to intervene 416 is entered and continued. Status hearing held on 5/19/2006 and continued to 5/26/2006 at 09:00 AM. Advised in open notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
461 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status hearing held and continued to 6/23/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
462 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status hearing held and continued to 8/16/2006 at 09:00 AM. Defendants to respond to plaintiffs' written discovery by 7/24/06. Defendants are to serve their written discovery on plaintiff by 6/30/06. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
463 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 3/23/06 and 4/28/06; Before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (2 volumes) (eav, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Part 2 4/28/2006) (kms, ). (Entered: 07/13/2006)
464 Defendant City of Chicago's Corrections To The 108th Amendment To Part G Of The Schedule Of Exempt Positions by City of Chicago, The (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
465 MOTION by Respondent Chgo, Cty of, Defendant Richard J Daley for extension of time to Respond to Plaintiff's Discovery (AGREED) (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
466 MOTION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan for extension of time to Serve Discovery Responses (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 07/24/2006)

07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/26/2006 07/26/2006 07/28/2006 07/28/2006 07/31/2006 08/01/2006
08/03/2006

467 NOTICE by Chgo, Cty of re MOTION by Respondent Chgo, Cty of, Defendant Richard J Daley for extension of time to Respond to Plaintiff's Discovery (AGREED) 465 (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
468 NOTICE of Motion by Fredrick E Vars for presentment of motion for extension of time, 466 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/1/2006 at 08:30 AM. (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
469 NOTICE of Motion by Joseph Michael Gagliardo for presentment of motion for extension of time 465 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/1/2006 at 08:30 AM. (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
470 MOTION by Respondent Chgo, Cty of, Defendant Richard J Daley for extension of time to Serve Discovery Responses (AMENDED) (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
471 NOTICE of Motion by Joseph Michael Gagliardo for presentment of motion for extension of time 470 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/1/2006 at 08:30 AM. (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
472 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to reassign case (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 4-11)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
473 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to reassign case 472 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/3/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
474 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Chgo, Cty of by Ted S Li (Li, Ted) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
475 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Motion hearing held. Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file discovery responses by 8/30/06 466 is granted. Defendants' motion for extension of time to file discovery responses by 8/30/06 470 is granted. The Court extends all discovery to 12/22/06. The status hearing set for 8/16/06 is stricken and reset for 9/12/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
476 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion to reassign case 472 is taken under advisement. Response is due by 8/18/2006. Reply is due by 9/1/2006. Court will rule by mail. Advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 08/03/2006)

08/16/2006
08/16/2006
08/16/2006
08/16/2006 08/18/2006 08/22/2006 08/22/2006 08/23/2006 08/23/2006 08/23/2006 08/24/2006

477 MOTION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan to withdraw as attorney Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Patrick E. Deady on Behalf of Class Plaintiffs (Deady, Patrick) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
478 Notice of Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Patrick E. Deady on Behalf of Class Plaintiffs NOTICE of Motion by Patrick Edward Deady for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney, 477 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/21/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Deady, Patrick) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
479 MOTION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan for leave to file additional attorney appearance (uncontested) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
480 NOTICE of Motion by Fredrick E Vars for presentment of motion for leave to file, 479 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/14/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
481 AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by Fredrick E Vars for presentment of motion for leave to file, 479 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/13/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
482 MOTION by Defendant Richard J Daley to substitute attorney (Finnegan, Sheila) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
483 NOTICE of Motion by Sheila Marie Finnegan for presentment of motion to substitute attorney 482 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/14/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Finnegan, Sheila) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
484 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Richard M. Daley (Fahner, Tyrone) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
485 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Richard M Daley by Sheila Marie Finnegan (Finnegan, Sheila) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
486 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Richard M Daley by Therese Colleen King (King, Therese) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
487 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : By agreement of the parties, the briefing schedule on plaintiff's motion to reassign is as

08/24/2006 08/24/2006
08/25/2006 08/28/2006 08/28/2006 08/29/2006 09/08/2006 09/11/2006

follows 472 : Responses due by 8/25/2006. Replies due by 9/8/2006. Ruling will be made by mail. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
488 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiff's agreed motion to amend/correct 355 clerical error in the Court's 1985 order is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
489 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Defendant Mayor Richard M. Daley's motion to substitute counsel 482 is granted. Mara Georges is given leave to withdraw her appearance. Sheila Finnegan, Tyrone C. Fahner and Therese C. King are given leae to file their appearances. Parties need not appear in Court on 9/14/06 for this motion. Attorney Sheila Marie Finnegan for Richard M Daley, Tyrone C. Fahner for Richard M Daley, Therese Colleen King for Richard M Daley added. Attorney Mara Stacy Georges terminated. Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
490 RESPONSE by City of Chicago, The, Richard M Daley in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to reassign case 472 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G)(Avendano, Naomi) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
491 MOTION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization for rule to show cause (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B and C)(Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
492 NOTICE of Motion by Fredrick E Vars for presentment of motion for rule to show cause 491 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/31/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
493 Amended NOTICE of Motion by Fredrick E Vars for presentment of motion for rule to show cause 491 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/13/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
494 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : SPlaintiff's motion to reassign case 472 : Reply is due by 9/29/2006. Ruling will be made by mail. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
495 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The status hearing set for 9/12/06 is stricken and reset for 9/26/2006 at 08:30 AM. Telephone notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 09/11/2006)

09/11/2006 09/11/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/13/2006
09/14/2006

496 ATTORNEY Appearances by Defendant Cook County. (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
497 NOTICE by Cook County re MOTION by Defendant Cook County for leave to appear as Attorney 496 (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
498 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Sean P. Connolly (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
499 NOTICE by Cook County re attorney appearance 498 (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
500 INCORRECT document linked to entry. ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr (Driscoll, Patrick) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
501 NOTICE by Cook County re attorney appearance 500 (Driscoll, Patrick) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
502 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr (Driscoll, Patrick) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
503 NOTICE by Cook County re attorney appearance 502 (Driscoll, Patrick) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
504 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
505 NOTICE by Cook County re attorney appearance 504 (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
506 NOTICE of Correction regarding attorney appearance 500 . (air, ) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
507 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing set for 10/12/2006 at 8:45 AM. The Court gives Tom Hyke leave to file his additiional appearance for plaintiff. 479 Defendant to respond to the petition on or before 10/6/06. Plaintiff's oral motion for leave to initiate discovery is granted. Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
508 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan by William Thomas Huyck (Huyck, William) (Entered: 09/14/2006)

09/21/2006 09/25/2006 10/04/2006 10/04/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/12/2006

509 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiff's motion to withdraw as attorney, Patrick E. Deady, on behalf of class plaintiff 477 is granted. Attorney Patrick Edward Deady terminated. Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
510 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The status hearing set for 9/26/06 is stricken and reset to 10/4/2006 at 08:30 AM. Telephone notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
511 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Defendant to file a reply to the motion to reassign case 472 . Replies due by 11/3/2006. Ruling will be made by mail. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
512 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The status hearing set for 10/4/06 is stricken and reset to 10/12/2006 at 09:00 AM. Telephone notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
513 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to vacate the January 7, 1994 Consent Decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
514 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Vacate the January 7, 1994 Consent Decree by Cook County (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
515 Cook County's NOTICE of Motion by Patrick Malone Blanchard for presentment of motion to vacate 513 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/12/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
516 RESPONSE by Defendant Cook County to Plaintiffs' Application to Hold Cook County and Certain Named Individuals in Civil Contempt for Violation of Court Orders (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
517 NOTICE by Cook County re Response 516 to Plaintiffs' Application to Hold Cook County and Certain Named Individuals in Civil Contempt for Violation of Court Orders (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
518 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : Status hearing held and continued to 11/21/2006 at 09:00 AM. The parties are to answer all outstanding discovery requests, including production of documents, by 11/3/06. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 10/13/2006)

10/12/2006 10/13/2006
10/25/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/08/2006 11/15/2006 11/16/2006 11/20/2006 11/29/2006

520 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held on 10/12/2006 and continued to 11/16/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
519 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 8/1/2006; Before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. (gej, ) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ). Modified on 11/7/2017 (bg, ). (Entered: 10/18/2006)
521 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The Court's 10/12/06 order is amended to provide that responses to outstanding discovery, including production of documents, shall be made by 11/09/06. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
522 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time to file reply brief (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
523 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for extension of time 522 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 11/16/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
524 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The Court resets the date for compliance with outstanding discovery requests from 11/09/06 to 11/16/06. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
525 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The Court hereby extends the deadline for responses to outstanding written discovery requests from 11/16/06 to 11/30/06. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
526 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 522 to file reply brief is granted to 12/15/2006. Status hearing held on 11/16/2006. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
527 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The status hearing set for 11/21/06 is stricken. (mmm, ) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
528 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The deadline for responses to outstanding written discovery is extended to 12/14/06. The matter is set for a status conference on 12/21/06 at 9:00 a.m. Any other status dates set with the Court are stricken. Telephone notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 11/29/2006)

11/30/2006
11/30/2006 12/04/2006
12/07/2006 12/07/2006 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/20/2006

530 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Enter Supplemental Relief Order for Cook County. All prior negotiations and agreements between the parties hereto, with respect to this SRO, are superseded by this agreement and there are not representation, warranties, understandings, or agreements of the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, other than those expressly set forth in this agreement and order. The Court appoints Julia M. Nowicki as compliance administrator. The court appoints Susan E. Cox as attorney of the compliance administrator. Status hearing set for 12/7/06 at 8:45 a.m. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
531 SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF ORDER for Cook County. Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 11/30/06.(vkd, ) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
529 Annual Report of Monitor for 2006 by Noelle C Brennan (Shakman Decree Monitor) (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A# 2 Appendix B# 3 Appendix C - part 1(a)# 4 Appendix C - part 1(b)# 5 Appendix C part2# 6 Appendix C - part3# 7 Appendix C - part 4# 8 Appendix D# 9 Appendix E# 10 Appendix F# 11 Appendix G)(Monte, Ines) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
534 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Enter preliminary approval order. Hearing set for 2/2/2007 at 8:30 AM. Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
535 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL RDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 12/7/2006:Mailed notice(eav, ) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
532 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki to withdraw as attorney Withdrawal by Susan E. Cox (Cox, Susan) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
533 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The date for compliance with outstanding written discovery is extended to 12/21/06. Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
536 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to reassign case 472 (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
537 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief 536 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/21/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
538 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Julia M. Nowicki by Peter A. Monahan (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

12/21/2006 12/21/2006
12/28/2006 01/03/2007 01/03/2007 01/04/2007
01/05/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007

539 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier :The date for compliance with outstanding discovery is continued to 01/05/07. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
543 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file reply regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to reassign case 472 536 is granted. Replies due by 1/8/2007. Ruling will be made by mail.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
540 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Set deadlines/hearing as to motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief 536 : Responses due by 1/8/2007.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
541 AMENDED by Julia M. Nowicki Amended Appearance of Peter Monahan (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
542 STATUS Report Initial Report of the Compliance Administrator by Julia M. Nowicki (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
544 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :The date for publication of the Notice of Final Approval set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order is extended by one day to include publication on January 5, 2007.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
545 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The deadline for complying with outstanding discovery requests is reset to 01/12/07.Telephone notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
546 First Unopposed Request For Disbursal Of Payment To The Compliance Administrator by Cook County (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
547 NOTICE by Cook County re other 546 (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
548 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to reassign case 472 (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
549 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief 548 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/18/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

01/10/2007 01/11/2007 01/11/2007 01/16/2007
01/16/2007 01/17/2007 01/23/2007 01/24/2007 01/24/2007 01/25/2007

550 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The date for compliance with outstanding discovery requests is extended to 01/26/07. The matter is set for a status conference on 02/13/07 at 9:00 a.m.Telephone notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
551 Cook County's Response And Objections To The Initial Report Of The Compliance Administrator by Cook County (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
552 NOTICE by Cook County re other 551 (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
554 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter order. Defendant Cook County's first unopposed request for disbursal of payment to the Compliance Administrator 546 is granted. The Court approves the payment of fees in the amount of $30,371.80 to Julia M. Nowicki, as the Court-appointed Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
555 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 1/16/2007:Mailed notice(eav, ) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
553 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file reply as to motion to reassign case 472 548 is granted to 1/29/2007. Replies due by 1/29/2007.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
556 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Unopposed Petition for Payment Associated Cases: 1:69-cv-02145, 1:01-cv-00861(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
557 MOTION to enforce Consent Judgments (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A# 2 Attachment B)(Huyck, William) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
558 NOTICE of Motion by William Thomas Huyck for presentment of motion to enforce 557 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/1/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Huyck, William) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
559 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :It is hereby ordered that the 1) The Compliance Administrator's unopposed petition for payment is granted, 2) The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $49,270.22 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/25/2007)

01/25/2007
01/25/2007 01/26/2007 01/29/2007 01/29/2007
02/01/2007
02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007

561 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Julia Nowicki's motion for disbursement of funds, unopposed petition for payment associated cases 556 is granted. Enter order.mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
562 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 1/25/2007:Mailed notice(eav, ) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
560 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The deadline for responding to outstanding discovery is extended to 02/09/07.Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
563 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to reassign case 472 (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
564 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief 563 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/8/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
570 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Petitioner's Kuffer, Kozlowski,Williams,Rogers and Hill's motion to enforce 557 concent judgments is entered and continued. Motion Hearing set for 2/2/2007 at 01:00 PM.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
565 NOTICE by Michael L Shakman of Filing Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Hearing on Supplemental Relief Order for Cook County (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
566 AFFIDAVIT of Laura Lechowicz Felicione by Cook County (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
567 NOTICE by Cook County re affidavit 566 (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
568 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois by Nicholas George Grapsas (Grapsas, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
569 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Status hearing held on 2/2/2007, Set/reset hearingsStatus hearing set for 5/15/2007 at 09:00 AM. Draft order to follow.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/02/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/12/2007 02/13/2007 02/13/2007 02/22/2007 02/22/2007
02/22/2007
03/01/2007

587 SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF ORDER for Cook County Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 2/2/2007:Mailed notice(eav, ) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
571 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The deadline for responses to written discovery is extended to 02/23/07. The status conference with the Magistrate Judge set for 02/13/07 is reset to 03/08/07 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
572 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion for extension 563 of time to file reply to motion to reassign case 472 is granted. Replies due by 3/2/2007. Ruling will be made by mail.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
575 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiffs' motion to reassign case for relatedness 472 is granted. Case number 6 C 2732, McDonough v. City (J. Lindberg) shall be reassigned to the calendar of J. Andersen.Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
573 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to withdraw as attorney (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
574 NOTICE of Motion by Sean P. Connolly for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 573 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/22/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Connolly, Sean) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
576 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 2/2/07; Before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (eav, ) (kms, ). (Entered: 02/23/2007)
577 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Oral motion to substitute Stephen Pugh and Tiffany Ferguson for Donald Hubert as attorneys for the Chicago City Council is granted. Attorney Stephen H. Pugh and Tiffany Mary Ferguson for Chicago City Council added. (Entered: 02/26/2007)
578 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Sean Connolly's motion to withdraw his appearance on behalf of Cook County 573 is granted. Susan Cox oral motion to withdraw as counsel for Julia Nowicki is granted. Attorney Sean P. Connolly and Susan E. Cox terminated.Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
579 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Chicago City Council by Stephen H. Pugh of Pugh, Jones, Johnson & Quandt, P.C. (Pugh, Stephen) (Entered: 03/01/2007)

03/01/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007
03/02/2007 03/05/2007 03/06/2007 03/15/2007 03/19/2007 03/19/2007 03/20/2007

580 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Chicago City Council by Tiffany Mary Ferguson of Pugh, Jones, Johnson & Quandt, P.C. (Ferguson, Tiffany) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
581 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Third Unopposed Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
582 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The status conference set before the Magistrate Judge for 03/08/07 is reset to 03/29/07.Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
584 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :It is hereby ordered 1) The Compliance Administrator's (3rd) unopposed petition for payment is 581 granted. 2) The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $56,525.85 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
585 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 3/2/2007:Mailed notice(eav, ) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
586 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter supplemental relief order for Cook County. Nunc pro tunc 2/2/07.Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
583 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Noelle C Brennan by Noelle Christine Brennan (Monitor Appearance for Service List Purposes) (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
588 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : By 3/30/07, the parties are to respond to all outstanding discovery.Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
589 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time Associated Cases: 1:69-cv-02145, 1:01-cv-00861, 1:06-cv02732(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
590 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of extension of time,, 589 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/5/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
591 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Fourth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/20/2007)

03/21/2007
03/21/2007
03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/23/2007

592 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion to hold City in contempt 310 is withdrawn without prejudice. Defendant City's motion to vacate the 1983 hiring decree 361 is withdrawn without prejudice. City's motion to dismiss 390 the second amended complaint is withdrawn without prejudice. City's motion to amend the hiring provisions 408 is withdrawn without prejudice. City's motion to amend the motion to file part G of the schedule 411 is withdrawn without prejudice. City Council's motion to intervene 416 is withdrawn without prejudice. Monitor Brennans motion for hearing 421 is withdrawn without prejudice. City's motion for extension of time 465 is withdrawn without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for RULE to show cause 491 is withdrawn without prejudice.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
596 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Motion by Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds complaint Administrator's Fourth petition for payment 591 is granted. Enter order. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $31,186.50 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
597 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 3/21/2007:Mailed notice(eav, ) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
598 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter preliminary approval order. Hearing set for 5/31/2007 at 8:30 AM.Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
599 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 3/21/2007:Mailed notice(eav, ) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
601 AGREED SETTLEMENT ORDER and accord summary of proceedings Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 3/21/2007:Mailed notice(eav, ) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
593 MOTION to intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A")(Smith, Zane) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
594 NOTICE of Motion by Zane D. Smith for presentment of motion to intervene 593 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/5/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Smith, Zane) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
595 MINUTE entry before Judge Sidney I. Schenkier : The status conference set with the Magistrate Judge for 03/29/07 is stricken. Mailed notice (mmm, ) (Entered: 03/23/2007)

03/26/2007 03/29/2007 03/30/2007 03/30/2007 03/30/2007 04/02/2007 04/04/2007
04/04/2007 04/05/2007
04/05/2007 04/16/2007 04/17/2007

600 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter agreed settlement order and accord summary of proceedings.Mailed notice (eav, ) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
602 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Democratic Organization of Cook County, The by Patricia Maria Fallon (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
603 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Sheriff by J William Roberts (Roberts, J) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
604 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County Sheriff (Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
605 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County Sheriff by Robert Thomas Shannon (Shannon, Robert) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
606 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Fifth Unopposed Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
607 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Enter order. It is hereby ordered the Compliance Administrator's 606 fifth unopposed petition for payment is granted. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $25,385.64 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator. Mailed notice (mb, ) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
608 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 4/4/2007.(mb, ) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
609 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Set deadlines/hearing as to Patrick Burke's motion to intervene 593 is briefed as follows: Responses due by 4/27/2007. Replies due by 5/8/2007. Ruling set for 5/17/2007 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
610 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 589 to file fee petition is granted to 4/19/2007.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
611 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Sixth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
614 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Motion 611 by Julia Nowicki for disbursement of funds is granted. It is hereby

04/17/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/26/2007 04/27/2007 04/27/2007
04/30/2007
04/30/2007 05/08/2007 05/09/2007

ordered that defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $31,509.24 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
615 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 4/17/2007.(smm) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
612 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time to file Fee Petition Relating to Cook County (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
613 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for extension of time to file 612 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/26/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
616 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file 612 fee petition is granted.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
617 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Seventh Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
618 RESPONSE by Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan, Dorene Kuffer to MOTION to intervene 593 (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
619 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter order. The compliance administrator's seventh unopposed petition for payment 617 is granted. The Court orders Defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $23,717.97 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
620 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 4/30/2007.(smm) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
621 REPLY by Patrick E Burke to response to motion, 618 , MOTION to intervene 593 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A")(Smith, Zane) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
622 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Burkes' motion to intervene 593 is entered and continued; Set deadlines/hearing as to

05/11/2007 05/11/2007 05/14/2007 05/15/2007
05/15/2007
05/17/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007

motion to intervene 593 : Motion Hearing set for 5/14/2007 at 01:30 PM.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
623 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time for County SRO Deadlines (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
624 Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of extension of time 623 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/17/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
632 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Smiths' motion to intervene 593 is taken under advisement. Status hearing set for 5/17/2007 @ 9:00 a.m.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
625 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Eighth Petition for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
626 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 623 is granted is granted to 8/3/2007. Parties need not appear on 5/17/2007. Status hearing held and continued to 7/12/2007 @ 9:00 a.m.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
627 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Motion to intervene 593 is taken under advisementAdvised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
628 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Patrick Burke's motion to intervene 593 is denied.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
629 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 5/18/2007:Mailed notice(jms, ) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
630 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County January 1, 1999 through March 31, 2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A.1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit A.2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit A.3# 5 Exhibit Exhibit B# 6 Exhibit Exhibit C# 7 Exhibit Exhibit D# 8 Exhibit Exhibit D.1# 9 Exhibit Exhibit D.1.A# 10 Exhibit Exhibit D.2# 11 Exhibit Exhibit D.3# 12 Exhibit Exhibit D.4# 13 Exhibit Exhibit E# 14 Exhibit Exhibit F)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/18/2007)

05/21/2007 05/24/2007 05/25/2007
05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/30/2007
05/30/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007

631 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees,, 630 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/31/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
635 REQUEST by Cathy Wimms to speak at hearing. (smm) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
633 Plaintiffs' Application to Hold Cook County Recorder of Deeds and Certain Named Individuals in Civil Contempt for Violation of Court Orders by Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
634 NOTICE of Motion by Fredrick E Vars for presentment of before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/7/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
636 NOTICE of Correction regarding other, 633 . (air, ) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
637 MOTION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization Plaintiffs' Application to Hold Cook County Recorder of Deeds and Certain Named Individuals in Civil Contempt for Violation of Court Orders (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
638 DECLARATION of City of Chicago regarding order 599 by City of Chicago, The Declaration of Compliance with Judge Andersen's Order of March 21, 2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
639 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees 630 is entered and briefed as follows: Responses due by 7/13/2007. Replies due by 7/27/2007. Ruling will be made by mail.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
641 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Final approval hearing held. Enter agreed settlement order and acccord.Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
642 AGREED SETTLEMENT ORDER and Accord Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 5/31/2007.(mjc, ) (kms, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Exhibit I, # 2 Exhibit I.F (1), # 3 Exhibit I.F(2), # 4 Exhibit II.E(1), # 5 Exhibit II.E (2), # 6 Exhibit II.F (1), # 7 Exhibit II.G, # 8 Exhibit III.C, # 9 Exhibit III.D, # 10 Exhibit IV.A(1), # 11 Exhibit IV.A(4), # 12 Exhibit IV.B(1)) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/06/2007)

06/04/2007 06/05/2007
06/05/2007 06/07/2007 06/21/2007 06/25/2007
06/25/2007 06/26/2007 06/26/2007 06/28/2007

640 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Ninth Petition for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Compliance Administrator's Ninth Invoice)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
644 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Compliance Administrator's ninth petition for payment 640 is granted. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $23,567.50 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
645 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 6/5/2007.(smm) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
643 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion 637 is entered and continued; Set deadlines/hearing as to motion for application to hold 637 : Motion Hearing set for 7/19/2007 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
646 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Tenth Petition for Payment (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
649 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :The Compliance Administrator's Tenth petition for payment 646 is granted. Enter order. It is hereby ordered that the Court approves the payment of fees in the amount of $33,707.81 to Julia M. Nowicki, as the Courtappointed Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
650 ORDER regarding motion for disbursement of funds 646 Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 6/25/2007.(smm) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
647 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. NowickiImmunity Agreed Motion for Immunity (Attachments: # 1)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
648 NOTICE of Motion by Peter A. Monahan for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 647 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/5/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
651 MOTION by Defendant Richard M Daley to withdraw the appearance of Therese C. King (Finnegan, Sheila) (Entered: 06/28/2007)

06/28/2007 06/28/2007 07/05/2007 07/06/2007 07/06/2007 07/11/2007 07/11/2007 07/11/2007 07/11/2007 07/12/2007
07/12/2007

652 NOTICE of Motion by Sheila Marie Finnegan for presentment of motion to withdraw 651 (Finnegan, Sheila) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
653 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 5/31/2007; Before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen [653-1] (smm) (kms, ). (Entered: 06/29/2007)
656 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Motion to withdraw the appearance of Therese C. King 651 is granted. Attorney Therese Colleen King terminated.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
654 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for extension of time to file Compliance Administrator's Semi-Annual Report (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
655 NOTICE of Motion by Peter A. Monahan for presentment of motion for extension of time to file 654 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/12/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
657 MOTION by Defendant Cook County for extension of time to file response/reply Agreed (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
658 NOTICE of Motion by Patricia Maria Fallon for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 657 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/19/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
659 DECLARATION of Cook County by Cook County Concerning Designation of Exempt Positions (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
660 NOTICE by Cook County re declaration 659 (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
661 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Compliance Administrator's motion for extension of time to file 654 report is granted to 7/24/2007 @ 9:15 am. Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees regarding the county 630 : Responses due by 7/27/2007.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
662 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Compliance Administrator's agreed motion 647 for immunity is granted; Motions terminated: Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/19/2007

663 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Chicago Park District by Sally J. Scott (Scott, Sally) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
664 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Chicago Park District by Brian Dennis McCarthy (McCarthy, Brian) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
665 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Chicago Park District by William R Pokorny (Pokorny, William) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
666 MOTION by Defendant Chicago Park District to substitute attorney (Pokorny, William) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
667 NOTICE of Motion by William R Pokorny for presentment of motion to substitute attorney 666 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/19/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Pokorny, William) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
668 MOTION by Defendant Chicago Park District to amend/correct Agreed Motion to Amend the Chicago Park District's Schedule of Exempt Position (Pokorny, William) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
669 NOTICE of Motion by William R Pokorny for presentment of motion to amend/correct 668 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/19/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Pokorny, William) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
670 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time to file fee petition with respect to the City of Chicago (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
671 Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of extension of time 670 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/19/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
672 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion to hold Cook County Recorder of Deeds and cetain named individuals in civil contempt for violation of court orders 637 is held and continued to 9/27/07 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant Cook County's agreed motion for extension of time to file their response to plaintiffs' 657 is granted to 6/27/07. Defendant Chicago Park Districts motion to substitute attorney 666 is granted. Joan M. Fencik and Sharon E. Prayor are given leave to withdraw their appearances. Sally J. Scott and William R. Pokorny are given leave to file their appearances for the Park District. Defendant's agreed motion to amend the Chgo. Park Dists. schedule of exempt position is granted. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file fee petition with respect to the City is granted to 7/30/07. Attorney Sally J. Scott, William R Pokorny for Chicago Park District added. Attorney Joan Mary Fencik and William R Pokorny terminated. (smm) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

07/25/2007 07/25/2007 07/25/2007 07/25/2007
07/26/2007
07/26/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007
08/02/2007 08/02/2007

673 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Eleventh Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
674 CA First Semi-Annual Report by Julia M. Nowicki CA First SemiAnnual Report (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
675 CA First Semi-Annual Report by Julia M. Nowicki CA First SemiAnnual Report (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
682 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Status hearing held on 7/25/2007, Status hearing set for 1/31/2008 at 09:00 AM. for second presentation of Compliance Administrator's report.Advised in open court notice(tsa, ) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
680 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Compliance Administrator's eleventh Unopposed petition for payment 673 is granted. Enter order. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $40,673.16 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
681 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 7/26/2007.(smm) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
676 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time to File Fee Petition with Respect to the City of Chicago (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
677 Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of extension of time 676 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/30/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
678 MOTION by Defendant Cook County for extension of time to file response/reply Agreed (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
679 Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Patricia Maria Fallon for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 678 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/30/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
683 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Twelfth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
684 MOTION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Kenneth Ayers, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters

08/02/2007 08/03/2007
08/03/2007
08/03/2007 08/06/2007 08/06/2007 08/10/2007 08/16/2007 08/20/2007 08/23/2007

of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan, Dorene Kuffer for extension of time [EMERGENCY] (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
685 EMERGENCY NOTICE of Motion by Edward W. Feldman for presentment of extension of time, 684 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/3/2007 at 09:30 AM. (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
686 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :MOTION by Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Kenneth Ayers, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of IllinoisIndependent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan, Dorene Kuffer for extension of time is entered and continued to 9/6/2007 at 9:00a.m.Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
689 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Motion by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Twelfth Petition for Payment 683 is granted. Enter Order. (For further detail see separate order.)Mailed notice (hp, ) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
690 ORDER re 689 Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 8/3/2007:Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
687 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael Sullivan to Hold the City of Chicago and Certain Named Individuals in Civil Contempt for Violation of Court Orders (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
688 NOTICE of Motion by Fredrick E Vars for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 687 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/6/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
691 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 7/12/07; Before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen. (smm) (kms, ). (Entered: 08/13/2007)
692 The City of Chicago Hiring Plan by City of Chicago, The (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
693 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds (Attachments: # 1 CA Thirteenth Petition for Payment)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
694 MOTION by Defendant Cook County for extension of time to file response/reply Agreed (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/27/2007 08/30/2007
08/31/2007 08/31/2007 08/31/2007

695 Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Patricia Maria Fallon for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 694 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/30/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
696 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Patricia Maria Fallon Amended (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
697 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :The Compliance Administrator's thirteenth petition for payment 693 is granted.Mailed notice (gej, ) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
698 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 8/23/2007.(gej, ) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
699 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to set a briefing schedule to Set Deadlines for Impasse Resolution for New Plan Development under Section II.D of the Accord (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
700 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion by filer to set a briefing schedule 699 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/30/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
701 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Susan E. Cox is hereby terminated as counsel for Noelle Brennan. Attorney Susan E. Cox terminated.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
702 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 676 to file fee petition as to the City of Chicago is granted to 9/7/2007. Defendant's motion for extension of time to file response 694 to fee petition is granted to 10/5/2007. Plaintiff's motion to set a briefing schedule 699 is granted.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
703 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 14th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
704 AMENDED motion for disbursement of funds 703 by Julia M. Nowicki Compliance Administrator's 14th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
707 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen: Compliance Administrator's fourteenth unopposed petition for payment 704 is granted. Enter order. The court orders defendant Cook County to

08/31/2007 08/31/2007
08/31/2007 09/05/2007 09/05/2007 09/06/2007

submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $26,879.86 to Julia M. Nowicki. Mailed (vmj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
708 ORDER re Compliance Administrator's 14th Unopposed petition for payment Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 8/31/2007(vmj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
709 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen: Enter agreed scheduling order setting deadlines for impasse resolution for new plan development under Section ILD of the accord: Anyone wishing to file response to the City's proposed City of Chicago Hiring plan filed on 8/16/07 shall file the response on or before 9/19/07. The City to shall file any reply on or before 10/5/07. This matter is set for status at 9:00 a.m. on 10/12/07 at which time the parties will inform the court whether any additional briefing is necessary. Mailed (vmj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
710 AGREED Scheduling Order Setting Deadlines for Impasse Resolution for New Plan Development Under Section ILD of the Accord Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 8/31/2007(vmj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
705 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City of Chicago - January 1, 1998 through May 31, 2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B 1-5# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B 6-9# 4 Exhibit Exhibit B 10# 5 Exhibit Exhibit B 11-16# 6 Exhibit Exhibit C# 7 Exhibit Exhibit D# 8 Exhibit Exhibit E# 9 Exhibit Exhibit F)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
706 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees, 705 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/13/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
714 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's emergency motion to extend deadlines 684 is entered and continued to 10/11/2007 @ 9:00 a.m. PlaintiffSullivan's motion to hold the City of Chicago and certain named individuals in civil contempt for violation of court orders 687 is entered and briefed as follows: City's response by 9/28/2007. Reply by 10/19/2007. Enter order. Theparties agreed to amend the hiring /transfer process for private secretary or assistant to department or agency head and Schedule G exempt employees and assignment process for security specialists (Exhibit II.F. 1 of the Accord entered on 5/31/2007) is entered. Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees with respect to the City of Chicago - 1/1/1998 705 is entered in briefed as follows: City's response 10/26/2007. Plaintiffs reply by 11/16/2007. Ruling by mail.Mailed notice (gej, ) (Entered: 09/13/2007)

09/06/2007
09/06/2007 09/06/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/12/2007 09/13/2007 09/17/2007 09/25/2007

716 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Motion for extension of time 684 is entered and continued to 10/11/2007 at 9:00 A.M. Plaintiff Sullivan's motion to hold the City of Chicago and certain named individuals in civil contempt for violation of court orders 687 is entered and continued and briefed as follows: City's response by 9/28/2007. Reply by 10/19/2007. Enter order. The parties agreed to amend the hiring/transfer process for private secretary or assistant to department or agency head and Schedule G exempt employees and assignment process for security specialists (Exhibit II.F. 1 of the Accord entered on 5/31/07) is entered. Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees with respect to the City of Chicago - 1/1/98 705 is entered and briefed as follows: City's response 10/26/07. Plaintiff's reply by 11/16/07. Ruling by mail.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
717 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 9/6/2007.(smm) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
718 AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER for Plaintiff Michael Sullivan's motion to hold the City of Chicago and Certain named individuals in civil contempt for violation of court orders Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 9/6/2007.(smm) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
711 MOTION to withdraw as attorney (Huyck, William) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
712 NOTICE of Motion by William Thomas Huyck for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 711 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/13/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Huyck, William) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
713 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Defendant's motion to vacate the consent decree is denied as moot. Motion to withdraw as attorney 532 is granted. Motion to enforce 557 is denied as moot. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
715 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Motion to withdraw attorney 711 is granted. William Huyck is given leave to withdraw his appearance. Mailed notice (gej, ) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
719 "Incorrect document was linked." (Monahan, Peter) Modified on 9/25/2007 (smm). (Entered: 09/17/2007)
723 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Compliance Administrator's Fifteenth unopposed petition for payment is granted. Enter Order. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $23,148.10 to Julia

09/25/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007
09/28/2007 09/28/2007
09/28/2007
09/28/2007

M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator. Mailed notice (lcw, ) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
724 ORDER. Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 9/25/2007.(lcw, ) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
720 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 16th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
721 Monitor's Report and Recommendations Regarding City of Chicago's Proposed "New Plan" by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
722 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re other 721 Filing of Monitor's Report and Recommendations Regarding City of Chicago's Proposed "New Plan" and Certificate of Service (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
725 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief, 637 held and continued to 10/11/2007 @ 9:00 a.m. Status hearing held on 9/27/2007 and continued to 10/11/2007 at 09:00 AM.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
726 MEMORANDUM by Michael L Shakman Submission on the City's Proposed Hiring Plan (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
727 MEMORANDUM by City of Chicago, The in Opposition to motion for miscellaneous relief 687 City of Chicago's Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiff Michael Sullivan's Motion To Hold The City Of Chicago And Certain Named Individuals In Civil Contempt For Violation Of Court Orders (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
728 APPENDIX memorandum in opposition to motion, 727 by City of Chicago, The Appendix of Exhibits Volume I (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
729 APPENDIX memorandum in opposition to motion, 727 , appendix, 728 by City of Chicago, The Appendix of Exhibits Volume II (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I# 2 Exhibit J# 3 Exhibit K# 4 Exhibit L# 5 Exhibit M# 6 Exhibit N# 7 Exhibit O# 8 Exhibit P# 9 Exhibit Q# 10 Exhibit R# 11 Exhibit S# 12 Exhibit T)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 09/28/2007)

09/28/2007 09/28/2007 10/01/2007
10/03/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/11/2007 10/15/2007 10/16/2007 10/17/2007 10/17/2007

730 NOTICE by Chgo, Cty of re memorandum in opposition to motion, 727 , appendix, 729 , appendix, 728 (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
732 STATEMENT regarding City's proposed new hiring plan by Chgo, Cty of (Exhibit). (smm) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
731 Notice Of Withdrawal Of Appearance As Co-Counsel For Plaintiffs by Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan, Dorene Kuffer, William Thomas Huyck (Waskowski, Adam) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
733 NOTICE by all plaintiffs Notice of Firm Name Change (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
734 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The for extension of time Emergency Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Objections to the City of Chicago's Hiring Plan (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
735 Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of extension of time 734 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/12/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
736 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Defendant's motion for extension of time 734 is granted. Status hearing reset for 11/1/2007 at 9:00 AM.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
738 QUARTERLY Report from Inspector General's Office regarding accord complaints by Chgo, Cty of. (smm) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
737 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 17th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
739 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Compliance Administrator's 17th unopposed motion for disbursement of funds 737 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
745 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Enter order. The court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $45,577.84 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 10/23/2007)

10/17/2007 10/18/2007 10/18/2007
10/18/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/24/2007
10/24/2007 10/25/2007

746 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 10/17/2007.(vcf, ) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
740 REPLY by Plaintiff Michael Sullivan to motion for miscellaneous relief 687 with respect to holding certain certain named individuals in civil contempt for violation of court orders (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 through 7)(Vars, Fredrick) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
747 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : The compliance Administrator's sixteenth unopposed petitio for payment 720 is granted. The court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $35,027.77 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
748 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 10/18/2007.(vcf, ) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
741 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO ADJUDICATE CLAIMS (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
742 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki NOTICE OF MOTION (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
743 MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois to substitute attorney (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
744 NOTICE of Motion by Michael Joseph Hayes, Jr for presentment of motion to substitute attorney 743 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/25/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
749 MOTION by counsel for Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois to withdraw as attorney MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW THE APPEARANCES OF WILLIAM R. QUINLAN, JAMES R. CARROLL AND NICHOLAS G. GRAPSAS (Grapsas, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
750 NOTICE of Motion by Nicholas George Grapsas for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 749 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/25/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Grapsas, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
751 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois by Burton S. Odelson (Odelson, Burton) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007 10/25/2007
10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/29/2007
10/29/2007 11/02/2007 11/02/2007 11/02/2007 11/02/2007

752 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois by Michael Joseph Hayes, Jr (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
753 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Motion for extension of deadline to adjudicate claims 741 is entered and continued to 1/17/07 at 9:00 a.m. Motion for leave to withdraw the appearances of William R. Quinlan, James R. Carroll and Nicholas G. Grapsas 749 is granted. Attorney William Robert Quinlan; James R. Carroll and Nicholas George Grapsas terminated.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
756 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter agreed order warding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 1/1/99 through 3/31/07.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
757 AGREED ORDER awarding plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs with respect to Cook County 1/1/99 through 3/31/07 Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 10/25/2007.(smm) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
754 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :The City has until 11/2/2007 to file its reply to the responses filed to the City's Proposed Hiring Plan and the City to file its response to the Petition for Attorney's fees filed by plaintiff's counsel on or before 11/27/2007.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
755 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Status hearing is stricken for 11/1/2007.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
758 Mayor Richard M. Daley's (Submission in Favor of the City's Proposed Hiring Plan) STATEMENT by Richard M Daley (Fahner, Tyrone) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
759 RESPONSE by Defendant City of Chicago, The to memorandum 726 City of Chicago's Response To The Plaintiffs' Submissions On The City's Proposed Hiring Plan (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
760 APPENDIX Response 759 by City of Chicago, The Appendix of Exhibits Volume I of II (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
761 APPENDIX Response 759 , appendix 760 by City of Chicago, The Appendix of Exhibits Volume II of II (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6# 2 Exhibit 7# 3 Exhibit 8# 4 Exhibit 9# 5 Exhibit 10# 6 Exhibit 11)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 11/02/2007)

11/02/2007
11/02/2007 11/02/2007 11/15/2007 11/16/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007

762 RESPONSE by Respondent Chgo, Cty of to other 721 and Submission by the Inspector General's Office Regarding the City's Proposed New Hiring Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chicago IG# 2 Exhibit B: IL IG# 3 Exhibit C: IL Auditor# 4 Exhibit NY DOI# 5 Exhibit E: NY EEPC# 6 Exhibit F: NY DCAS# 7 Exhibit G: Miami IG# 8 Exhibit H: Miami Audit Service# 9 Exhibit I: Executive Orders# 10 Affidavit J: Huberman# 11 Affidavit K: King# 12 Affidavit L: Jones# 13 Affidavit M: Devane# 14 Affidavit Gagliardo# 15 Affidavit O: Johnson# 16 Affidavit P: Kovalan)(Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
763 City Council's Response to Plaintiff's Submission on City's Proposed Hiring Plan by Chicago City Council (Pugh, Stephen) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
764 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :The City of Chicago's oral motion is granted to file their response in excess of fifteen pages to the hiring plan.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
765 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Eighteenth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
766 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Compliance administrators eighteenth motion for disbursement of funds 765 is granted.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
767 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Enter order. The court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $55,540.37 to Julia N. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator. Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
768 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 11/19/2007.(vcf, ) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
769 RESPONSE by Defendant City of Chicago, The to motion for attorney fees, 705 Defendants' Response To Plaintiffs' Fee Petition With Respect To The City Of Chicago For January 1, 1998 through May 31, 2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
770 APPENDIX Response, 769 by City of Chicago, The (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Unpublished Opinions)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 11/27/2007)

11/27/2007 12/03/2007 12/06/2007 12/06/2007
12/06/2007 12/11/2007
12/11/2007 12/14/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/19/2007 12/19/2007

771 CERTIFICATE of Service by Tracey Renee Ladner on behalf of Chgo, Cty of regarding appendix 770 , Response, 769 (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
772 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Nineteenth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
773 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Compliance Administrator's nineteenth motion for disbursement of funds 772 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
774 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter order. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $46,143.16 to Julia M. Nowicki, as compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
775 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 12/6/2007.(smm) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
776 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for leave to file Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply to the City, Mayor and City Council Submissions in Support of the City's Proposed Hiring Plan (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
777 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for leave to file 776 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/20/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
778 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Twentieth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
779 STATUS Report of Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A# 2 Appendix B# 3 Appendix C)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
780 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re status report 779 of Monitor and Certificate of Service (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
781 MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for extension of time for Claim Determination Deadline (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
782 NOTICE of Motion by Noelle Christine Brennan for presentment of extension of time 781 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/27/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/19/2007)

12/20/2007 12/21/2007 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/11/2008
01/11/2008 01/11/2008 01/15/2008 01/17/2008 01/18/2008

784 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Plaintiff's motion for leave to file 776 plaintiffs' sur-reply to the City, Mayor and City Council submissions in support of the City's proposed hiring plan is granted.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
783 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :The monitor's motion for extension of time 781 to claim determination deadline is granted to 3/21/2008. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
785 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 21st Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
786 AMENDED by Julia M. Nowicki Compliance Administrator's 21st Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
787 SUR-REPLY by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to other 763 , Response 759 , statement 758 the City, Mayor and City Council Submissions in Support of the City's Proposed Hiring Plan (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
788 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter orders for twentieth petition for payment to the compliance administrator in the amount of $71,230.02 to Julia M. Nowicki and twenty first petition for payment to the compliance administrator in the amount of $76,014.68 to Julia M. Nowicki.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
789 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 1/11/2008.(smm) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
790 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 1/11/2008.(smm) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
791 QUARTERLY Report by Inspector General's Office regarding accord complaints. (kjc, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
792 REPLY by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman in Support of Fee Petition with Respect to the City of Chicago Jan 1, 1998 - May 31, 2007 and Exh 1-3 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4# 2 Exhibit 5-6# 3 Exhibit 7)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
793 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, TheTo Amend Exhibit II.G, Schedules C, E, and F of the Accord (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 01/18/2008)

01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/24/2008
01/24/2008 02/01/2008 02/07/2008 02/07/2008

794 Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 793 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/24/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
795 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, we accept in part and reject in part the City of Chicago's 2007 Hiring Plan.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
796 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 1/18/2008:(tsa, ) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
797 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, TheTo Appoint Arbitrators (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
798 Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Tracey Renee Ladner for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 797 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/24/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
799 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Defendant City's motion 793 to amend exhibit II, G, Schedules C E & F of the Accord is entered and continued. Defendant City's motion 797 to appoint arbitrators is entered and continued; Motion hearing held on 1/24/2008 regarding motion for miscellaneous relief 793 , motion for miscellaneous relief 797 . Motion Hearing set for 2/14/2008 at 09:00 AM. Defendant to file a surreply to attorneys fees by 2/8/2008. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
800 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :The Compliance Administrator is given until 2/29/2008 to file their first annual report.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
801 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Twenty Second Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
802 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Twenty Third Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
803 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Motion for disbursement of funds 801 is granted.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/07/2008)

02/07/2008 02/07/2008
02/07/2008 02/07/2008
02/07/2008 02/08/2008
02/08/2008 02/14/2008
02/19/2008 02/20/2008

804 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Motion for disbursement of funds 802 is granted.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
807 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter order. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as sooon as practicable in the amount of $79,826.11 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
808 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 2/7/2008.(smm) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
809 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter order. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $62,605.42 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
810 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 2/7/2008.(smm) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
805 SUR-REPLY by Defendant City of Chicago, The to reply 792 SurReply In Further Opposition To Plaintiffs' Fee Petition With Respect To The City Of Chicago For January 1, 1998 Through May 31, 2007 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index# 2 Appendix A# 3 Appendix B# 4 Appendix C# 5 Appendix D# 6 Appendix E)(Ladner, Tracey) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
806 RESPONSE by Michael L Shakman to MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, TheTo Appoint Arbitrators 797 (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
811 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Defendant's motion to amend/correct 668 list of exempt positions is granted. Defendant City's motion 797 to appoint panel of arbitrators is granted. Draft orders to follow. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
812 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Enter agreed order appointing panel of accord arbitrators for the City of Chicago, to serve on a rotating basis under Section IV.B.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
813 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Motion 635 to speak at hearing is denied as moot; Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 670 to file fee petition with respect to the City of Chicago is

02/27/2008 02/29/2008 03/11/2008 03/18/2008
03/18/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/20/2008

denied as moot; Defendant Cook County's motion for extension of time to file response/reply 678 is denied as moot; Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 684 is denied as moot; Motions terminated: Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
814 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Docket entry 783 is amended to reflect that the monitors motion for extension to claim determination deadline is granted to 3/26/2008.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
815 STATUS Report THE COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S SECOND SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT by Julia M. Nowicki (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
816 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 24th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
817 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, we grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs' six petitions for attorneys' fees and costs 630 . We award Plaintiffs attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,600,000.00. Plaintiffs are not awarded separate prejustgement interest on the attorneys' fee award, but interest will begin to run on the award on April 1, 2008 until the date of payment. Plaintiffs are awarded costs in the amount of $84,150.40 plus interest on the costs. The attorneys' fees and costs award shall be disbursed by the City of Chicago to Roger Fross of Locke, Lord, Bissell & Liddell LLP for allocated among the various counsel to Plaintiffs that have participated in this litigation. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
818 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/18/2008.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
819 Cook County's Response in Opposition to the Second Semi-Annual Report of the Compliance Administrator by Cook County (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
820 NOTICE by Cook County re other 819 Cook County's Response in Opposition to the Second Semi-Annual Report of the Compliance Administrator (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
821 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Compliance Administrator's 24th petition for disbursement of funds 816 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/20/2008)

03/20/2008
03/20/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 04/15/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008
04/18/2008 04/23/2008 04/23/2008 04/24/2008

822 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $86,091.80 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
823 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 3/20/2008.(smm) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
824 March 27, 2008 Report of the Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
825 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re other 824 and Certificate of Service re March 27, 2008 Report of the Monitor (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
826 Quarterly Report from Inspector General's Office Regarding Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
827 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's Twenty Fifth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
828 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Compliance Administrator's Twenty-fifth petition for payment 827 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
829 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $177,170.06 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
830 ORDER Signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 4/18/2008.(smm) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
831 APRIL 23, 2008 REPORT OF THE MONITOR by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
832 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re other 831 APRIL 23, 2008 REPORT OF THE MONITOR AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
833 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Settlement conference held on 4/24/2008.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/06/2008 05/08/2008 05/09/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008
05/12/2008 05/12/2008
05/12/2008

834 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct memorandum opinion and order 818 Agreed Motion (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
835 Agreed Motion NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct, motion for relief 834 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/8/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
836 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds The Compliance Administrator's 26th Invoice (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
838 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Agreed motion to modify the 3/18/2008 memorandum, opinion and order 834 is granted.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
837 AMENDED amended document 786 by Julia M. Nowicki Compliance Administrator's 21st Invoice (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
839 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Compliance administrator's motion for disbursement of funds 836 is granted. Motions terminated: Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
840 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: It is hereby ordered. The compliance Administrator's twenty first unopposed petition for payment is granted. The court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $30,162.50 to Julia M. Nowicki, as compliance administrator.Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
841 ORDER Signed by Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/12/2008.(vcf, ) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
842 MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: It is hereby ordered that the compliance administrator's twenty sixth unopposed petition for payment is granted. The court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount $125,284.63 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
843 ORDER Signed by Judge Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/12/2008.(vcf, ) (Entered: 05/15/2008)

05/21/2008 05/21/2008 06/17/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008
06/20/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/10/2008 07/11/2008 07/11/2008

844 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter agreed order modifying the March 18, 2008 Memorandum, Opinion and Order.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
845 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/21/2008:(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
846 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 27th Invoice (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
847 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Compliance Administrator's motion for disbursement of funds 846 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
848 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $98,700.32 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
849 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/20/2008.(smm) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
850 MOTION by Mr. Victor M. Crown seeking protective order, and MOTION other relief under State Law (Exhibits). (smm) (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File.) Modified on 7/8/2008 (smm). (Entered: 07/07/2008)
851 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion for protective order, motion for miscellaneous relief 850 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/10/2008 at 9:00 A.M. (smm) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
852 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Crown's motion for protective order 850 is taken under advisement. Motion hearing held. Advised in open court notice(tsa, ) (tmh, ). (Entered: 07/11/2008)
853 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 28th Invoice (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
854 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees 705 is granted in part and denied in part by entry 817 .Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/11/2008)

07/15/2008
07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008

855 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Nowicki's motion for disbursement of funds 719 is granted by entry 723 . Nowicki's motion for extension of deadline to adjudicate claims 741 is granted. The deadline to adjudicate claims is extended until September 30, 2008. Nowicki's motion is moot 742 because this is a notice, not a motion. Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County's motion to substitute attorney 743 is granted by entry 753 . Defendant City's motion to amend exhibit II.G, Schedules C, E, and F of the Accord 793 is denied as moot. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
856 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
857 Quarterly Report from Inspector General's Office Regarding Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
858 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Compliance administrator's motion for disbursement of funds 853 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
859 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for twenty eighth unopposed petition for payment.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
860 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/15/2008.(smm) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
861 MOTION by Plaintiff Victor M. Crown seeking for protective order and other relief under State Law (Judicial Notice on state law - 740 ILCS 175) (Exhibit) (hp, ) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
862 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion for protective order 861 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/31/2008 at 09:00 AM. (hp, ) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
863 Notification of Change of Attorney Address or Name by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
864 MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan to substitute attorney and withdraw Ines Monte (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Beth A. Davis Appearance, # 2 Exhibit B: Sarah Brown Appearance)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
865 NOTICE of Motion by Noelle Christine Brennan for presentment of motion to substitute attorney 864 before Honorable Wayne R.

07/31/2008
08/07/2008 08/07/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008 08/18/2008 08/20/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008

Andersen on 7/31/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
866 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Mr. Crown's motion for protective order 850 is taken under advisement. Mr. Crown's motion for protective order 861 is taken under advisement. Court monitor's motion to substitute attorney 864 is granted. Ines M. Monte is given leave to withdraw her appearance and Beth A. Davis and Sarah Brown are given leave to substitute and file their appearances.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
867 STATUS Report August 7, 2008 Status Report Regarding Implementation of City's New Hire Plan by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
868 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re status report 867 and Certificate of Service re August 7, 2008 Status Report Regarding Implementation of City's New Hire Plan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
869 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Noelle C Brennan by Noelle Christine Brennan for Attorney Beth A Davis (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
870 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Noelle C Brennan by Noelle Christine Brennan for Attorney Sarah Brown (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
871 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiff Sullivan's motion 687 to hold the City of Chicago in contempt is entered and continued for hearing on 9/22/2008 at 09:30 AM.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
872 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Chgo, Cty of by Jennifer Anne Naber (Naber, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
873 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds The Compliance Administrator's 29th Invoice (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
874 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Motions 850 , 861 shall be stricken from the record. The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be mailed to Mr. Victor Crown at P.O. Box 136, Park Ridge, Illinois, 60068, the address given by Mr. Crown in the motions he filed. Such mailing shall include copies of the documents submitted on July 3, 2008 850 and July 25, 2008 861 . Such mailing shall be by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/28/2008)

09/03/2008 09/03/2008 09/05/2008 09/05/2008 09/11/2008 09/11/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008
09/12/2008

876 BILL of Costs (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
877 BILL of Costs (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
878 MOTION by Victor M. Crown seeking legal authority and other relief under State Law (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
879 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 878 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/11/2008 at 9:00 A.M. (smm) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
896 SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF ORDER for the Sheriff of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/11/2008.(smm) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
898 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/11/2008.(smm) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
880 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Compliance Administrator's twenty ninth petition for payment 873 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
881 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 30th Invoice (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
882 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 31st Invoice (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
883 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 32nd Invoice (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
884 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The bills of costs [876, 877] and the motion seeking legal authority and other relief under state law 878 shall be stricken from the record. The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be mailed to Mr. Victor Crown at P.O. Box 136, Park Ridge, Illinois 60068, the address given by Mr. Crown in the documents he filed. Such mailing shall be by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
885 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Enter order. The Court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $122,742.14 to Julia M. Nowicki,

09/12/2008 09/15/2008 09/17/2008
09/19/2008 09/22/2008 09/22/2008 09/22/2008
09/22/2008 09/22/2008 09/22/2008

as Compliance Administrator. (For further detail see separate orders(s)). Mailed notice (jj, ) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
886 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/12/2008.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
MAILED Copy of Minute Order dated 9/12/08 to Victor Crown via certified mail article no. 7006 0100 0001 7313 9837. (smm) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
887 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Michael L Shakman, Paul M Lurie, Kenneth Ayers, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Michael Sullivan, Dorene Kuffer, William Thomas Huyck by Gabriel Bankier Plotkin (Plotkin, Gabriel) (Entered: 09/17/2008)
897 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter preliminary approval order. Nunc pro tunc 9/11/08. (For further detail see separate order(s) ).Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
888 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Compliance Administrator's motion for disbursement of funds 881 , 882 , 883 is granted for the 30th, 31st and 32nd petitions. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
889 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for order Compliance Administrator's Request For Approval Of Claimant's Letter Form And Approval Of Objection To Determination Form (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
890 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Motion hearing held on 9/22/2008 regarding Plaintiff Sullivan's motion to hold the City of Chicago and certain named individuals in civil contempt for violation of court orders 687 .Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
891 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the Compliance Administrator's 30th, 31st and 32nd petitions for payment. (For further details see separate order). Mailed notice (smm) Modified on 9/24/2008 (smm). (Entered: 09/24/2008)
892 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/22/2008.(smm) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
893 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/22/2008.(smm) (Entered: 09/24/2008)

09/22/2008 09/22/2008
09/23/2008
09/23/2008 09/29/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/07/2008
10/07/2008
10/07/2008

894 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/22/2008.(smm) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
895 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter supplemental relief order for the Sheriff of Cook County. Nunc pro tunc 9/11/08. (For further detail see separate order(s) ).Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
899 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Compliance Administrators request for approval of claimant's letter form and approval of objection to determination form 889 is granted. See corrections on attachment number 2. (For further detail see separate order(s)). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
900 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/23/2008. (Exhibits).(jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
901 RETURN of U.S. Post Office receipt, article 7006 0100 0001 7313 9837, received on 9/24/08. (smm) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
902 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter SRO.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
903 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Notice of Hearing on approval of supplemental relief order for the Sheriff of Cook County.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
904 OBJECTION to notice of determination by Eunice Kemp. (smm) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
905 MOTION by counsel for Unknowns Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Cook County Assessor, Cook County Clerk, Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Cook County State's Attorney, Cook County Treasurer, Defendants Cook County, Cook County Sheriff to withdraw as attorney (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
906 NOTICE of Motion by Patrick Malone Blanchard for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney, 905 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/16/2008 at 10:00 AM. (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
907 NOTICE by Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Cook County Assessor, Cook County Clerk, Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Cook County State's Attorney, Cook County Treasurer, Cook County, Cook County Sheriff re notice of motion 906 , MOTION by counsel for Unknowns Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Cook County Assessor, Cook County Clerk, Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Cook

10/07/2008
10/08/2008 10/09/2008 10/14/2008 10/14/2008 10/15/2008
10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008

County State's Attorney, Cook County Treasurer, Defendants Cook County, Cook County Sheriff to wi 905 (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
908 Document Removed Per Court Order dated 10/16/08, 919 . (RESTRICTED) (jj, ) ( Modified on 10/21/2008 (smm). (Entered: 10/09/2008)
909 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Ramona Clark. (smm) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
910 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination. (smm) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
911 NOTICE of Correction regarding document number 852 (tmh, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
914 OBJECTION to notice of determination. (smm) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
912 Quarterly Report from Inspector General's Office Regarding Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
913 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago re other 912 (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
917 OBJECTION to notice of determination. (smm) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
918 OBJECTION to notice of determination by Dorothea Purnell. (smm) Modified on 10/30/2008 (smm). (Entered: 10/20/2008)
915 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Lisa Marie Meador (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
916 OBJECTIONS to notice of determination. (smm) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
919 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Status hearing held and continued to 11/12/2008 at 9:30 A.M. regarding the objections filed by claimants. Cook County defendants motion to withdraw attorney Patrick M. Blanchard is granted 905 . Lisa Meador is given leave to file her appearance. Attorney Patrick Malone Blanchard terminated. Attorney Lisa Meador added. The exhibits, attached to the objection of claimant Teesha Coleman 908 , shall be placed under seal.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 10/21/2008)

10/20/2008 10/22/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008
10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008
10/27/2008 10/28/2008

920 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Martha Salas. (smm) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
930 OBJECTION to notice of determination. (vcf, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
921 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds The Cook County Compliance Administrator's 33rd Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
922 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds The Compliance Administrator's 34th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
923 RESPONSE by Cook County to MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds The Cook County Compliance Administrator's 33rd Petition for Payment 921 (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
924 NOTICE by Cook County re response to motion 923 of Compliance Administrator's Thirty-Third Petition For Payment (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
925 RESPONSE by Cook County to MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds The Compliance Administrator's 34th Petition for Payment 922 (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
926 NOTICE by Cook County re response to motion 925 Compliance Administrator's Thirty-Fourth Petition For Payment (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
927 MOTION for leave to appear as attorney (Gilbert, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
928 Objection To Notice Of Determination by Lauren B. Simon (Gilbert, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
929 NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey Bensley Gilbert for presentment of before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/30/2008 at 10:00 AM. (Gilbert, Jeffrey) Modified on 10/24/2008 (vcf, ). (Entered: 10/23/2008)
931 OBJECTION to notice of determination by Robert Kutinac. (smm) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
935 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Denise Jenkins-Mims (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 10/30/2008)

10/28/2008 10/28/2008 10/28/2008 10/29/2008 10/29/2008 10/29/2008
10/29/2008 10/29/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008

936 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Roy A. Farmer. (smm) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
937 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Patricia A. Edwards. (smm) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
938 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Aubrey Robinson (Exhibit). (smm) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
932 AFFIDAVIT of Peter M. Kramer Employee Notice (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
939 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Patrick Nwaezeigwe (Exhibits). (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File.) (smm) Modified on 11/4/2008 (smm). (kms, ). (Entered: 10/30/2008)
940 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Simone Coleman (Exhibits). (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File.) (Document not scanned). (smm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2017: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (kms, ). (Entered: 10/30/2008)
942 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Tracy A. Clark. (smm) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
943 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Simone Coleman (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
933 NOTICE by Michael L Shakman of Filing Declaration of Proof of Publication (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
934 NOTICE by Cook County Sheriff re affidavit 932 (Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
941 OBJECTIONS to Notice of Determination re: Glorida Melendez, Claim Identification#1060 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Nelson, Kerry) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
945 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Beverly Holloway (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
946 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Stephanie Flowers. (smm) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
947 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Joe Peace. (smm) (Entered: 11/03/2008)

10/30/2008
10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008
10/30/2008
10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008

948 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Yakov Michael Fox (Exhibits). (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File.) (smm) Modified on 11/6/2008 (smm). (kms, ). (Entered: 11/03/2008)
949 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Jacqueline Grant. (smm) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
950 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Thomas K. Gavin (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
956 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Final approval hearing regarding the supplement relief order for the Sheriff of Cook County is held. Enter supplemental relief order for the Sheriff of Cook County. (For further detail see separate order(s).) Mailed notice (smm) Modified on 11/4/2008 (smm). (Entered: 11/04/2008)
957 SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF ORDER for the Sheriff of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/30/2008.(smm) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
944 OBJECTIONS OF RICKEY COLEMAN (Moran, John) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
951 OBJECTION to Notice of determination by Virgil Burks. (smm) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
952 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Monica L. Collier. (smm) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
953 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Buvan Nathan. (smm) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
954 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Shirley M. Higgins. (smm) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
955 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Michell Buchanan. (smm) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
958 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Basharath Ali Khan. (smm) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
961 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Hyunsook Chun. (smm) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
962 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Reginald A. Binford. (smm) (Entered: 11/05/2008)

11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/07/2008 11/12/2008 11/14/2008 11/17/2008
11/17/2008 11/19/2008
11/20/2008 11/20/2008

959 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Dr. Bethra T. Cooper. (smm) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
960 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Margareth DouyanWebb (Exhibits). (Entered: 11/05/2008)
963 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Olivia Biloche (Exhibits). (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File.) (smm) (kms, ). (Entered: 11/06/2008)
964 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Lisa K. Provine. (smm) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
975 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion for default judgment 974 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/4/2008 at 9:00 P.M. (smm) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
965 Fourth Report of the Compliance Administrator by Julia M. Nowicki (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
970 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Status hearing held on 11/12/2008.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
967 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Ronald Oldaker. (smm) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
966 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Compliance Administrator for Cook County has until 12/12/2008 to file a written statement of reasons for her decisions regarding the objectors who received monetary awards. This case is set for status on 12/17/2008 at 9:00 am.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
972 EMERGENCY MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown seeking protective order (Exhibit). (smm) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
971 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiff Crown's emergency motion seeking protective order is denied 878 . The motion does not involve the Shakman case.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
968 MOTION by Defendant Chicago Park District to amend/correct Agreed Motion to Amend the Chicago Park District's Schedule of Exempt Positions (Pokorny, William) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
969 NOTICE of Motion by William R Pokorny for presentment of motion to amend/correct 968 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/4/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Pokorny, William) (Entered: 11/20/2008)

11/21/2008 11/26/2008 11/26/2008 11/26/2008 12/04/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/06/2008 12/08/2008
12/08/2008
12/11/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008

973 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Mae R. Williams (Exhibit). (smm) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
974 MOTION by Victor M. Crown seeking entry of a default judgment (Exhibits).(smm) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
976 OBJECTION to Notice of Determination by Gardell Branch. (smm) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
989 NOTICE of motion by Victor M. Crown before Judge Andersen set for 12/4/08 at 9:00 a.m. re MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown for default judgment as to 974 . (smm) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
982 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Agreed motion to amend the Chicago Park District's schedule of exempt positions 968 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
977 MOTION to reassign case (Stack, Martin) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
978 NOTICE of Motion by Martin M. Stack for presentment of motion to reassign case 977 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/11/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Stack, Martin) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
979 SUPPLEMENT to motion to reassign case 977 (Stack, Martin) (Entered: 12/06/2008)
980 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki to amend/correct MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds The Cook County Compliance Administrator's 33rd Petition for Payment 921 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
981 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki to amend/correct MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds The Compliance Administrator's 34th Petition for Payment 922 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
983 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiff Norris' motion to reassign case 977 is denied. Motion hearing held on 12/11/2008. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
984 Withdrawal of Objection by Lauren B. Simon (Gilbert, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
986 WITHDRAWAL of Objection to Notice of Determination by Ronald E. Oldaker. (smm) (Entered: 12/17/2008)

12/16/2008
12/16/2008 12/16/2008
12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/18/2008
12/19/2008 12/22/2008 12/23/2008 12/23/2008 12/24/2008 12/29/2008 12/29/2008 01/06/2009

985 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Status hearing regarding objections set for 12/17/2008 is stricken.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
987 WITHDRAWAL of Objection to Notice of Determination by Roy A. Farmer. (smm) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
991 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter orders for the thirty third and thirty fourth unopposed petitions for payment to the compliance administrator. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
992 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/16/2008.:(smm) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
993 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/16/2008.(smm) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
988 MOTION by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for disbursement of funds Compliance Administrator's 37th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
990 WITHDRAWAL of Objection to Notice of Determination by Thomas K. Gavin. (smm) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
996 WITHDRAWAL of objection to the notice of determination. (vcf, ) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
994 WITHDRAWAL of Objection to Notice of Determination by Teesha L. Coleman. (smm) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
995 WITHDRAWAL of Objection to Notice of Determination. (smm) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
997 WITHDRAWAL of objection to notice of determination. (vcf, ) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
998 WITHDRAWAL of objection to notice of determination. (vcf, ) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
999 WITHDRAWAL of objection to notice of determination. (vcf, ) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
1000 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Compliance Administator's 37th petition for payment 988 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/06/2009)

01/06/2009 01/06/2009 01/07/2009 01/13/2009 01/14/2009 01/14/2009 01/14/2009
01/14/2009 01/15/2009 01/16/2009 01/16/2009

1002

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for 37th petition for payment in the amount of $66,658.23. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

1003 ORDER regarding motion for disbursement of funds 988 Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/6/2009.(smm) (Entered: 01/09/2009)

1001 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Status hearing reset for 1/15/2009 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/07/2009)

1006 WITHDRAWAL of Objection to Notice of Determination by Lisa K. Proiune. (smm) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

1004 Quarterly Report from Inspector General's Office Regarding Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

1005 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago re other 1004 (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

1009

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter supplemental relief order for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. Enter preliminary approval order supplemental relief order for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. Enter Notice of hearing on approval of supplemental relief order for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. Settlement approval hearing set for 3/5/2009 at 8:45 A.M. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 01/20/2009)

1010 SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF ORDER for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/14/2009.(smm) (Entered: 01/20/2009)

1011

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Status hearing held on 1/15/2009 and continued to 2/18/2009 @ 9:00 a.m. regarding Cook County.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

1007 ATTORNEY Appearance (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/16/2009)

1008 First Report of the Compliance Administrator for the Sheriff of Cook County by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/16/2009)

01/26/2009 02/04/2009
02/04/2009 02/04/2009 02/04/2009 02/05/2009 02/05/2009
02/05/2009 02/06/2009

1012 WAIVER of Withdrawal of Objection to Notice of Determination by Sheila Watt. (smm) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

1013

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Enter Order: It is hereby ordered that the 1) The Compliance Administrator's first unopposed petition for payment is granted, 2) The Court orders defendant The Office of the Sheriff of Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $80,457.50 to Clifford L. Meacham, as Compliance Administrator. Mailed notice(air, ) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

1014 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/4/2009.Mailed notice(air, ) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

1015 Appearance by Jan Carlson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

1021 (FIRST) PETITION by compliance administrator, Clifford L. Meacham, for payment. (Attachments: # 1 Draft order)(air, ) (Entered: 02/09/2009)

1016 THIRTY FIFTH unopposed petition by Unknown Julia M. Nowicki for payment. (air, ) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

1017

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: The compliance administrator's thirty fifth unopposed petition for payment 1016 is granted. Enter Order: The Court orders defendant, Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $123,019.70 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (air, ) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

1018 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/5/2009.Mailed notice(air, ) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

1019

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10/30/2008 before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen. Court Reporter Contact Information: Rosemary Scarpelli, (312)435-5815, Rosemary_Scarpelli@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 2/27/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/9/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/7/2009. (Scarpelli, Rosemary) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

02/06/2009

1020

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10/30/2008 before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen. Court Reporter Contact Information: Rosemary Scarpelli, (312)435-5815, Rosemary_Scarpelli@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

02/10/2009

Redaction Request due 2/27/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/9/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/7/2009. (Scarpelli, Rosemary) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

1022

DECLARATION of Brian I. Hays Of Proof Of Publication Of Notice Of Hearing For Final Approval Of The Supplemental Relief Order For The Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/10/2009)

02/10/2009 1023 NOTICE by Michael L Shakman re declaration 1022 (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/10/2009)

02/12/2009 02/12/2009 02/18/2009

1024

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter agreed order appointing post SRO complaint Administrator Mark J. Vogel for Cook County. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 02/17/2009)

1025 AGREED ORDER appointing Post SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/12/2009.(smm) (Entered: 02/17/2009)

1026

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Status hearing held on 2/18/2009 and continued to 3/20/2009 at 09:15 AM. The Court extends the time for the compliance administrators explanation to 2/27/2009. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/18/2009)

03/02/2009

1033

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order. It is hereby ordered that Julia M. Nowicki, is given leave to withdraw as Shakman's Compliance Administrator effective as of the date of this order and Mary T. Robinson is hereby appointed the

03/02/2009 03/03/2009 03/03/2009 03/03/2009
03/04/2009 03/04/2009 03/04/2009 03/05/2009
03/05/2009 03/05/2009
03/05/2009

Shakman Compliance Administrator pursuant to the "SRO" for Cook County effective as of the date of this order. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

1034 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/2/2009.(smm) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

1027 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Michael L Shakman by Katherine Heid Harris (Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 03/03/2009)

1028 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees Unopposed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/03/2009)

1029

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1028 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/5/2009 at 08:45 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/03/2009)

1030 DECLARATION of Cook County Forest Preserve District of Notice to Current and Former Employees (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 03/04/2009)

1031 NOTICE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois re declaration 1030 (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 03/04/2009)

1032 NOTICE by all parties Cook County Compliance Administrator's Response to Objections (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/04/2009)

1035

STATUS Report of the Monitor March 5, 2009 by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

1036 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re status report 1035 of the Monitor March 5, 2009 and Certificate of Service (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

1037

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Unopposed motion for attorney fees 1028 is granted. Anna Petrovick given leave to file additional appearance. Oral motion for leave to amend "SRO" is granted. Draft order to follow. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/06/2009)

1039

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Enter order awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. It is hereby ordered that plaintiffs are awarded $291,311.37 in attorneys' fees and $37,955.87 in costs payable by Cook County. Interest thereon shall

03/05/2009 03/05/2009
03/05/2009 03/05/2009
03/05/2009 03/05/2009
03/05/2009 03/05/2009 03/05/2009

run beginning on May 1, 2009 and will continue to run until the date of payment. By agreement of plaintiffs' counsel, the monies shall be payable to "Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP" who will disburse the fees to the other plaintiffs' attorneys.Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

1040 ORDER Awarding plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/5/2009.Mailed notice(vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

1041

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Enter order. It is hereby ordered that the Compliance Administrator's Thirty Sixth Unopposed Petition for payment is granted. The court orders defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $100,346.00 to Julia M. Nowicki, as compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

1042 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/5/2009.(vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

1043

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Enter order. The Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's Second Unopposed petition for payment is granted. The Court orders Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $31,072.50 to Clifford L. Meacham, as Sheriff's Compliance Administrator. Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

1044 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/5/2009.Mailed notice(vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

1045

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Entered order. It is hereby ordered that the Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's Third Unopposed Petition for Payment is granted. The Court orders Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $34,918.81 to Clifford L. Meacham, as Sheriff's Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

1046 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/5/2009.Mailed notice(vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

1047 PROTECTIVE Order Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/5/2009.(vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

1048 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Enter Supplemental Relief Order for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County.Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

03/05/2009 03/06/2009 03/20/2009 03/20/2009
03/26/2009 03/26/2009 03/26/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 03/30/2009

1049 SUPPLEMENTAL relief order for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/5/2009.Mailed notice(vcf, ) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

1038 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Michael L Shakman by Ana D. Petrovic (Petrovic, Ana) (Entered: 03/06/2009)

1050

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Status hearing held on 3/20/2009 and continued to 4/30/2009 at 09:00 AM. The Court gives leave to reopen Simone Coleman's case.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/20/2009)

1051

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter agreed order. Clifford L. Meacham be and is appointed Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Office of the Sheriff of Cook County. That this appoint is entered nunc pro tunc as of November 17, 2008.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/20/2009)

1052 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Sheriff's Compliance Administator's Fifth Unopposed Petition for payment is granted.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/26/2009)

1053 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's Fourth Unopposed petition for payment is granted.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/26/2009)

1059 RESPONSE by Buvan Nathan filed with respect to Shakman Compliance Administrator Hon. (Ret) Judge Julia Nowicki's brief (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

1054 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County Unopposed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/27/2009)

1055

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1054 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/9/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/27/2009)

1056

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Monitor shall refer the concerns raised in her report to the Office of Compliance and the Inspector General which shall concurrently review and investigate on a coordinated basis each of the five hiring incidents described in the Monitors Report. The Office of Compliance and the Inspector General shall each report in writing regarding their respective review and investigation by June 20, 2009 to the Mayor of the City of Chicago and provide copies to the Commissioner of the

03/30/2009 03/30/2009 03/30/2009
03/30/2009 03/30/2009 03/31/2009 03/31/2009 04/03/2009
04/03/2009

Department of Human Resources, the Court, the Monitor, the Corporation Counsel, and Plaintiffs Counsel. The reports shall include any recommendations for policy, procedure and practice changes and remedies or sanctions. The Monitor may also, in her discretion, submit other matters to the Office of Compliance for similar reviews, investigations and actions from time to time.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

1057 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Document 1056 is stricken. Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

1058 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/30/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

1060

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Michael Sullivans motion to hold the City of Chicago and Department of Streets and Sanitation Assistant General Superintendent Patrick Cusack and General Foreman of Linemen James Kirby in contempt of the Shakman orders [# 687] is denied. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

1061 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/30/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

1062 PETITION 38th Petition for Fees (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

1063 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to withdraw For Leave to Withdraw Counsel: Jay M. Kertez and Timothy L. Swabb (Kertez, Jay) (Entered: 03/31/2009)

1064

Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Jay Michael Kertez for presentment of motion to withdraw 1063 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/9/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Kertez, Jay) (Entered: 03/31/2009)

1065

MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown seeking protective order Rule 201 motion taking mandatory Judicial notice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Turnover orders, MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown for turnover order (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 04/03/2009)

1066 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief, motion for order 1065 before Honorable

04/03/2009
04/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/06/2009 04/06/2009 04/06/2009 04/09/2009

Wayne R. Andersen on 4/9/2009 at 9:00 A.M. (smm) (Entered: 04/03/2009)

1067

MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown for Rule 201 motion seeking protective order Rule 201 motion taking mandatory Judicial notice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Exhibits. (smm) (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File.) Modified on 4/6/2009 (smm). (kms, ). (Entered: 04/03/2009)

1068 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion for protective order 1067 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/9/2009 at 9:00 A.M. (smm) (Entered: 04/03/2009)

1072 COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S THIRTY EIGHTH PETITION for payment. (smm) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

1073 FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE ADMINSTRATOR'S SECOND PETITION for payment. (smm) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

1074 FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE ADMINSTRATOR'S FIRST PETITION for payment. (smm) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

1069 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter compliance administrator's first petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/06/2009)

1070 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter compliance administrator's 2nd petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/06/2009)

1071 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter thirty-eighth unopposed petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/06/2009)

1075

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Defendant City of Chicago's motion to withdraw 1063 is granted. Timothy L. Swabb and Jay M. Kertez are given leave to withdraw their appearances. Victor Crowns motions seeking protective order Rule 201 motion 1065 and motion for Rule 201 motion seeking protective order 201 motion taking madatory Judicial notice r 1067 are taken under advisement. Motion hearings held on 4/9/2009.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

04/09/2009 04/14/2009 04/14/2009 04/14/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/23/2009 04/24/2009 04/27/2009 04/27/2009
04/27/2009 04/27/2009

1076 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees 1054 is granted.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

1080 SEVENTH PETITION by Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's for payment. (smm) (Entered: 04/20/2009)

1081 SIXTH PETITION by Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's for payment. (smm) (Entered: 04/20/2009)

1082 OBJECTION to Amended notion of determination by Barbara L. Bond. (smm) (Entered: 04/20/2009)

1077 Quarterly Report Regarding Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

1078 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago re other 1077 (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

1079 Quarterly Report by the Sheriff's Office of Professional Review by Cook County Sheriff (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

1083 ATTORNEY Appearance for Court Monitor Mark J Vogel by Mark J. Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

1158 WITHDRAWAL of Objection to notice of determination by Olivia Biloche. (smm) (Entered: 04/30/2009)

1084 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's Sixth Unopposed petition 1081 for payment is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/27/2009)

1085

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order. It is hereby ordered as follows: The Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's sixth unopposed petition for payment is granted. The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the aount of $38,049.00 to Clifford L. Meacham, as Sheriff's Compliance Administrator. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/27/2009)

1086 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's seventh unopposed petition 1080 for payment is granted 1080 . Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/27/2009)

1087 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order. It is hereby ordered as follows: The Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's Seventh Unopposed petition for payment is granted.

04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009

The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable int he amount of $37,302.30 to Clifford L. Meacham, as Sheriff's Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/27/2009)

1088

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 944 by Rickey Coleman, claimant number 1168, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is granted, in part, and the determination is amended to reflect an award of $25,000.00Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1089 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009. Notices mailed by judges' staff.(tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1090

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 942 by Tracy Clark, claimant number 1208, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1091 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009. Mailed by judges' staff notice(tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1092

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 909 by Ramona Clark, claimant number 1072, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges's staff notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1093 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1094

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 961 by Hyunsook Chun, claimant number 1086, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1095 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1096

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 914 by Myrlene Charles, claimant number 1017, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009 04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009

1097 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1098

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 955 by Michell Buchanan, claimant number 1170, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is granted and the determination is amended to reflect an award of $5,000.00.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1099 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1100

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 910 by Linda Barnes, claimant number 1180, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1101 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1102

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 952 by Monica Collier, claimant number 1190, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is granted and the determination is amended to reflect an award of $25,000.00.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1103 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1104

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Bettina Cooper (Ms. Cooper) is claimant number 1100. Before the Court is Ms. Coopers objection to Compliance Administrator (CA) Julia M. Nowickis determination of Ms. Coopers claim filed pursuant to the Supplemental Relief Order (SRO). The standard of review applicable to the CAs determination is abuse of discretion. For the reasons set forth below, Ms. Coopers objection is denied and the Court affirms the CAs determination. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1105 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff(tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1106 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 937 by Patricia Edwards,

04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009

claimant number 1077, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1107 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1108

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 946 by Stephanie Flowers, claimant number 1063, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is granted and the determination is amended to reflect an award of $75,000.00.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1109 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1110

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 948 by Yakov Michael Fox, claimant number 1022, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1111 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1112

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 962 by Reginald Binford, claimant number 1019, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1113 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1114

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 958 by Basharath Ali Khan, claimant number 1096, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1115 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judge's staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1116 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 904 by Eunice Kemp, claimant number 1041, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis

04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009

determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1117 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff(tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1118

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 973 by Mae Williams, claimant number 1039, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is granted and the determination is amended to reflect an award of $5,000. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1119 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1120

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 960 by Margareth DouyonWebb, claimant number 1053, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1121 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1122

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 947 by Joe Peace, claimant number 1154, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1123 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1124

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 939 by Patrick Nwaezeigwe, claimant number 1125, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1125 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1126 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 941 by Gloria Melendez, claimant number 1090, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis

04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009

determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1127 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1128

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 938 by Aubrey Robinson, claimant number 1171, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1129 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff(tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1130

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 930 by Sheila Watts, claimant number 1124, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is denied and the determination is affirmed.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1131 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1132

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 931 by Robert Kutinac, claimant number 1109, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1133 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff(tsa, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

1134

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 917 by Eunice Lockett, claimant number 1034, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1135 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1136

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 964 by Lisa Provine, claimant number 1132, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009

1137 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1138

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 918 by Dorothea Purnell, claimant number 1056, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1139 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1140

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Amended Notice of Determination by Barbara Bond, claimant number 1014, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is granted and the determination is modified to reflect an award of $50,000. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1141 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1142

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 951 by Virgil Burks, claimant number 1076, to Compliance Administrator Julie Nowicki's determination is denied and the determination is affirmed.Mailed by Judges' staff notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1143 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judge's staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1144

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 949 by Jacqueline Grant-Durr, claimant number 1017, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1145 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1146

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 954 by Shirley Mae Higgins, claimant number 1059, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki's determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/28/2009 04/29/2009 04/29/2009 04/29/2009 04/29/2009 04/30/2009 05/04/2009

1147 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1148

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 945 by Beverly Holloway, claimant number 1094, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is denied and the determination is affirmed. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1149 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1150

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 935 by Denise Jenkins-Mims, claimant number 1140, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowicki=s determination is denied and the determination is affirmedMailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1151 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1152

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Objection to Notice of Determination 920 by Martha Salas, claimant number 1040, to Compliance Administrator Julia Nowickis determination is granted and the determination is amended to reflect an award of $10,000. Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1153 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/28/2009.Mailed by Judges' staff (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1154 PETITION (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1155 PETITION (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1156 PETITION (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1157 PETITION (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

1159 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Status hearing held on 4/30/2009.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/01/2009)

1201

Enter order enforcing settlement agreement set forth in the supplemental relief order with respect to Claimant Buvan Nathan, Claimant No. 1020. Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/4/2009:Mailed notice(slb, ) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/05/2009
05/06/2009 05/06/2009
05/06/2009 05/06/2009
05/06/2009 05/06/2009
05/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/11/2009

1160

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:First 1154 and second 1156 petitions for payment to Mark J. Vogel are granted. First payment to Mark J. Vogel shall be made in the amount of $22,619.59 and the Second payment to Mark J. Vogel shall be made in the amount of $12,143.50.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/05/2009)

1161 PETITION (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/06/2009)

1162

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:It is hereby ordered that the Compliance Administrator's thirty-ninth petition for payment is granted. The Court orders defendant cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $96,048.91 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/06/2009)

1163 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/06/2009)

1164

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Compliance Administrators Forty-Third Petition for Payment is granted. The Court orders Defendant COOK COUNTY to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $83,274.90 to Julia M. Nowicki, as Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/06/2009)

1165 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/06/2009)

1166

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Complaint Administrators Third Unopposed Petition for Payment is granted. The Court orders Defendant COOK COUNTY to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $ 8,868.08 to Mark J. Vogel, as Complaint Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/06/2009)

1167 PETITION Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/07/2009)

1168 PETITION Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/07/2009)

1169 PETITION SHERIFFS COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/07/2009)

1170 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The following names shall be added to the service list to receive notices:

05/12/2009 05/13/2009 05/13/2009 05/13/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009
05/15/2009 05/19/2009 05/19/2009

Noelle Brennan, Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1530, Chicago, Illinois 60603, (312) 422-0001, nbrennan@nbrennan-associates.com; Beth A. Davis, Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1530, Chicago, Illinois, 60603, (312) 422-0001, bdavis@nbrennan-associates.com and Sarah M. Brown, Noelle Brennan & Associates Ltd., 20 south Clark Street, Suite 1530, Chicago, Illinois, 60603, (312) 422-0001, sbrown@nbrennan-assocates.com. If theres a party for them to be placed under, it shall be the Monitor for the City of Chicago.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/11/2009)

1171 PETITION Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/12/2009)

1172 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with respect to the Park District Agreed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2009)

1173 Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1172 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/21/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2009)

1174 PETITION Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/13/2009)

1175 PETITION Cook County Compliance Administrator (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

1176 MOTION by Defendant Cook County Sheriff Agreed Motion to Extend the Pre-SRO Claims Adjudication Deadline (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

1177

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct Supplemental Relief Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Supplemental Relief Order, # 2 Exhibit List of Exempt Positions)(Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

1178 NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Heid Harris for presentment of motion to amend/correct 1177 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/21/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 05/15/2009)

1179 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for Compliance Administrator's third petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

1180 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/19/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

05/19/2009 05/19/2009 05/19/2009 05/19/2009 05/19/2009 05/19/2009 05/20/2009 05/20/2009 05/20/2009 05/20/2009 05/20/2009 05/20/2009 05/21/2009

1181 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for Compliance Administrator's Fourth Petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
1182 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/19/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
1183 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for Compliance Administrators Eighth petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
1184 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/19/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
1185 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for Compliance Administrator's fifth petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
1186 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/19/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
1187 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for the Compliance Administrator's forty-fourth petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
1188 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/20/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
1189 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for the Compliance Administrator's sixth petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
1190 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/20/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
1191 MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown requesting entry of writ of mandamus (Exhibits). (smm) Modified on 3/29/2010 (gej, ). (Entered: 05/21/2009)
1192 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion for writ of mandamus 1191 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/26/2009 at 9:00 A.M. (smm) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
1193 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Agreed motion for attorney fees 1172 and costs is granted. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/22/2009)

05/21/2009
05/21/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009
05/29/2009 05/29/2009 06/02/2009 06/02/2009

1199

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Agreed motion to amend supplemental relief order for the Sheriff of Cook County 1177 is granted. Enter order. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

1200 AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF ORDER for the Sheriff of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/21/2009.(smm) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

1194 MOTION by Unknown Clifford Meacham for hearing Ninth Fee Petition (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/26/2009)

1195 MOTION by Unknown Clifford Meacham for hearing Ninth Fee Petition (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/26/2009)

1196 NOTICE of Motion by Peter A. Monahan for presentment of motion for hearing 1195 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/4/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/26/2009)

1197 PETITION Complaint Administrator's 4th Fee Petition (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/26/2009)

1198

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Mr. Crown's motion for writ of mandamus 1191 is denied. Defendant is barred from filing paperwork in this case.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/26/2009)

1204 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter agreed order awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. (For further detail see separate order(s).) (smm) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

1205 AGREED ORDER awarding Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/29/2009.(smm) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

1202 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for Complaint Administrator's fourth unopposed petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/02/2009)

1203

PROGRESS REPORT from the Commissioner of Human Resources of the City of Chicago. (smm) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ). Modified on 11/7/2017 (bg, ). (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/02/2009 06/04/2009
06/05/2009 06/05/2009 06/08/2009 06/09/2009 06/09/2009 06/10/2009 06/11/2009 06/11/2009 06/11/2009 06/11/2009 06/11/2009

1206 FIRST PROGRESS REPORT of the City of Chicago Office of Compliance (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

1207

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Compliant Administrator's 9th petition for fees 1194 , 1195 is granted in the amount of $47,573.10. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

1209 MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown entering settlement of Shakman 2 Claim. (Exhibits). (ep, ) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

1210 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion entering settlement 1209 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/11/2009 at 09:00 AM. (ep, ) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

1208 PETITION Sheriff's compliance Administrator Clifford Meacham's tenth petition for fees (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/08/2009)

1211 PETITION FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR JAN CARLSONS SEVENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/09/2009)

1212 PETITION FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR JAN CARLSONS EIGHTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/09/2009)

1213 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator Clifford Meacham's 11th petetion for fees (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

1214 PETITION Complaint Administrator Mark Vogel's Fifth Petition For Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

1215 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrators 10th unopposed petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

1216 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 11th petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

1217 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 7th petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

1218 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 8th petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009
06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/17/2009
06/17/2009
06/19/2009 06/19/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009

1219 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's Fortieth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

1220 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's Forty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

1221 PETITION Compliance Administrator's, Mary Robinson, 41st Fee Petition (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

1222 MOTION by Victor M. Crown requesting entry of writ of mandamus on the bill of costs on Shakman 1 (hp, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

1223

NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion requesting entry of a writ of mandamus on the petitioner's bill of costs 1222 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM. (hp, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

1224 MOTION by Victor M. Crown requesting record transfer (hp, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

1225 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion requesting transfer of court records 1224 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM. (hp, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

1226

MOTION by Unknown Jan Carlson for extension of time DISTRICT COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, JAN CARLSON'S, MOTION TO EXTEND CLAIMS FILING DEADLINE (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/17/2009)

1227

Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson's Notice of Motion Extend Claims Filing Deadline NOTICE of Motion by Peter A. Monahan for presentment of extension of time 1226 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/17/2009)

1228 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for order appointing Arbitratiors for the Sheriff of Cook County (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

1229 Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for order 1228 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

1230 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's, Sixth Fee Petition (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/23/2009)

1231 ATTORNEY Appearance (Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 06/23/2009)

06/24/2009
06/24/2009 06/24/2009 06/25/2009 06/25/2009 06/25/2009 06/25/2009 06/25/2009 06/25/2009 06/25/2009 06/25/2009

1232

RESPONSE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinoisin Opposition to MOTION by Unknown Jan Carlson for extension of time DISTRICT COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, JAN CARLSON'S, MOTION TO EXTEND CLAIMS FILING DEADLINE 1226 Response in Opposition to Motion to Extend Claims Filing Deadline (Odelson, Burton) (Entered: 06/24/2009)

1233 NOTICE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois Notice of Filing (Odelson, Burton) (Entered: 06/24/2009)

1234 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Victor Crowns motions for writ of mandamus 1222 and for order 1224 are stricken. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)

1235

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Status hearing held. Sheriff's motion for agreed order 1228 for arbitrators is granted. Updated exempt list is taken under advisement.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

1236 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for Mary T. Robinson, the Compliance Administrator's 41st petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)

1237 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/25/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)

1238 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's agreed order for 40th payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)

1243 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order to amend exempt list. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

1244 ORDER to amend exempt list Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/25/2009.(smm) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

1252

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter agreed order appointing arbitrators for the Sheriff of Cook County. (For further detail see separate order(s).).Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 07/08/2009)

1253 AGREED ORDER Appointing Arbitrators for the Sheriff of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/25/2009.(smm) (Entered: 07/08/2009)

06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/29/2009
06/29/2009 06/29/2009 06/30/2009
07/02/2009 07/02/2009 07/02/2009

1239 Inspector General Report Pursuant to the Court's March 30, 2009 Order by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 06/26/2009)

1240 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago re other 1239 Inspector General Report Pursuant to the Court's March 30, 2009 Order (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 06/26/2009)

1245 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Mary Robinson's agreed order for forty-fifth payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

1246 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Complaint Administrator's fifth petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

1241

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Minute entry 1198 is stricken and corrected as follows: Mr. Crown's motion for writ of mandamus 1191 is denied. Mr. Crown is barred from filing paperwork in this case.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

1242 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Victor Crown's motion entering settlement of Shakman 2 claim 1209 is stricken.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

1247 LETTER from Homero Tristan dated 6/29/09; Notice. (smm) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

1251

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the attorney list (see attached). If the attorneys are not on the list, they should be terminated and not receive notices. (For further detail see separate order(s).).Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 07/08/2009)

1248 ATTORNEY Appearance (Kurtz, Dana) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

1249 MOTION by Movant Employees Various to seal document other 1239 , letter 1247 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Kurtz, Dana) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

1250

NOTICE of Motion by Dana L. Kurtz for presentment of motion to seal document, motion for relief, 1249 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/1/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Kurtz, Dana) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/09/2009 07/09/2009
07/13/2009 07/14/2009 07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/16/2009

1254 RESPONSE by Michael L Shakmanin Opposition to MOTION by Movant Employees Various to seal document other 1239 , letter 1247 1249 (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

1255

COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, MARY ROBINSON'S, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMANT SIMONE COLEMANS OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF DETERMINATION by Mary Robinson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

1256 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Complaint Administrator's 6th petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

1257 Second Report of the Compliance Administrator for the Sherriff of Cook County by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/14/2009)

1258 Quarterly Report from the Sheriff's Office of Professional Review by Cook County Sheriff (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

1259 Quarterly Report from Inspector General's Office Regarding Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

1260 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago re other 1259 Quarterly Report from Inspector General's Office Regarding Accord Complaints (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

1269 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Enter proposed order extending the claims filing deadline for pre-SRO claimants to 8/7/2009.Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

1270 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/15/2009.(vcf, ) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

1261

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Any person wishing to file a response to the motion filed by Dana Kurtz 1249 may do so by Friday, July 24, 2009 and any person wishing to file a reply to any response may do so by Friday, July 31, 2009. The Court wishes to advise everyone that Inspector General Hoffman inquired of the Court before he filed his report as to whether he should publicly file his report. Mindful of the fact that the reports of the Monitor, the Commissioner of Human Resources and the Director of Compliance had already been filed publicly without objection and that the Inspector General's report was to include the results of the Inspector

07/16/2009
07/16/2009
07/16/2009 07/16/2009 07/20/2009
07/20/2009 07/20/2009 07/20/2009 07/20/2009 07/21/2009

General's investigation into statements made in their reports, the Court directed him to file publicly and to to do so after first consulting with the attorneys of record for the City of Chicago. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

1262

STATUS Report July 16, 2009 Report of the Monitor Regarding Status of City's Substantial Compliance by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

1263

NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re status report 1262 and Certificate of Service re July 16, 2009 Report of the Monitor Regarding Status of City's Substantial Compliance (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

1264 Fee Petition by Clifford Meacham Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 12th petition for Fees (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

1265 Fee Petition by Clifford Meacham Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 13th Petition for Fees (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

1266

RESPONSE by Objector RICKEY COLEMAN TO CLAIM ADMINISTRATOR (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit LEAVE OF ABSENCE DOCS., # 2 Exhibit M. GRANDBERRY AFFIDAVIT)(Moran, John) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

1267 PETITION COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATORS, MARY ROBINSON, FORTY SECOND PETITION FOR PAYMENT (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

1268 PETITION COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATORS, MARY ROBINSON, FORTY SEVENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

1271 Inspector General Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

1272 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago re other 1271 (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

1273 PETITION Complaint Administrator's, Mark Vogel, 7th Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/21/2009)

07/23/2009 07/24/2009 07/24/2009
07/24/2009
07/24/2009 07/24/2009
07/24/2009
07/24/2009 07/24/2009
07/24/2009 08/03/2009 08/03/2009

1274 Fee Petition by Clifford Meacham Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 14th petition for fees (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/23/2009)

1275 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Complaint Administrators 7th unopposed petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/24/2009)

1276

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 13th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/24/2009)

1277

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 14th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/24/2009)

1278 PETITION Complaint Administrator's, Mark Vogel, 8th Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/24/2009)

1279

RESPONSE by Inspector General, City of Chicago to MOTION by Movant Employees Various to seal document other 1239 , letter 1247 1249 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Choi, Soo) (Entered: 07/24/2009)

1280

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for Compliance Administrator's 42nd petition for payment is granted as to Mary T. Robinson. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 07/28/2009)

1281 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/24/2009.(smm) (Entered: 07/28/2009)

1282

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 47th petition for payment as to Mary t. Robinson. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 07/28/2009)

1283 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/24/2009.(smm) (Entered: 07/28/2009)

1284 MOTION by Intervenor Anthony O Boswell to intervene (Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

1285 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 12th unopposed petition for

08/03/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009
08/05/2009 08/06/2009

payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

1286 Second Progress Report of the Office of Compliance by Anthony O Boswell (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chart 1, # 2 Exhibit Chart 2, # 3 Notice of Filing)(Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

1287 NOTICE of Motion by Torrick Alan Ward for presentment of motion to intervene 1284 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/1/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 08/04/2009)

1288

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order. Complaint Administrator's eighth unopposed petition for payment as to Mark J. Vogel. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/04/2009)

1289 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/4/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 08/04/2009)

1473 RESPONSE by Defendant Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of Human Resources to the report of city of Chicago Inspector General; Notice. (vcf, ) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

1495

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Second Progress Report from the Commissioner of City of Chicago Department of Human Resources.Mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1496

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Notice of filing of Second Progress Report from the Commissioner of City of Chicago Department of Human Resources, mistakenly labeled response of the Commissioner of City of Chicago Department of Human Resources to the Report of City of Chicago Inspector General.Mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1290 PETITION SHERIFFS COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAMS, FIFTEENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/05/2009)

1291

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Nowickis motions for disbursement of funds 921 , 922 are moot in light of docket entries 980 , 981 . Nowickis motions to amend/correct 980 , 981 are granted by docket entries 992 , 993 . Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/06/2009)

08/10/2009 08/10/2009 08/10/2009 08/10/2009 08/12/2009 08/14/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009
08/17/2009 08/19/2009 08/20/2009

1292 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 15th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

1293 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/10/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

1294 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Motion for leave to file an appearance 927 on behalf of claimant Lauren Simon is denied as moot.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

1295 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Victor Crown's motion seeking entry of a default judgment 974 is stricken.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

1296 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Ninth Fee Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/12/2009)

1297 Initial Report of the Compliance Administrator for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Jan Carlson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

1298 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Cliff Meacham's 16th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

1299

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's Sixteenth unopposed petition for payment is granted. The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $55,917.00 to Clifford L. Meacham, as Sheriff's Compliance Administrator. Enter order. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 08/19/2009)

1300 CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM, Sheriff's compliance administrator, AGREED ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/17/2009.(smm) (Entered: 08/19/2009)

1302

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Court, on its own motion, extends th time for the Inspector General to file his report regarding the hiring incidents described in th Monitor's Report until 9/3/09.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

1301

MOTION by Defendant Cook County Sheriff and Plaintiffs' Class Counsel: Motion to Set a Status Hearing Date for a New Pre-SRO Claims Adjudication Deadline (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 08/20/2009)

08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009
08/21/2009 08/25/2009 08/25/2009 08/25/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009
08/27/2009 08/27/2009

1303 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for Complaint Administrator's ninth unopposed 9th petition for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

1304 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/21/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

1305

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Parties' second agreed motion to extend the pre-SRO Claims Adjudication deadline is granted 1301 . Enter order. Status hearing set for 10/15/2009 at 9:00 A.M. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

1306 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/21/2009.(smm) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

1307 Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's Fee Petition for Invoice 1018 by Jan Carlson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

1308 by Jan Carlson Forest Preserver Compliance Administrator's fee Petition (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

1309 Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's Fee Pettion for Invoice 1019 by Jan Carlson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

1310 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's 48th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/26/2009)

1311 Forest Preserve Compliance Adminstrator's Fee Petition for Invoice 1020 by Jan Carlson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/26/2009)

1312 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's 46th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/26/2009)

1315

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Roger R. Fross is given leave to file his appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. Plaintiff Michael L. Shakman is given leave to file his appearance as an attorney. J. William Roberts is given leave to file an appearance on behalf of the Sheriff of Cook County. A Minute entry on 3/13/09 terminating the City of Chicago as a defendant, is stricken. Docket entry 489 is stricken.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 08/27/2009)

1313 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for District Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of invoice no. 1018.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/27/2009)

1314 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/27/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 08/27/2009)

08/27/2009 08/27/2009 08/27/2009 08/27/2009 08/31/2009 08/31/2009 08/31/2009 08/31/2009 08/31/2009 08/31/2009 09/01/2009
09/01/2009 09/03/2009

1316 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the District Compliance Administrator's Petition for payment of invoice no. 1019. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/27/2009)

1317 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/27/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 08/27/2009)

1318 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter District Compliance Administrator's Petition for payment of invoice 1020.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/27/2009)

1319 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/27/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 08/27/2009)

1320 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 46th petition for payment as to Mary T. Robinson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

1321 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/31/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

1322 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 48th petition for payment as to Mary T. Robinson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

1323 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/31/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

1324 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 16th petition as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

1325 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/31/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

1326

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, we deny the motion of Movants to have documents filed under seal.[# 1249]. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/01/2009)

1327 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/1/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 09/01/2009)

1328 City of Chicago Inspector General's Report of Investigation by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

09/03/2009 1329 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago re other 1328 (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

09/03/2009

1330 Sheriff's Compliance ADministrator' Clifford Meacham's 17th Petition for Fees by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

09/03/2009

1333 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for the monitor to file a report with the Court. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 09/04/2009)

09/03/2009 09/04/2009

1334 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/3/2009.(smm) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
1331 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter 17th unopposed petition as to Clifford Meacham, Sheriff's Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/04/2009)

09/04/2009 1332 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/4/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 09/04/2009)

09/09/2009

1335

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 05/26/2009 before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen. Court Reporter Contact Information: Rosemary Scarpelli, (312)435-5815, Rosemary_Scarpelli@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 9/30/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/13/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/8/2009. (Scarpelli, Rosemary) (Entered: 09/09/2009)

09/09/2009 1336 RESPONSE by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 09/09/2009)

09/09/2009 1337 NOTICE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois re Response 1336 (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 09/09/2009)

09/14/2009 1338 Report by Mary Robinson Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, 5th Report (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/14/2009)

09/15/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/18/2009 09/18/2009 09/18/2009
09/18/2009 09/18/2009 09/18/2009 09/25/2009 09/25/2009

1339 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's, 10th Fee Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

1340 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's, 11th Fee Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

1341 PETITION SHERIFFS COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAMS, EIGHTEENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

1342 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for the Complaint Administrator's 10th unopposed petition as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

1343 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/16/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

1344 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for Complaint Administrator's 11th unopposed petition for payment as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/18/2009)

1345 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/18/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 09/18/2009)

1346

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter agreed order for the Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 18th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/18/2009)

1347 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 9/18/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 09/18/2009)

1348 STATUS Report September 18, 2009 Report of the Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/18/2009)

1349 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan Notice of Filing of September 18, 2009 Report of the Monitor and Certificate of Service (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/18/2009)

1350 RULE 60B 3 6 , 60D 3 MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown ON bill of costs;protective order[s], and technical corrections [deadline extension] (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1351

NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion for bill of costs, motion for protective order, motion to amend/correct 1350 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/1/2009 at 9:00 A.M. (smm) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

09/30/2009 09/30/2009 10/01/2009
10/01/2009 10/02/2009 10/02/2009
10/02/2009
10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009

1352 Forest Preserve Compliance Adminstrator Pettion for Invoice 1021 by Jan Carlson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

1353 Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's Petition for Fees for Invoices 1023,1024 and 1025 by Jan Carlson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

1354

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Boswell's motion to intervene 1284 is withdrawn. Victor Crown's motion for bill of costs 1350 , protective order 1350 , amend/correct 1350 is taken under advisement. Motion hearing held on 10/1/2009.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/01/2009)

1355 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's 12th Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/01/2009)

1356 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees Unopposed with Respect to the Sheriff (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

1357

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1356 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/8/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

1358

MOTION by Defendant Cook County Sheriff to amend/correct The Sheriff's Exempt List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit B: Proposed Amended Exempt List, # 3 Exhibit C: Notice of Motion)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

1359 PETITION SHERIFFS COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAMS, NINETEENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/05/2009)

1360 NOTICE by Anthony O Boswell Third Progress Report (Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 10/05/2009)

1361 Third Progress Report by Anthony O Boswell (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One, # 2 Exhibit Two, # 3 Exhibit Three)(Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 10/05/2009)

1475 RESPONSE of the Commissioner of the City of Chicago Dept. of Human Resources to the Report of City of Chicago Inspector General;Notice. (vcf, ) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

1497 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Third Progress Report from the Commissioner of City of Chicago Department of

10/05/2009
10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009
10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009

Human Resources.Mailed notice (Attachments: #(1) Attachment). (smm) Modified on 2/2/2010 (smm). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2017: # 2 1497) (bg, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2017: # 3 attachment) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ). Modified on 11/7/2017 (bg, ). (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1498

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Notice of filing of Third Progress Report from the Commissioner of City of Chicago Department of Human Resources, mistakenly labeled response of the Commissioner of City of Chicago Department of Human Resources to the Report of City of Chicago Inspector General.Mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1362

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's Nineteenth Unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1363 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1364

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs are awarded $98,831.21 in attorneys fees and $562.35 in costs payable by Cook County. Interest thereon shall run beginning on December 1, 2010 and will continue to run until the date of payment. By agreement of plaintiffs counsel, the monies shall be payable to Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP who will disburse the fees to the other plaintiffs attorneys. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1365 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1366 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for the Complaint Administrator's 12th unopposed petition for payment as to Mark Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1367 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1368 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Forest Preserve District of Cook County invoice 1021 for payment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009
10/06/2009 10/08/2009 10/08/2009 10/08/2009 10/13/2009

1369 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1370 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Forest Preserve District of Cook County invoices 1023, 1024, 1025 for payment. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1371 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1372 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to 1st and 2nd Progress Reports of City Office of Compliance (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1373

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Victor Crown's motion to reconsider under Federal Rule 60, motion for bill of costs and motion for protective order 1350 are stricken and shall be destroyed. Pursuant to the Executive Committee order entered in 07 C 2533 on November 12, 2008 and as previously ordered by this court on May 26, 2009 and June 29, 2009, Mr. Crown is prohibited from filing any documents in this case. If Mr. Crown attempts to file any other documents in this case, this court will consider imposing monetary sanctions. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to destroy any papers submitted by Mr. Crown to be filed in this case.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

1379 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

1374

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Enter agreed order to amend the Sheriff's exempt list. Enter corrected order awarding plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs. 1358 (For further detail see separate order.) Mailed notice (hp, ) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

1375 AGREED ORDER To Amend The Sheriff's Exempt List re 1374 Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/8/2009: Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

1376 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs 1374 Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/8/2009: Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

1377

MOTION by Objector RICKEY COLEMAN to supplement and respond to Claim Administrator's Brief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Moran, John) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

10/13/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009
10/14/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009
10/19/2009 10/21/2009

1378 NOTICE of Motion by John Thomas Moran for presentment of motion to supplement 1377 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/22/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Moran, John) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

1380 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's, Thirteenth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/14/2009)

1381

PETITION for Fees from City of Chicago for Plaintiffs' Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of B. Hays, # 2 Exhibit A1, # 3 Exhibit A-2, # 4 Exhibit B - Declaration of E. Feldman, # 5 Exhibit B-1, # 6 Exhibit B-2, # 7 Exhibit C)(Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 10/14/2009)

1382 NOTICE by Michael L Shakman re petition, 1381 Plaintiffs' Fee Petition to City (Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 10/14/2009)

1383 Quarterly Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Accord Complaints (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

1384 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago re other 1383 Quarterly Report from Inspector General's Office Regarding Accord Complaints (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

1385 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Twenieth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

1386

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Status hearing held on 10/15/2009 and continued to 3/5/2009 at 09:30 AM. regarding pre SRO claims.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/16/2009)

1512

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: Agreed Motion to Extend the Pre-SRO Claims Adjudication Deadline (for Defendant Sheriff of Cook County) 1176 is granted, and docket entry 1386 is revised to as follows: Status hearing held on 10/15/2009. PreSRO Claims Adjudication Deadline is extended to March 5, 2010. Status hearing set for March 5, 2010 at 9:30a.m.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/14/2010)

1387 Quarterly Report by Cook County Sheriff Office of Professional Review (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 10/19/2009)

1388 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for Complaint Administrator's 13th unopposed petition for payment as to Mark Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/21/2009)

10/21/2009 10/21/2009 10/21/2009 10/22/2009
10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/27/2009 10/29/2009 10/29/2009 10/29/2009 10/29/2009

1389 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/21/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 10/21/2009)

1390

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's twentieth unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/21/2009)

1391 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/21/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 10/21/2009)

1392

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:MOTION by Objector RICKEY COLEMAN to supplement and respond to Claim Administrator's Brief 1377 is taken under advisement. Motion hearing held on 10/22/2009 regarding motion to supplement 1377 . Class plaintiff's motion for fee petition is entered and briefed as follows: Responses due by 11/20/2009 Replies due by 12/11/2009. Ruling will be made by mail.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/22/2009)

1393 Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Pursuant to the Court's March 30, 2009 Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Choi, Soo) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

1394 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago re other 1393 Report of City of Chicago Inspector General Pursuant to the Court's March 5, 2009 Order (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

1395 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, 49th Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/27/2009)

1396 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's, 14th Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

1397 PETITION Sheriff Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Twenty First Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

1398 Forest Preserve District Compliance Adminstrator's Petition for Payment of Invoices 1022, 1026, 1027 and 1028 by Jan Carlson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

1399 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to other 1361 Third Progress Report of the City of Chicago's Office of Compliance (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

11/04/2009
11/05/2009 11/05/2009 11/06/2009 11/06/2009 11/06/2009 11/06/2009 11/06/2009

1400

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Motion for relief and amended verified response to claim administrator of claimant Rickey Coleman is denied. The factual disputes cited in the motion did not factor into the Courts decision to award Mr. Coleman $25,000. After reviewing the motion, the Court still finds that $25,000 is a reasonable and appropriate award for Mr. Coleman. The Court also reiterates that it does not have authority to grant Mr. Coleman any non-monetary relief and that by declining to opt-out of this case, Mr. Coleman may have waived remedies that would have been available to him in an individual federal lawsuit. To pursue a claim related to events that occurred after February 2, 2007, Mr. Coleman must file a claim with the Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel. Claim forms can be found on the Cook County Shakman Compliance Administrators website at countyshakman.com. Completed claim forms should be mailed to the Complaint Administrator at 69 W. Washington, Suite 1416, Chicago, Illinois, 60602. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/05/2009)

1401 STATUS Report November 5, 2009 Report of the Monitor Regarding Status of City's Substantial Compliance by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 11/05/2009)

1402

NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re status report 1401 November 5, 2009 Report of the Monitor Regarding Status of City's Substantial Compliance and Certificate of Service (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 11/05/2009)

1403

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 21st unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

1404

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter District Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of invoice nos. 1022, 1026, 1027 and 1028 as to Jan Carlson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

1405 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 11/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

1406 PETITION Compliance Adminstrator, Mary Robinson's 50th Petition for Fee Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

1407 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 49th petition for payment is granted as to Mary T. Robinson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

11/06/2009 11/06/2009 11/06/2009 11/12/2009
11/12/2009 11/13/2009 11/17/2009 11/17/2009
11/20/2009 11/24/2009 11/24/2009

1408 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 11/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

1409 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the Complaint Administrator's 14th unopposed petition for payment as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

1410 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 11/6/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

1411

MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The for extension of time to file response/reply as to order on motion to supplement,, terminate hearings,, motion hearing,, set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings,, text entry, 1392 as to Filing of Response to fee Petiton (UNOPPOSED MOTION) (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

1412

NOTICE of Motion by Joseph Michael Gagliardo for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply,, motion for relief,,,,,,,,, 1411 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 11/19/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

1413 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Twenty-second petition for payment. (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/13/2009)

1414 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Chicago, The by James J. Convery (Convery, James) (Entered: 11/17/2009)

1415

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Defendant City of Chicago's unopposed motion for extension of time to November 30, 2009 to file response to plaintiffs' fee petition for the time period June 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008 is granted to 11/30/2009. Reply by 12/18/2009. Ruling will be made by mail. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/17/2009)

1416 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Fifteenth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

1417 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Complaint Administrator's 15th unopposed petition for payment as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/24/2009)

1418 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 11/24/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 11/24/2009)

11/24/2009 11/24/2009 11/24/2009 11/24/2009 11/25/2009 11/30/2009
11/30/2009 11/30/2009 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 12/02/2009

1419 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 50th petition for payment as to Mary T. Robinson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/24/2009)

1420 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 11/24/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 11/24/2009)

1421

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 22nd unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/24/2009)

1422 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 11/24/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 11/24/2009)

1423 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meachams's Twenty Thrid Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/25/2009)

1424

MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The for leave to file excess pages for Response to Plaintiffs' Fee Petition (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- Defendant's Response, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H)(Convery, James) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

1425

NOTICE of Motion by James J. Convery for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages, 1424 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 11/3/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Convery, James) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

1426

AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by James J. Convery for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages, 1424 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/3/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Convery, James) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

1427

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 23rd unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/01/2009)

1428 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/1/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 12/01/2009)

1429 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Sixteenth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/02/2009)

12/03/2009 12/03/2009 12/03/2009
12/04/2009 12/04/2009
12/04/2009 12/07/2009 12/07/2009 12/07/2009
12/07/2009 12/07/2009 12/07/2009

1430 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Defendant City of Chicago's motion for leave to file excess pages 1424 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/03/2009)

1431 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's 51st Petition for Fee Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/03/2009)

1432

RESPONSE by Defendant City of Chicago, The in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Fee Petition (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Convery, James) (Entered: 12/03/2009)

1433 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Inspector General is extended until January 29, 2010 to file their report with the Court. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/04/2009)

1434

STATUS Report December 4, 2009 Report of the Monitor Regarding Status of City's Substantial Compliance by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, Part 1, # 2 Attachment 1, Part 2, # 3 Attachment 1, Part 3, # 4 Attachment 1, Part 4, # 5 Attachment 2)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/04/2009)

1435 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re status report, 1434 and Certificate of Service (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/04/2009)

1436 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order as to Compliance Administrator's 51st petition for payment as to Mary T. Robinson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/07/2009)

1437 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/7/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 12/07/2009)

1438

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order as to the Complaint Administrator's 16th unopposed petition for payment as to Mark J. Vogel. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/07/2009)

1439 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/7/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 12/07/2009)

1440 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees Agreed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/07/2009)

1441 Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1440 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/10/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/07/2009)

12/07/2009 12/07/2009
12/07/2009 12/08/2009 12/09/2009 12/09/2009 12/11/2009 12/11/2009 12/15/2009 12/17/2009 12/17/2009

1474 RESPONSE of the Commissioner of the City of Chicago Department of Human Resources to the Report of the City of Chicago Inspector General; Notice. (vcf, ) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

1499

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Notice of filing of Fourth Progress Report from the Commissioner of City of Chicago Department of Human Resources, mistakenly labeled response of the Commissioner of City of Chicago Department of Human Resources to the report of City of Chicago Inspection General.Mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1500

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Fourth progress report from the Commissioner of City of Chicago Department of Human Resources.Mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1442 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's, Clifford Meacham's Twenty-Fourth Petition for Payment. (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/08/2009)

1443

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees 1440 is granted. Enter order awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/09/2009)

1444 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/9/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 12/09/2009)

1445 NOTICE by Anthony O Boswell of Filing (Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 12/11/2009)

1446

Progress Report of the Executive Director by Anthony O Boswell (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Errata 7, # 8 Exhibit 7.1, # 9 Exhibit 8)(Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 12/11/2009)

1447 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Eighteenth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

1448 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to quash Subpoena of Victor M. Crown (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena)(Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

1449 NOTICE of Motion by Joseph Michael Gagliardo for presentment of motion to quash 1448 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/7/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

12/17/2009 12/17/2009
12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009

1450 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition for Invoice 1029 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

1451

Amended Report by Anthony O Boswell (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 7-1, # 9 Exhibit 8)(Ward, Torrick) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

1452 REPLY by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to petition, 1381 for fees with respect to the City of Chicago (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits B - D)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

1453 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on invoice #18 as to Mark Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/19/2009)

1454 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/18/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 12/19/2009)

1455 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/19/2009)

1456 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/18/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 12/19/2009)

1457 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 24th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/19/2009)

1458 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/18/2009.(tsa, ) (Entered: 12/19/2009)

1459 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Fifty-Second Petition for Fee Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/22/2009)

1460

MOTION by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan for Entry of Supplemental Relief with Respect to the Governor of Illinois (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Motion for Supplemental Relief, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Motion for Supplemental Relief, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C-Part I to Motion for Supplemental Relief, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C-Part II to Motion for Supplemental Relief, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D to Motion for Supplemental Relief, # 6 Exhibit

12/22/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009
12/22/2009
12/22/2009 12/22/2009 12/28/2009 12/28/2009 12/30/2009

Exhibit E to Motion for Supplemental Relief, # 7 Exhibit Group Exhibit F to Motion for Supplemental Relief)(Perlstadt, Roger) (Entered: 12/22/2009)

1461 NOTICE of Motion by Roger J Perlstadt for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief,,, 1460 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/7/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Perlstadt, Roger) (Entered: 12/22/2009)

1462 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition 1030n (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/22/2009)

1463 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Adminstrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition 1031 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/22/2009)

1464

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:For the reasons set forth in this order, Defendant City of Chicago's motion to quash subpoena of Victor M. Crown 1448 is denied as moot, as the subpoena was void ab initio. The parties need not appear in court on 1/7/2010. (For further details see minute order).Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

1465

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Order. The District Compliance Administrator's Petition for payment of invoice no. 1029 1450 is granted. The Court orders Defendant Forest Preserve District of Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $8,093.50 to Jan Carlson, as District Compliance Administrator. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

1466 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/22/2009.(smm) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

1468 NOTICE of filing by Karina Ayala-Bermejo (Exhibit). (smm) (Entered: 12/28/2009)

1467 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois by Brent Douglas Stratton (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 12/28/2009)

1469 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Twenty Fifth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/28/2009)

1470 MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois to bar Distribution of Awards to Pre-SRO Claimants (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2009)

12/30/2009 12/30/2009
01/05/2010
01/05/2010 01/06/2010 01/06/2010 01/07/2010 01/07/2010 01/07/2010 01/07/2010 01/07/2010
01/07/2010

1471 NOTICE of Motion by Michael Joseph Hayes, Jr for presentment of (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2009)

1472

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Entry 1486 is stricken because Progress Report from Commissioner of Human Resources will be refiled under correct date and format.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/30/2009)

1476

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Minute entries 1473 , 1474 and 1475 are stricken. Progress Reports from Commissioner of Human Resources will be refiled under corrected titles and format. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/05/2010)

1477 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Nineteenth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/05/2010)

1478 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Nineteenth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/06/2010)

1479 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Seventeenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/06/2010)

1480 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois by Deborah Joyce Allen (Allen, Deborah) (Entered: 01/07/2010)

1481 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter District Compliance Administrator's petition for payment as to Jan Carlson (1031).Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/07/2010)

1482 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/7/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 01/07/2010)

1483 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Twenty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/07/2010)

1484

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiff's motion for entry of supplemental relief with respect to the Governor of Illinois 1460 is entered and briefed as follows: Responses due by 2/19/2010. Replies due by 3/12/2010. Ruling will be made by mail. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

1501 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter District Compliance Administrator's petition for payment 1030 as to Jan

01/07/2010 01/07/2010
01/07/2010 01/07/2010
01/07/2010 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 01/11/2010
01/11/2010 01/11/2010
01/11/2010

Carlson. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1502 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/7/2010.(smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1503

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 55th payment as to Clifford L. Meacham. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1504 CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM, Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, AGREED ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/7/2010.(smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1505

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 52nd petition for payment as to Mary T. Robinson. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1506 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/7/2010.(smm) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1485 MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for extension of time to file Monitor's Report to the Court (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

1486 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for extension of time to file Monitor's Report to the Court 1485 (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

1487

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for the Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on invoice #19 as to Mark J. Vogel. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

1488 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/11/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

1489

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the PostSRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on Invoices 17, 19 and FP0 20 as to MarK J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

1490 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/11/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

01/11/2010 01/11/2010 01/11/2010 01/12/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010
01/15/2010

1491 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 26th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

1492 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/11/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

1493 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to other 1446 Fourth Progress Report of the City of Chicago's Office of Compliance (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/11/2010)

1494

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for extension of time to file Monitor's Report to the Court 1485 is granted to 3/2/2010.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1507 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Inspector General, City of Chicago by Soo Choi (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 01/14/2010)

1508 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 25th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/14/2010)

1509 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/14/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 01/14/2010)

1510 Third Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Sheriff of Cook County by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/14/2010)

1511

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois to bar Distribution of Awards to Pre-SRO Claimants 1470 is withdrawn without prejudice.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/14/2010)

1513

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: For the reasons set forth in this order, Victor Crowns Rule 201 Motion Seeking Protective Order, Rule 201 Motion Taking Mandatory Judicial Notice Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Turnover Orders 1065 as well as his Rule 201 Motion Seeking Protective Order, Rule 201 Motion Taking Mandatory Judicial Notice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Exhibits 1067 are stricken. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/14/2010)

1514 Quarterly Report from Inspector General's Office Regarding Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

01/15/2010 01/15/2010 01/19/2010 01/22/2010 01/22/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 02/04/2010 02/04/2010

1515 Forest Preserve District Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's First Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
1516 STATUS Report Regarding Post SRO Complaints from the Sheriff's Office of Professional Review by Cook County Sheriff (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
1517 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Twenty-Seventh Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
1518 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 27th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
1519 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 1/22/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
1520 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Sheriff of Cook County (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
1521 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1520 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/4/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
1522 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Twentieth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
1523 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Twenty-First Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
1524 Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Investigations of Political Discrimination (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
1525 NOTICE by Inspector General, City of Chicago re other 1524 Inspector General's Office Report Regarding Investigations of Political Discrimination (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
1526 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees 1520 with respect to the Sheriff of Cook County is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
1527 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: We grant in part and deny in part plaintiffs' fee petition with respect to the City of Chicago

02/04/2010 02/05/2010 02/05/2010 02/05/2010
02/05/2010 02/05/2010 02/10/2010 02/10/2010 02/10/2010

for a period of June 1, 2007 through July 21, 20008 1381 .Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/04/2010)

1528 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/4/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/04/2010)

1529

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Minute entry 1526 is stricken. It was entered in error. The motion is taken under advisement and the Court will issue a ruling by mail.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

1530 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Twenty-Eighth Petiton for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

1531

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, we grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs Fee Petition with Respect to the Sheriff of Cook County for the period of July 1, 2009 through October 31, 2009 1520 . We award Plaintiffs attorneys fees in the amount of $67,170.10 and costs in the amount of $354.38, for a combined total of $67,524.78. Plaintiffs are not awarded separate prejudgment interest on either sum, but interest will begin to run on the award on April 1, 2010 until the date of payment. The attorneys fees and expenses award shall be disbursed to Roger Fross, of Locke,Lord, Bissell & Liddell LLP for allocation among the various counsel to Plaintiffs that have participated in this litigation. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

1532 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/5/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

1533 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Twenty Second Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

1534 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Twenty-First Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

1535 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter PostSRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment #22 as to Mark J. Vogel. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

1536 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/10/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

02/10/2010 02/10/2010 02/10/2010
02/10/2010 02/10/2010
02/10/2010 02/10/2010
02/10/2010 02/16/2010
02/16/2010 02/16/2010
02/16/2010

1537 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 28th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

1538 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/10/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

1539

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for the Complaint Administrator's Unopposed petition for payment on invoice 21 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

1540 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/10/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

1541

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order, Complaint Administrator's Unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #21 as to Mark Vogel.s Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

1542 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/10/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

1543

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter PostSRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on Invoice FP022 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

1544 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/10/2010(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

1545

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order as to the Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #20 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

1546 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/16/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

1547

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter agreed order for Sheriff of Cook County Compliance Administrator's 28th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

1548 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/16/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

02/18/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010 02/19/2010
02/22/2010
02/24/2010 02/26/2010 02/26/2010 03/02/2010 03/03/2010

1549 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Twenty-Ninth Petiton for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/18/2010)

1550 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois by David Michael Friebus (Friebus, David) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

1551

RESPONSE by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to motion for miscellaneous relief,,, 1460 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Group Exhibit 1)(Friebus, David) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

1552 MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for leave to file excess pages instanter (Friebus, David) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

1553

NOTICE by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois re MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for leave to file excess pages instanter 1552 , Response 1551 (Friebus, David) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

1554

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois, motion for leave to file excess pages instanter 1552 is granted. The document shall be filed as a separate document and not as an attachment.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/22/2010)

1555 PETITION Forest Preseve Compliance Administrator's Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Invoices:1032,1033,1034,1035,1037,1038 & 1039. (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/24/2010)

1556

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038 and 1039 at to Jan Carlson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/26/2010)

1557 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 2/26/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/26/2010)

1558 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Twenty -Third Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/02/2010)

1559 MOTION by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-

03/03/2010 03/04/2010 03/05/2010 03/05/2010 03/05/2010 03/05/2010 03/05/2010 03/05/2010 03/08/2010 03/08/2010

Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan to alter judgment or amend fee opinions awarding plaintiffs' fees with respect to the City and the Sheriff (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 03/03/2010)

1560 NOTICE of Motion by Edward W. Feldman for presentment of motion to alter judgment, 1559 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/11/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 03/03/2010)

1561

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Deadline for Monitor's Report to the Court with respect to the City of Chicago is extended from 3/2/2010 to 3/8/2010.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/04/2010)

1562

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the PostSRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #023 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

1563 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/5/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

1564

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 29th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L.Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

1565 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/5/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

1566 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Twenty-Fourth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

1574

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment 1559 is taken under advisement. Status hearing held on 3/5/2010.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/09/2010)

1567 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's Thirtieth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

1568 STATUS Report Monitor's March 8, 2010 Report to the Court by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

03/08/2010 03/09/2010 03/09/2010 03/09/2010 03/09/2010 03/09/2010 03/09/2010 03/10/2010 03/11/2010
03/12/2010 03/12/2010

1569 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan Notice of Filing of Monitor's March 8, 2010 Report (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

1570 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter corrected #29 as to Clifford L. Meacham. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/09/2010)

1571 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/9/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/09/2010)

1572 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter corrected #30 as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/09/2010)

1573 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/9/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/09/2010)

1575 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time to Reply to Governor Pat Quinn's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Supplemental Relief (Perlstadt, Roger) (Entered: 03/09/2010)

1576 NOTICE of Motion by Roger J Perlstadt for presentment of extension of time 1575 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/25/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Perlstadt, Roger) (Entered: 03/09/2010)

1577 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Fifty-Third Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/10/2010)

1578

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiff Shakman's motion for extension of time 1575 is granted to 4/2/2010. Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan to alter judgment or amend fee opinions awarding plaintiffs' fees with respect to the City and the Sheriff 1559 is entered and briefed as follows: Responses due by 4/9/2010. Replies due by 4/23/2010. Ruling will be made by mail. Parties need not appear in court on 3/11/2010.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/11/2010)

1579 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #FP 024 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/12/2010)

1580 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/12/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/12/2010)

03/12/2010 1581 DOCUMENT stricken by court order. 1585 (ea, ) Modified on 3/16/2010 (tlm). (Entered: 03/15/2010)

03/12/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010
03/16/2010

1582 DOCUMENT stricken by court order 1585 . (ea, ) (Modified on 3/16/2010 (tlm). (Entered: 03/15/2010)
1583 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Twenty-Second Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
1584 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Twenty-Third Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
1585 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: It is hereby ordered that docket entries 1581 and 1582 are stricken. The entries were entered in error. Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
1586 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Thirty-First Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/16/2010)

03/16/2010 1587 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Fifty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/16/2010)

03/17/2010

1588

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 03/05/2010 before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen. Court Reporter Contact Information: Rosemary Scarpelli, (312)435-5815, Rosemary_Scarpelli@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 4/7/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/19/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/15/2010. (Scarpelli, Rosemary) (Entered: 03/17/2010)

03/17/2010

1590

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: It is hereby ordered that The Complaint Administrator's Unopposed Petition for Payment on Invoice #22 is granted. 1583 The Court orders Defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $20,239.51 to Mark J. Vogel, as Complaint Administrator. Enter order. (For further detail see separate order.) Mailed notice (hp, ) Modified on 3/18/2010 (hp, ). (Entered: 03/18/2010)

03/17/2010 03/17/2010
03/17/2010 03/17/2010
03/17/2010 03/17/2010
03/17/2010 03/18/2010 03/18/2010 03/22/2010

1591 ORDER re 1590 Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/17/2010: Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

1592

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: It is hereby ordered that The Complaint Administrator's Unopposed Petition for Payment on Invoice #23 is granted. 1584 The Court orders Defendant Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $19,286.50 to Mark J. Vogel, as Complaint Administrator. Enter Order. (For further detail see separate order.) Mailed notice (hp, ) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

1593 ORDER re 1592 Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/17/2010: Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

1594

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: It is hereby ordered that the Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's Thirty-First Unopposed Petition for Payment is granted. 1586 The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $75,711.00, to Clifford L. Meacham, as Sheriff's Compliance Administrator. Enter Agreed Order. (For further detail see separate order.) Mailed notice (hp, ) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

1595 ORDER re 1594 Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/17/2010: Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

1596

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen: It is hereby ordered that the Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's Fifty-Third Unopposed Petition for Payment is granted. 1577 The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $71,494.76, to Mary T. Robinson, as Compliance Administrator. Enter agreed order. (For further detail see separate order.) Mailed notice (hp, ) Modified on 3/18/2010 (hp, ). (Entered: 03/18/2010)

1597 ORDER re 1596 Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/17/2010: Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

1589 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Twenty-Fourth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

1598 NOTICE of Correction regarding 1596 . The incorrect file date was entered. (hp, ) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

1599

MOTION by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman,

03/22/2010
03/23/2010
03/23/2010 03/23/2010
03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/23/2010
03/23/2010

Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan to Schedule A Status Conference {Unopposed] (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 03/22/2010)

1600

NOTICE of Motion by Edward W. Feldman for presentment of unopposed motion to schedule a status conference 1599 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/25/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Feldman, Edward) (Text modified on 3/23/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 03/22/2010)

1601

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Complaint Administrator's Unopposed petition for payment on invoice#22 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

1602 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/23/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

1603

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Complaint Administrator's Unopposed petition for payment on Invoice#23 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

1604 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/23/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

1605 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 53rd petition for payment as to Mary T. Robinson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

1606 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/23/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

1607 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 31st unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

1608 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/23/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

1609

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for the Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on invoice #24 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

1610 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/23/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

03/25/2010 03/25/2010 03/25/2010 03/26/2010
03/26/2010 03/26/2010
03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/30/2010 03/30/2010 03/31/2010 04/09/2010

1611 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Twenty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/25/2010)

1612 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Twenty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/25/2010)

1613 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition No. 1040 &1041 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/25/2010)

1614

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the Post=-SRO Complaint Administrator's Unopposed petition for payment on Invoice#FP 025 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

1615 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/26/2010.:Mailed notice(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

1616

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter PostSRO Complaint Administrators Unopposed Petition for Payment on Invoice #FP 026 as to Mark J. Vogel. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

1617 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/26/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

1618 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter District Compliance Administrators Petition for Payment of Invoice No.1040 and Invoice No.1041.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

1619 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 3/26/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

1620 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The Court withdraws the reference to the magistrate judge. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/30/2010)

1621 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Thirty-Second Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/30/2010)

MAILED MINUTE Entry dated 3/30/10 to Randolph T. Kemmer, Roger R. Fross, Jerome H. Torshen. (smm) (Entered: 03/31/2010)

1622 MEMORANDUM by Chgo, Cty of in Opposition to motion to alter judgment, 1559 (Convery, James) (Entered: 04/09/2010)

04/12/2010 04/12/2010 04/12/2010
04/14/2010 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 04/15/2010
04/16/2010 04/20/2010

1623 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter 32nd unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/12/2010)

1624 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/12/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 04/12/2010)

1625

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Plaintiffs' Motion to Schedule a Status Conference 1599 is denied as moot. The briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Supplemental Relief with Respect to the Governor of Illinois 1460 is stayed, pending further order of court.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/12/2010)

1626 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Fifty-Fourth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/14/2010)

1627 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Thirty-Third Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/15/2010)

1628 Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Quarterly Report from Inspector General's Office Regarding Accord Complaints (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 04/15/2010)

1629 STATUS Report Quarterly Report by the Sheriff's Office of Professional Review by Cook County Sheriff (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 04/15/2010)

1630

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan by Michael L. Shakman (Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 04/15/2010)

1631

MOTION by Defendant Cook County Sheriff for order Motion for Approval of Sheriff's Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Notice of Motion)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 04/16/2010)

1632 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Twenty-Seventh Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/20/2010)

04/22/2010 04/22/2010 04/22/2010 04/23/2010
04/26/2010 04/26/2010 04/26/2010 04/26/2010 04/26/2010 04/26/2010 04/26/2010

1633 Fourth Report Of The Shakman Compliance Administrator For The Sheriff Of Cook County by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/22/2010)

1634 Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel The Cook County Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Fourth Quarterly Report (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/22/2010)

1635

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Defendant Cook County Sheriffs motion for order for Approval of Sheriff's Employment Plan Motion for order 1631 is granted. Motion hearing held on 4/22/2010. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

1636

REPLY by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan in Support of Their Motion to Alter or Amend Fee Opinions Awarding Plaintiffs' Fees with Respect to the City and the Sheriff (Perlstadt, Roger) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

1637

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the PostSRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #FP027 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/26/2010)

1638 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/26/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 04/26/2010)

1639 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 33rd unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/26/2010)

1640 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/26/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 04/26/2010)

1641 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administrator's 54th petition for payment as to Mary T. Robinson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/26/2010)

1642 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/26/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 04/26/2010)

1643 Sheriff's Compliance Administrator Clifford L. Meacham's ThirtyFourth Petition for Payment by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/26/2010)

04/26/2010 04/26/2010 04/29/2010 05/03/2010 05/06/2010 05/07/2010
05/07/2010 05/07/2010
05/07/2010 05/07/2010 05/07/2010
05/11/2010 05/11/2010

1644 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order on Sheriff's Employment Plan. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 04/27/2010)

1645 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 4/26/2010.(smm) (Entered: 04/27/2010)

1646 PETITION (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/29/2010)

1647 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition for Payment on Invoices 1042 and 1043 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/03/2010)

1648 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Fifty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/06/2010)

1649

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order as to the Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 34th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/07/2010)

1650 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/7/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/07/2010)

1651

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter PostSRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #FP 028 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/07/2010)

1652 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/7/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/07/2010)

1653 MOTION by Defendant Cook County Sheriff (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 05/07/2010)

1654

NOTICE of Motion by Virginia Brette Bensinger for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 1653 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/13/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 05/07/2010)

1655 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Thirty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/11/2010)

1656 Interim Claims Report- March 30 by Jan Carlson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/11/2010)

05/13/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010 05/14/2010
05/18/2010 05/21/2010 05/21/2010 05/25/2010
05/26/2010

1657 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Sheriff's motion 1653 to reassign case based upon relatedness is taken under advisement. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/13/2010)

1658 PETITION POST SRO COMPLAINT ADMINISTRATOR 25TH PETITION FOR FEES (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/14/2010)

1659 PETITION POST SRO COMPLAINT ADMINISTRATOR MARK VOGEL 26TH PETITION FOR FEES (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/14/2010)

1660 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter unopposed petitions for payments invoice #25, invoice #26 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/14/2010)

1661 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/14/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/14/2010)

1662 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/14/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/14/2010)

1663

FIFTH Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Sheriff of Cook County by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Text edited by Clerk's Office to correct title). Modified on 5/17/2010 (smm). (Entered: 05/14/2010)

1664 Interim Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Jan Carlson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

1665 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 35th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/21/2010)

1666 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 5/21/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 05/21/2010)

1667

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:The motion to reassign based on relatedness and for an enlargement of time to file a responsive pleading 1653 is granted. The Maxwell case (10 C 320) before Judge Gettleman shall be reassigned to Judge Andersen. Defendants have until June 4, 2010 to file a responsive pleading to the Maxwell complaint. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 05/25/2010)

1668 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Thirty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/26/2010)

05/28/2010 05/28/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/04/2010 06/04/2010 06/09/2010
06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/11/2010 06/11/2010

1669 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Twenty-Eighth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

1670 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Thirtieth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

1671 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for payment of invoice numbers 1042, 1043 as to Jan Carlson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

1672 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/1/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/02/2010)

1673 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 36th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/04/2010)

1674 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/4/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/04/2010)

1675

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the PostSRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on invoices FP#029,030 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

1676 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/9/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

1677 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/9/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

1678 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Twenty-Seventh Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

1679 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Twenty-Eighth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

1680 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Thirty-First Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

1681 MOTION by Defendant Cook County Sheriff to amend/correct Agreed Motion to Amend the Sheriff's Exempt List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 06/11/2010)

1682 NOTICE of Motion by Virginia Brette Bensinger for presentment of motion to amend/correct 1681 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen

06/14/2010 06/15/2010 06/17/2010
06/17/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010
06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010

on 6/17/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 06/11/2010)

1683 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Thirty-Seventh Petition for payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

1684 PETITION Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel's Twenty-Ninth Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2010)

1685

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:MOTION by Defendant Cook County Sheriff to amend/correct Agreed Motion to Amend the Sheriff's Exempt List 1681 is granted. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/17/2010)

1686 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's FiftySeventh Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/17/2010)

1687 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #27 as to Mark J. Vogel, Complaint Administrator's.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

1688 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/18/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

1689 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #28 as to Mark J. Vogel, Complaint Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

1690 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/18/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

1691

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #FP 031 as to Mark J. Vogel, Post SRO Complaint Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

1692 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/18/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

1693 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter 37th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham, Sheriff's Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

1694 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/18/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/23/2010 06/23/2010 06/23/2010 06/24/2010 06/24/2010 06/24/2010 06/24/2010 06/24/2010

1695 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #029 as to Mark J. Vogel, Complaint Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
1696 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/18/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
1699 MOTION by Tinka Vassileva to appeal the Arbitrator's Award. (smm) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
1697 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoices 1044, 1045 1046 & 1047. (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
1698 Sixth Report Of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Sheriff of Cook County by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
1700 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Thirty-Eighth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
1701 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Compliance Administator's 57th petition for payment as to Mary T. Robinson.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
1702 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/23/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
1703 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order on 56th petition for payment as to Mary T. Robinson, Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
1704 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/24/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
1705 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order on 55th petition for payment as to Mary T. Robinson, Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
1706 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/24/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
1707 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for 38th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/24/2010 06/24/2010 06/24/2010 06/28/2010 07/06/2010 07/08/2010
07/08/2010 07/08/2010 07/08/2010

1708 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/24/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

1709

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter order for payment of invoice nos. 1044, 1045, 1046 and 1047 as to Jan Carlson, District Compliance Administrator.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

1710 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 6/24/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

1711 MOTION to appeal arbitrator's award (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 06/30/2010)

1712 PETITION Mark Vogel, Forest Preserve Complaint Administrator's Thirty-Second Petition For Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/06/2010)

1713

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Motion for relief and amended verified response to claim administrator of claimant Rickey Coleman is denied. The factual disputes cited in the motion did not factor into the Courts decision to award Mr. Coleman $25,000. After reviewing the motion, the Court still finds that $25,000 is a reasonable and appropriate award for Mr. Coleman. The Court also reiterates that it does not have authority to grant Mr. Coleman any non-monetary relief and that by declining to opt-out of this case, Mr. Coleman may have waived remedies that would have been available to him in an individual federal lawsuit. To pursue a claim related to events that occurred after February 2, 2007, Mr. Coleman must file a claim with the Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel. Claim forms can be found on the Cook County Shakman Compliance Administrators website at countyshakman.com. Completed claim forms should be mailed to the Complaint Administrator at 69 W. Washington, Suite 1416, Chicago, Illinois, 60602.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/08/2010)

1714 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Thirty-Ninth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/08/2010)

1715 Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Thirty-First Petition For Payment by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/08/2010)

1716 Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Thirtieth Petition For Payment by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/08/2010)

07/12/2010 07/13/2010
07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010
07/13/2010
07/13/2010
07/13/2010

1717 Complaint Administrator's Petition For Payment Of Invoice #32A by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/12/2010)

1718

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Complaint Administrator's unopposed petitions for payment on Invoices #030, and #031 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

1719 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/13/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

1720 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/13/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

1721 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 39th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

1722 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/13/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

1723 Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Third Quarterly Report Concerning Cook County Forest Preserve District by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

1724 Sixth Report of the Compliance Administrator for Cook County by Mary Robinson (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

1725

MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to Confirm the Arbitration Award and Respond to Tinka Vassileva's Motion to Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Part I, # 2 Exhibit 1, Part II)(Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

1726

EXHIBIT by Defendant City of Chicago, The regarding MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The to Confirm the Arbitration Award and Respond to Tinka Vassileva's Motion to Appeal 1725 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Part III, # 2 Exhibit 1, Part IV, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4)(Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

1727

NOTICE of Motion by Joseph Michael Gagliardo for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 1725 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/21/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

1728 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the PostSRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on

07/13/2010 07/13/2010
07/13/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/16/2010 07/19/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010

Invoice #FP 032 as to Mark J. Vogel.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/14/2010)

1729 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/13/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 07/14/2010)

1732

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter the PostSRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on invoice #32A as to Mark J. Vogel. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 07/16/2010)

1733 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/13/2010.(smm) (Entered: 07/16/2010)

1730 Quarterly Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Accord Complaints (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 07/15/2010)

1731 Sheriff's Office of Professional Review's Quarterly Report by Cook County Sheriff (Bensinger, Virginia) Modified on 7/16/2010 (smm). (Entered: 07/15/2010)

1734 NOTICE of Correction regarding other 1731 . Document was entered in error. The text of the entry has been edited and the PDF file has been replaced. (smm) (Entered: 07/16/2010)

1735 Sheriff Compliance Administrator's Seventh Report with Exhibit 1 by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

1736 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Fortieth Petition for Payment (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

1737 MOTION by counsel for Unknown Clifford Meacham to withdraw as attorney Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

1738 NOTICE of Motion by Peter A. Monahan for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 1737 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/29/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

1739 MOTION by Unknown Clifford Meacham for leave to appear as Attorney Appearance (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

1740 NOTICE of Motion by Helen Burke for presentment of motion for leave to appear 1739 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/29/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

07/21/2010 07/22/2010 07/22/2010 07/22/2010 07/22/2010 07/23/2010
07/23/2010 07/23/2010 07/23/2010 07/26/2010

1750 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Ms Vassileva to file a reply by 8/27/2010 to the City's response to change the outcome of the award.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/26/2010)

1741 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's 40th unopposed petition for payment as to Clifford L. Meacham.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

1742 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/22/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

1743 MOTION by counsel for Unknown Noelle C Brennan to withdraw as attorney (Davis, Beth) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

1744

Certificate of Service and NOTICE of Motion by Beth A Davis for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 1743 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/29/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Davis, Beth) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

1745

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the motion to alter or amend the fee opinions 1559 is granted in part and denied in part. With respect to the City, the fee award is revised in accordance with the adjustments described in this opinion, and the court awards Plaintiffs' attorneys $356,821.90 in fees and $14,710.38 in costs, for a total of $371,532.28. With respect to the Sheriff, the court awards Plaintiffs attorneys the full amount of fees and costs originally requested, which is $80,948.50 and $354.38, respectively, for a total of $81,302.88. Additionally, in order to minimize additional disputes regarding fees, the court suggests that Plaintiffs submit future fee petitions on a more regular basis (at least quarterly), and also that those petitions be shared with the relevant government entity prior to submission to the court. It is so ordered. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/23/2010)

1746 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/23/2010.(tsa, ) (Entered: 07/23/2010)

1747 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to dismiss certain defendants (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/23/2010)

1748 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to dismiss 1747 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 7/29/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/23/2010)

1749 MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to dismiss certain defendants 1747 is

granted. Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the FRCP, the following defendants are dismissed: Attorney General of the State of Illinois; Calumet Township Collector; Clerk of Cicero Township; Clerk of the Circuit Court for the 18th Judicial Circuit of DuPage; Clerk of the Circuit Court for the 19th Judicial Circuit of Lake County; Clerk of the Circuit Court for the 22nd Judicial Circuit of McHenry County; Clerk of the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit of Winnegago County; Clerk of the Circuit Court for the 16th Judicial Circuit of Kane County; Clerk of the Town of Cicero; Coroner of Kane County; Coroner of Lake County; Coroner of McHenry County; Coroner of Will County; Coroner of Winnebago County; LaSalle County Clerk; McHenry County Clerk; Kane County Clerk; County Clerk of the County of DuPage; Will County Clerk; Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County; Democratic Organization of Cook County; Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the 11, 5th, 44th, 42, 4th, 7th, 38th, 20th, and 26th Wards; Illinois Secretary of State; Lieutenant Governor of the State of Illinois, Niles Township Supervisor; Republic County Central Committee of Will County; Republic County Center Committee of Winnebago County; Republican Committeeman for Bloom, Evanston, Main, Palatine, Bremen, Calumet, Cicero, Leyden, Niles and Orland Townships; Republican Committeeman for the 41st Ward; Republican County Central Committee of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, LaSalle and McHenry Counties; Republican Party of Illinois; Republican Party State Central Committee; Republican Precinct Committeeman for Adams Township; Republican Precinct Committeeman for the 8th Precinct of Shields Township; Republican Precinct Committeeman for the 4th precinct of Naperville Township; Republican Precinct Committeeman for the 94th precinct of York Township; Republican Precinct Committeeman for the 2nd precinct of Wayne Township; Republican precinct committeeman for the 7th precinct, 5th Ward of the City of Rockford; Republican precinct committeeman for the 16th precinct of McHenry township; Republican Precinct committeeman for the 64th precinct of the City of Aurora; Republican Precinct committeeman for the 67th precinct of Milton Township; Republican precinct committeeman for the 34th precinct of Elgin Township; Republican precinct committeeman for the 12th precinct of Joliet Township; Republican State Central Committee of Illinois; Republican Township Committeeman for Thornton Township; Republican Ward committeeman for the 13th Ward; Sheriff of DuPage, Kane, LaSalle, Winnebago and Lake Counties; Township Assessor for Palatine, Bremen and Orland Townships; Treasurer of DuPage, Kane, Lake, LaSalle, McHenry counties; Treasurer of the State of Illinois and Village of Elmwood Park.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/26/2010)

07/28/2010
07/28/2010 07/28/2010 07/28/2010 07/28/2010
07/28/2010 07/29/2010 07/30/2010

1751

MINUTE entry before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen:Motion by counsel for unknown Clifford Meacham to withdraw as attorney Motion to withdraw as attorney 1737 is granted. Motion by unknown Clifford Meacham for leave to appear as Attorney Appearance 1739 is granted. Helen Burke is hereby allowed to file her appearance. Motion by counsel for unknown Noelle C. Brennan to withdraw as attorney 1743 is granted. Beth Davis is given leave to file an appearance as counsel for the monitor.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/28/2010)

1752 JOINT CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. (smm) (Entered: 07/28/2010)

1753 JOINT CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. (smm) (Entered: 07/28/2010)

1754 JOINT CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. (smm) (Entered: 07/28/2010)

1755

LIMITED CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge MOTION by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stu 1460 . The Governor's request to deny Plaintiffs' motion for entry of supplement relief, as set forth in CM/ECF Docket No. 1551, filed in response to Plaintiffs' motion for entry of supplemental relief (CM/ECF Docket No. 1460), filed 12/22/09. (smm, ) (Entered: 07/28/2010)

1756

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier for all further proceedings. Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b). Signed by Executive Committee on 7/28/10.(smm) (Entered: 07/28/2010)

1757

ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Clifford Meacham by Helen Burke Appearance for Compliance Administrator for Cook County, Compliance Administrator for the Sheriff of Cook County and Compliance Administrator for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 07/29/2010)

1758

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:ENTER Supplemental Relief Order ("SRO") for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. ENTER Preliminary Approval Order Supplemental Relief Order ("SRO") for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. A hearing is set for 09/14/10 at 8:30 a.m. to determine whether to give final approval to the SRO. Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 07/30/2010)

07/30/2010 07/30/2010 08/05/2010 08/05/2010 08/05/2010 08/06/2010
08/06/2010 08/06/2010
08/06/2010 08/09/2010
08/09/2010 08/10/2010

1759 SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/30/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 07/30/2010)

1760 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/30/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) Modified on 8/13/2010 (wyh, ). (Entered: 07/30/2010)

1761 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Forty-First Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/05/2010)

1762 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Pe (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/05/2010)

1763 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1050 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/05/2010)

1764

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 1050 1763 .Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/06/2010)

1765 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/6/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/06/2010)

1766

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 1048 and 1049 1762 .Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/06/2010)

1767 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/6/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/06/2010)

1768

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter Order as to Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's FortyFirst Petition for Payment.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/09/2010)

1769 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/9/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/09/2010)

1770 Post-SRO Compliant Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #FP033 for Mark Vogel, as Post-SRO Complaint Administrator. (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/12/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/16/2010 08/16/2010
08/16/2010 08/17/2010

1771 Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP034 for Mark Vogel, Post-SRO Complaint Administrator. (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

1772 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #FP033.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

1773 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/10/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

1774 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #FP034.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

1775 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/10/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

1776 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Adminstrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1051 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/12/2010)

1777 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 1051.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)

1778 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/13/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)

1779 NOTICE of Correction for docket entry 1760 (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)

1780 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Forty-Second Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/16/2010)

1781

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter Order as to Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's Fortysecond Petition for Payment.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/16/2010)

1782 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/16/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/16/2010)

1783 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Fifty-Ninth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/17/2010)

08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010

1784 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Fifty-Eighth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1785 PETITION Complaint Administrator Mark Vogel 32nd Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1786 PETITION Complaint Administrator Mark Vogel 33rd Petition for Payment (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1787 PETITION Complaint Administrator Mark Vogel Petition for Payment of Forest Preserve Invoice 35 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1788 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order for Compliance Administrator's, Mary Robinson, Fifty-Eighth Petition for Payment.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1789 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/17/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1790 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order for Compliance Administrator's, Mary Robinson, Fifty-Ninth Petition for Payment.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1791 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/17/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1792 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #FP035.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1793 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/17/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1794 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #32.Mailed notice (wyh, ) . (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1795 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/17/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1796 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #33.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
1797 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/17/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010)

08/18/2010 08/19/2010 08/19/2010 08/20/2010 08/20/2010 08/23/2010 08/23/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/30/2010 08/30/2010

1799

MOTION to vacate modify, or correct the arbitrator's award (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4). (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document of File.)(smm) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

1798 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payments On Invoice 1052 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

1800 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Motion for agreed interim order is set for hearing before the magistrate judge on 8/23/2010 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

1801 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 1052.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

1802 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/20/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

1803

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Motion hearing held on 8/23/10. The parties' oral motion to enter agreed interim order is granted. Enter Agreed Interim Order. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 08/24/2010)

1804 AGREED INTERIM ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/23/2010.Mailed notice(smm) (Entered: 08/24/2010)

1805 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L ShakmanAppoint Arbitrators Pursuant to SRO (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 08/27/2010)

1806

NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Heid Harris for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 1805 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/2/2010 at 08:30 AM. (Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 08/27/2010)

1807

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Agreed motion for appointing arbitrators for Cook County (doc. # 1805) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached).Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 08/30/2010)

1808 AGREED ORDER Appointing Arbitrators for Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/30/2010.Mailed notice(smm) (Entered: 08/30/2010)

08/30/2010 08/31/2010
08/31/2010 09/08/2010 09/08/2010
09/08/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010 09/10/2010 09/10/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010

1809 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Forty-Third Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/30/2010)

1810

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter Order as to Sheriff of Cook County Compliance Administrator's Forty-Third Unopposed Petition for Payment.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 08/31/2010)

1811 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/31/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 08/31/2010)

1812 Fee Petition Invoice by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/08/2010)

1813

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to the Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #FP 036 to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/08/2010)

1814 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/8/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 09/08/2010)

1815 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of Declaration of Class Notice (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

1816 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payments on Invoice 1053 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

1817 PETITION To Enforce Consent Decrees and 2007 Supplemental Relief Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

1818 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to the District Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 1053.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/10/2010)

1819 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/10/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 09/10/2010)

1820 NOTICE by Cook County Recorder of Deeds of Affidavit of Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing on Final Approval of the SRO (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

1821 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Lisa Marie Meador (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

09/13/2010 09/13/2010
09/13/2010 09/14/2010 09/14/2010
09/14/2010 09/15/2010 09/15/2010 09/16/2010 09/16/2010
09/20/2010 09/20/2010

1822 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Cliff Meacham's Forty-Fourth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

1823

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Clifford L. Meacham, Sheriff's Compliance Administrator's fortyfourth unopposed petition for payment.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

1824 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/13/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

1825 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held.Advised in open court (jms, ) (Entered: 09/14/2010)

1830

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:For reasons stated in open court, enter order of approval of the supplemental settlement order for the office of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

1831 SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF ORDER FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/14/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

1826 Vogel County Fee Petitions on Invoice 034 by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

1827 Vogel County Fee Petition on Invoice 035 by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

1828 ATTORNEY Appearance for Court Monitor Cardelle Spangler by Helen Burke (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/16/2010)

1829

PETITION Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Petition for Payment of Invoice #1 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/16/2010)

1832 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #34.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

1833

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, agreed order for invoice #1.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

09/20/2010 09/20/2010 09/20/2010 09/20/2010 09/20/2010 09/20/2010 09/20/2010 09/21/2010
09/21/2010 09/21/2010
09/21/2010 09/21/2010 09/21/2010

1834 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

1835 ORDER related petition 1826 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ). (Entered: 09/20/2010)

1836 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's unopposed petition for payment on Invoice #35.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

1837 ORDER regarding petition 1827 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

1838 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Sixtieth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

1839 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees (Unopposed Motion) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

1840 NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Heid Harris for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1839 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/23/2010 at 08:30 AM. (Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

1841

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-1, # 3 Exhibit A-2, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit B-1, # 6 Exhibit B-1, # 7 Exhibit C)(Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

1842 NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Heid Harris for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1841 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/28/2010 at 08:30 AM. (Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

1843

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs 1839 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached).Mailed notice (wyh, ). (Entered: 09/21/2010)

1844 ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/21/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

1845 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, sixtieth petition for payment.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

1846 ORDER regarding petition 1838 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/21/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

09/22/2010 09/22/2010 09/22/2010 09/23/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010

1847 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1054 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/22/2010)

1848 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to District Compliance Administrator's Petition for payment of invoice #1054 1847 .Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/23/2010)

1849 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/22/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ). (Entered: 09/23/2010)

1850

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Status hearing held on petition to enforce consent decrees and supplement relief order 1817 . By agreement of the parties, defendant Cook County will not make any employment decisions (e.g., hiring, firing, transfer or promotion) using political considerations except with respect to job positions on the exempt list approved by the Court in 1996 ("the 1996 Exempt List'). This order is not a determination of the rights of any persons with respect to any job positions that are not contained on the 1996 Exempt List.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/23/2010)

1851 Vogel Fee Petition on Invoice 036 by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

1852 Vogel Fee Petition for Invoice FP037 by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

1853

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:By agreement, the Court sets the following briefing schedule on plaintiffs' fee petition 1841 : the City's response is due by 10/26/10, and plaintiffs' reply is due by 11/09/10. No appearance on the motion is required.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

1854 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Unopposed Petition for Payment on Invoice #36.Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/27/2010)

1855 ORDER regarding petition 1851 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/24/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 09/27/2010)

1856

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Unopposed Petition for Payment on Invoice #FP 037Mailed notice (wyh, ) (Entered: 09/27/2010)

1857 ORDER regarding petition 1852 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/24/2010:Mailed notice(wyh, ) (Entered: 09/27/2010)

09/28/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/30/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010
10/01/2010
10/01/2010 10/05/2010

1858 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford Meacham's Forty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/28/2010)

1859 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order as to Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's FortyFifth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

1860 ORDER regarding petition 1858 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/29/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

1861 PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/30/2010)

1862

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, agreed order for invoice # 2. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

1863 ORDER regarding petition 1861 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/1/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

1864 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees Unopposed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

1865

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1864 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/6/2010 at 8:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Text edited by Clerk's Officer to reflect correct date of presentment). Modified on 10/4/2010 (smm). (Entered: 10/01/2010)

1866

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs 1864 is granted; no appearance is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $28,920.79 in fees and costs for the period 04/01/09 through 10/31/09. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

1867 ORDER regarding unopposed motion for attorney fees 1864 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/1/2010.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

1868

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (attached). The matter comes before the Court after an arbitration decision on a post-accord claim filed by Tinka Vassileva pursuant to the May 31, 2007 Agreed Settlement Order and Accord with respect to the proceedings in this

10/05/2010 10/07/2010 10/11/2010 10/11/2010
10/13/2010 10/13/2010
10/13/2010
10/13/2010 10/13/2010 10/13/2010

case involving the City of Chicago. For the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion and order, Ms. Vassileva's various motions seeking to vacate the arbitration award ( 1699 , 1711 and 1799 ) are denied; the City's motion to confirm the arbitration award ( 1725 ) is granted. We hereby confirm the arbitration award issued on 05/18/10 denying Ms. Vassileva's claim. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2010)

1869 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/5/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2010)

1870 Fourth Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/07/2010)

1871 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees Unopposed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/11/2010)

1872

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1871 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/14/2010 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/11/2010)

1873 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder - Unopposed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

1874

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1873 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/20/2010 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

1875

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Sheriff November 1 2009 through August 31, 2010 1871 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

1876 ORDER regarding unopposed motion for attorney fees 1871 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/13/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

1877 Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 38 by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

1878 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs with

10/13/2010 10/13/2010 10/13/2010
10/13/2010 10/14/2010 10/14/2010 10/14/2010 10/14/2010 10/14/2010 10/15/2010 10/15/2010

respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds for time through September 15, 2010 1873 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

1879 ORDER regarding unopposed motion for attorney fees 1873 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/13/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

1880 ENTERED in error. Modified on 10/14/2010 (psm, ). (Entered: 10/14/2010)

1882

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Complaint Administrator's petition for payment of invoice # 038 1877 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/14/2010)

1883 ORDER regarding Complaint Administrator's petition for payment of invoice # 038 1877 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/13/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/14/2010)

1881 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's Forty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 10/14/2010)

1884 NOTICE of Correction regarding 1880 . (psm, ) (Entered: 10/14/2010)

1885 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order as to Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's FortySixth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/14/2010)

1886 ORDER regarding petition 1881 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/14/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/14/2010)

1887 DOCUMENT Entered in error. (Vogel, Mark) Modified on 10/15/2010 (smm). (Entered: 10/14/2010)

1888 STATUS Report of Post SRO Compliants by the Executive Director of OPR by Cook County Sheriff (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

1889

NOTICE of Correction regarding other 1887 . The incorrect type of event was used to describe the document. The text of the entry has been edited and the PDF file has been replaced. The document must be refiled. (smm) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

10/15/2010 10/15/2010 10/15/2010 10/15/2010 10/15/2010 10/15/2010
10/15/2010 10/18/2010
10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010
10/18/2010 10/18/2010

1890 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for County Invoice 37 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

1891 Quarterly Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Accord Complaints (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

1892 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Unopposed Petition for Payment on Invoice #37. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

1893 ORDER regarding petition 1890 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/15/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

1894 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for FPD 038 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

1895

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Unopposed Petition for Payment on Invoice #FP 038. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

1896 ORDER regarding petition 1894 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/15/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

1897

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S, PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #3 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

1898 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Sixty-First Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

1899 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment On Invoice 1055 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

1900

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Petition for Payment of Invoice #3. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

1901 ORDER regarding petition 1897 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

1902 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Sixty-First petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/19/2010 10/19/2010
10/19/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010
10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010

1903 ORDER regarding petition 1898 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2010. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

1905 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of invoice no. 1055. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2010)

1906 ORDER regarding petition 1899 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2010)

1904 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Thomas Edward Nowinski (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 10/19/2010)

1907

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter agreed order for the Sheriff of Cook County to place Ricardo Hower in the next promotional class to the rank of Sergeant. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2010)

1908 AGREED ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/19/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2010)

1909 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to enforce September 23, 2010 Agreed Order (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2010)

1910 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to enforce 1909 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/27/2010 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2010)

1911 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment On Invoices 1056 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

1912

MOTION by Respondent Chgo, Cty of for extension of time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Fee Petition for Time Accrued for August 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009 (Convery, James) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

1913 NOTICE of Motion by James J. Convery for presentment of extension of time 1912 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/28/2010 at 08:30 AM. (Convery, James) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

1914 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of invoice no. 1056. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

1915 ORDER regarding petition 1911 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/26/2010 10/26/2010
10/27/2010 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 10/29/2010 10/29/2010

1916 PETITION Sheriff's Compliance Administrator Clifford L. Meacham's Forty -Seventh Petition For Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

1917

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Defendant, City of Chicago's, unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' fee petition for time accrued for August 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009 1912 is granted. No appearance on the motion is required. Defendant's response is due by 11/09/10; Plaintiff's reply due by 11/23/10. Mailed and Telephoned notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

1918

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order as to Sheriff's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's FortySeventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/27/2010)

1919 ORDER regarding petition 1916 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/27/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/27/2010)

1920

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Motion by Plaintiff Michael L. Shakman to enforce September 23, 2010 Agreed Order 1909 is continued. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/28/2010)

1921

PETITION Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Petition for Payment of Invoice #4 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #4)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 10/29/2010)

1922

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice # 4. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2010)

10/29/2010 1923 ORDER regarding petition 1921 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/29/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2010)

10/29/2010

1924

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs have filed a motion to enforce the September 23, 2010 Agreed Order 1909 . By a separate agreed order entered today, the parties have agreed to an amendment of the September 23, 2010 Agreed Order that renders the motion moot. We therefore deny without prejudice the motion to enforce 1909 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2010)

10/29/2010 1925 ORDER regarding motion to enforce 1909 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/29/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2010)

11/04/2010 1926 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP039 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/04/2010)

11/04/2010 1927 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #FP 039. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/04/2010)

11/04/2010 1928 ORDER regarding petition 1926 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/4/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/04/2010)

11/04/2010 1929 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment On Invoice 1057 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 11/04/2010)

11/04/2010 1930 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of invoice no. 1057. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/04/2010)

11/04/2010 1931 ORDER regarding petition 1929 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/4/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/04/2010)

11/05/2010 1932 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for Invoice FP040 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/05/2010)

11/05/2010

1933 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #FP040. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2010)

11/05/2010 1934 ORDER regarding petition 1932 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/5/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2010)

11/09/2010

1935 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER (attached). The Court grants plaintiffs' fee petition with respect to the City of Chicago for time accrued from August 1, 2008

through October 31, 2009 1841 in the reduced amount of $380,000.00. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/09/2010)

11/09/2010

1936

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City of Chicago for Time Accrued from August 1, 2008 to October 21, 2009 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/9/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/09/2010)

11/09/2010

1937

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Pursuant to the attached orders, the orders of 09/30/10 and 10/29/10 enjoining certain employment actions are dissolved. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/12/2010)

11/09/2010 1938 AGREED ORDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Group 1-6) Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/9/2010. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/12/2010)

11/12/2010 1939 Initial Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Cardelle Spangler (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 11/12/2010)

11/15/2010 1940 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Sixty-Third Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010 1941 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Sixty-Second Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010 1942 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010 1943 PROTECTIVE Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/15/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010 1944 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Sixty-Third petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010 1945 ORDER regarding petition 1940 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/15/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010 1946 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Sixty-Second petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010 1947 ORDER regarding petition 1941 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/15/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/18/2010 1948 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1058 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 11/18/2010)

11/18/2010 1949 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of invoice no. 1058. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/18/2010)

11/18/2010 1950 ORDER regarding petition 1948 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/18/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/18/2010)

11/22/2010 1951 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 039 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/22/2010 1952 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 040 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/22/2010

1953 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #040. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/22/2010 1954 ORDER regarding petition 1952 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/22/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/22/2010 1955 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 041 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/22/2010 1956 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #039. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/22/2010 1957 ORDER regarding petition 1951 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/22/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/22/2010 1958 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #041. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/22/2010 1959 ORDER regarding petition 1955 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/22/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

11/23/2010 1960 PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 11/23/2010)

11/23/2010

1961

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #6. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/23/2010 1962 ORDER regarding petition 1960 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/23/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/24/2010 1963 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees Unopposed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/24/2010

1964

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 1963 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/2/2010 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/24/2010 1965 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees Unopposed (Amended) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/24/2010

1966

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs 1965 is granted; no appearance is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $32,587.05 in fees and costs for the period November 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/24/2010

1967 ORDER regarding unopposed motion for attorney fees 1965 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/24/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/24/2010 1968 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER AMENDED AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/24/2010

1969 AMENDED AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/24/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

11/29/2010 1970 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Sixty-Fourth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 11/29/2010)

11/29/2010

1971 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Sixty-Fourth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/29/2010)

11/29/2010 1972 ORDER regarding petition 1970 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/29/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/29/2010)

11/29/2010

1973

MOTION by Defendant Cook County Sheriff for order Motion for Approval of Sheriff's Revised Employment Plan and Sheriff's Employment Action Manual (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Sheriff's Revised Employment Plan, # 2 Exhibit B - SEAM Glossary through

Article G, # 3 Exhibit B - SEAM Articles H - J, # 4 Exhibit B - SEAM Articles K - Q, # 5 Exhibit B - SEAM Articles S - T, # 6 Exhibit C Proposed Order)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 11/29/2010)

11/29/2010 1974 DOCUMENT Entered in error. (Bensinger, Virginia) Modified on 11/30/2010 (smm). (Entered: 11/29/2010)

11/29/2010

1975

MOTION by Defendant Cook County Sheriff for order Motion to Approve Sheriff's Amended Exempt List, Sheriff's Senior Manager List and Sheriff's Senior Assistant List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Sheriff's Amended Exempt List, # 2 Exhibit B - Sheriff's Senior Manager List, # 3 Exhibit C - Sheriff's Senior Assistant List, # 4 Exhibit D - Proposed Order)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 11/29/2010)

11/29/2010

1976 NOTICE of Motion by Virginia Brette Bensinger for presentment of motion for order, 1975 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/2/2010 at 02:00 PM. (Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 11/29/2010)

11/30/2010

1977

MOTION by Defendant Cook County Sheriff for order AGREED MOTION FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND DISMISSAL (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - AGREED ORDER ON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, # 2 Exhibit B Certifications)(Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

11/30/2010

1978

NOTICE OF AGREED MOTION FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE FOR THE SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY NOTICE of Motion by Virginia Brette Bensinger for presentment of motion for order 1977 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/2/2010 at 02:00 PM. (Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

11/30/2010

1979

NOTICE of Correction regarding notice of motion 1974 . The incorrect document (PDF file) was linked to the entry. The text of the entry has been edited and the PDF file has been replaced. The document must be refiled. (smm) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

11/30/2010

1980

Amended Notice of Motion to Approve Sheriff's Revised Employment Plan NOTICE of Motion by Virginia Brette Bensinger for presentment of motion for order, 1973 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/2/2010 at 02:00 PM. (Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

12/02/2010

1981

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. ENTER ORDERS (attached): Motion for Court Approval of Sheriff's Revised Employment Plan and Sheriff's Employment Action Manual ("SEAM") 1973 ; Agreed Motion to Amend the Sheriff's Exempt List and Approve the Sheriff's Senior Manager and Senior

Assistant Lists 1975 ; Agreed Motion for Substantial Compliance and Dismissal of the Sheriff of Cook County 1977 as amended and stated on the record in open Court. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/02/2010)

12/02/2010 1982 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/2/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/02/2010)

12/02/2010

1983 AGREED ORDER to Amend the Sheriff's Exempt List Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/2/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/02/2010)

12/02/2010

1984

AGREED ORDER of Substantial Compliance by the Sheriff of Cook County and Dismissal of the Sheriff Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/2/2010. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/02/2010)

12/02/2010

1985

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached) to Amend Various Exhibits from the November 9, 2010 Agreed Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/02/2010)

12/02/2010

1986

AGREED ORDER to Amend Various Exhibits from the November 9, 2010 Agreed Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/2/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Group One) Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/02/2010)

12/08/2010 1987 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoices 1059 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 12/08/2010)

12/14/2010 1988 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for Invoice FP 043 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

12/14/2010 1989 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for County Invoice 042 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

12/15/2010 1990 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition For Invoice FP 041 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/15/2010)

12/15/2010 1991 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for Invoice FP 042 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/15/2010)

12/15/2010

1992 Fourth Report of The Compliance Administrator for The Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Jan Carlson (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 12/15/2010)

12/17/2010 1993 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of invoice no. 1059. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/17/2010 1994 ORDER regarding petition 1987 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/17/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/17/2010 1995 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #043. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/17/2010 1996 ORDER regarding petition 1988 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/17/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/17/2010 1997 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #041. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/17/2010 1998 ORDER regarding petition 1990 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/17/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/17/2010 1999 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #042. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/17/2010 2000 ORDER regarding petition 1991 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/17/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/17/2010 2001 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #042. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/17/2010 2002 ORDER regarding petition 1989 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/17/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/20/2010

2003

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #7)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

12/20/2010

2004

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #5)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

12/20/2010 2005 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator,

Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #7. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

12/20/2010 2006 ORDER regarding petition 2003 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/20/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

12/20/2010

2007

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #5. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

12/20/2010 2008 ORDER regarding petition 2004 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/20/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/20/2010)

12/23/2010 2009 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1060 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 12/23/2010)

12/23/2010 2010 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of invoice no. 1060. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/23/2010)

12/23/2010 2011 ORDER regarding petition 2009 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/23/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/23/2010)

12/29/2010 2012 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the County Unopposed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

12/29/2010

2013

Unopposed - NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2012 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/4/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

12/29/2010 2014 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time for Claims Deadline - Recorder (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

12/29/2010 2015 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of extension of time 2014 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/4/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

12/29/2010

2016

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs 2012 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

12/29/2010

2017 ORDER regarding unopposed motion for attorney fees 2012 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/29/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

12/30/2010

2018

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #8)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010 2019 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition For County Invoice 043 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010 2020 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for County Invoice 044 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010

2021

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #8. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010 2022 ORDER regarding petition 2018 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010 2023 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #043. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010 2024 ORDER regarding petition 2019 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010 2025 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #044. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010 2026 ORDER regarding petition 2020 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010

2027

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 2014 to extend claims deadline is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

12/30/2010

2028 ORDER EXTENDING CLAIMS Deadline and Opt-Out Date Until April 8, 2011 2014 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

01/05/2011 2029 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Sheriff - Unopposed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

01/05/2011 2030 Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2029 before Honorable

Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/11/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

01/06/2011

2031

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs 2029 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

01/06/2011

2032 ORDER regarding unopposed motion for attorney fees with Respect to the Sheriff 2029 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/6/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

01/07/2011 2033 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for Invoice FP044-2 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

01/07/2011 2034 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for Invoice FP045-1 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

01/07/2011 2035 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#044. Mailed notice (jj, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

01/07/2011 2036 ORDER regarding petition 2033 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/7/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

01/07/2011 2037 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#045. Mailed notice (jj, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

01/07/2011 2038 ORDER regarding petition 2034 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/7/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

01/07/2011 2039 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Sixty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

01/07/2011 2040 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Sixty-Fifth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

01/07/2011 2041 ORDER regarding petition 2039 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/7/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

01/12/2011 2042 FPD Fifth Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel FPD Fifth Quarterly Report (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

01/12/2011

2043 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administartor, Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1061 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

01/13/2011 2044 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of invoice no. 1061. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011 2045 ORDER regarding petition 2043 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/13/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/14/2011 2046 Quarterly Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Accord Complaints (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 01/14/2011)

01/18/2011

2047

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #9)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011

2048

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #9. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011 2049 ORDER regarding petition 2047 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/18/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/21/2011

2050

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with respect to the City of Chicago (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-1, # 3 Exhibit A-2, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit B-1, # 6 Exhibit B-2)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011 2051 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2050 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/26/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011 2053 MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown requesting ministerial orders (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/21/2011 2054 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion requesting ministerial orders 2053 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/26/2010 at 08:30 a.m. (hp, ) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/24/2011 2052 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1062 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 01/24/2011)

01/25/2011

2055 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of invoice no. 1062. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/25/2011 2056 ORDER regarding petition 2052 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/26/2011

2057

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Response to plaintiff's motion for attorney fees with respect to the City of Chicago 2050 is due by 3/11/11 and plaintiff's reply is due by 3/25/11. As stated in open Court, the rulings on the motions (docs. # 2050 and # 2053 ) will be held at a later date. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/27/2011)

01/28/2011

2058

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S, PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #10 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 01/28/2011)

01/28/2011

2059

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #10. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/28/2011)

01/28/2011 2060 ORDER regarding petition 2058 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/28/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/28/2011)

01/31/2011 2061 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Sixty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011

2062

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court hereby amends the order of 12/02/10 (doc. # 1984 ) to amend the 01/31/11 date for dismissal with prejudice to a date 14 days after plaintiffs' counsel receives the reports of the remaining Pending Investigations referred to in paragraph 7 of the order. In all other respects, the order remains unchanged. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011

2063 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Sixty-Sixth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011 2064 ORDER regarding petition 2061 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/31/2011.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011 2065 NOTICE by Lisa Marie Meador of Change of Address -email address (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

02/01/2011 2066 NOTICE by Lisa Marie Meador of Change of Address -email address amended (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 02/01/2011)

02/04/2011

2067

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 12/02/2010 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Gayle A. McGuigan, CSR, RMR, CRR, (312)435-6047 Gayle_McGuigan@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 2/25/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/7/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/5/2011. (McGuigan, Gale) (Entered: 02/04/2011)

02/08/2011

2068

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #11)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

02/08/2011

2069

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #11. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

02/08/2011 2070 ORDER regarding petition 2068 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/8/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

02/09/2011 2071 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for Invoice 045 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/09/2011 2072 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition For Invoice 046 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/09/2011

2073 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #045. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/09/2011 2074 ORDER regarding petition 2071 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/9/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/09/2011

2075 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #046. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/09/2011 2076 ORDER regarding petition 2072 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/9/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/15/2011

2077 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1063 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/15/2011 2078 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1063. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/15/2011 2079 ORDER regarding petition 2077 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/15/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/17/2011 2080 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition For Invoice FP047 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

02/17/2011

2081 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#047. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

02/17/2011 2082 ORDER regarding petition 2080 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/17/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

02/22/2011 2083 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition FP 046 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/23/2011

2084

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #12)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/23/2011 2085 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 047 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/23/2011 2086 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1064 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/23/2011

2087 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#046. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/23/2011 2088 ORDER regarding petition 2083 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/23/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/23/2011 2089 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator,

Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #12. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/23/2011 2090 ORDER regarding petition 2084 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/23/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/23/2011 2091 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #047. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/23/2011 2092 ORDER regarding petition 2085 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/23/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/24/2011 2093 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition 048 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

02/24/2011 2094 DOCUMENT Entered in error. (Burke, Helen) Modified on 2/24/2011 (smm). (Entered: 02/24/2011)

02/24/2011 2095 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #048. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

02/24/2011 2096 ORDER regarding petition 2093 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

02/24/2011

2097

NOTICE of Correction regarding petition 2094 . The incorrect document (PDF file) was linked to the entry. The text of the entry has been edited and the PDF file has been replaced. The document must be refiled. (smm) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

02/24/2011

2098 PETITION petition 2094 Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Amended Sixty-Seventh Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

02/24/2011

2099

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Amended Sixty-Seventh petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

02/24/2011 2100 ORDER regarding petition 2098 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

02/24/2011 2101 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1064. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2011)

02/24/2011 2102 ORDER regarding petition 2086 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2011)

03/07/2011 2103 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Noelle C Brennan by Tiffany L. Amlot (Amlot, Tiffany) (Entered: 03/07/2011)

03/07/2011 2104 MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/07/2011)

03/07/2011

2105 NOTICE of Motion by Noelle Christine Brennan for presentment of motion for order 2104 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/11/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/07/2011)

03/08/2011

2106

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #13)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 03/08/2011)

03/08/2011 2107 NOTICE of appeal by Victor M. Crown Filing fee $ 455.00. Receipt #4624056347. (dj, ) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/09/2011 2108 NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record (dj, ) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/09/2011 2109 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 2107 . Notified counsel (dj, ) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/09/2011

2110

MOTION by Defendant Cook County for order to amend Exempt List and update list of Exempt Positions In Dispute (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Agreed Exempt List, # 2 Supplement Attachment A to Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B - Disputed Exempt Positions, # 4 Supplement Attachment A to Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit Agreed Order)(Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/09/2011

2111

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #13. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/09/2011 2112 ORDER regarding petition 2106 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/9/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/10/2011 2113 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for Invoice FPD #049 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/10/2011 2114 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for County Invoice #049 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/10/2011 2115 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#049. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/10/2011 2116 ORDER regarding petition 2113 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/10/2011 2117 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #049. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/10/2011 2118 ORDER regarding petition 2114 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/10/2011

2119

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend various sections of the Cook County exempt list and the list of proposed exempt positions remaining in dispute 2110 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/10/2011

2120

AGREED ORDER Amending Various Sections of the Cook county Exempt List and the List of Proposed Exempt Positions Remaining Dispute Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2011. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/10/2011 2121 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Amended Sixty-Eighth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/11/2011

2122 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Sixty-Eighth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/11/2011)

03/11/2011 2123 ORDER regarding petition 2121 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/11/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/11/2011)

03/11/2011

2124

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court sets the following briefing schedule on the motion by Noelle C Brennan for order 2104 ; Response is due by 3/25/11, and reply is due by 4/1/11. The Court will rule by mail on the motion. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/11/2011)

03/14/2011

2125 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice #1065 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 03/14/2011)

03/14/2011 2126 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1065. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2011)

03/14/2011 2127 ORDER regarding petition 2125 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/14/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2011)

03/18/2011 2128 DOCUMENT Entered in error. (Vogel, Mark) Modified on 3/18/2011 (smm). (Entered: 03/18/2011)

03/18/2011 2129 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for Invoice FP 048 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/18/2011)

03/18/2011

2130

NOTICE of Correction regarding petition 2128 . The incorrect document (PDF file) was linked to the entry. The text of the entry has been edited and the PDF file has been replaced. The document must be refiled. (smm) (Entered: 03/18/2011)

03/18/2011 2131 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP 048. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/18/2011)

03/18/2011 2132 ORDER regarding petition 2129 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/18/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/18/2011)

03/18/2011

2133

MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown to correct the record under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 10(E)(Exhibits). (smm) (Document Removed per Court Order dated 3/22/11.) Modified on 3/22/2011 (smm). (Entered: 03/21/2011)

03/18/2011

2134 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion to correct 2133 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/23/2011 at 8:30 A.M. (smm) (Entered: 03/21/2011)

03/21/2011 2136 DESCRIPTIVE LIST by Victor M. Crown of record on appeal : USCA Case No. 11-1546. (smm) (Entered: 03/23/2011)

03/22/2011

2135

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Victor M. Crown, a restricted filer, has filed a pleading labeled as a "Motion to correct the record under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 10{E}" (doc. #2133). The motion was filed without leave of the Executive Committee, as required by an order of the Executive Committee dated 5/3/07 and more recently reaffirmed on 2/7/11. The motion 2133 is stricken, and the Clerk of Court is directed to remove it from the docket. As we explain further below, even if Mr. Crown had leave to file the motion, it would be denied for lack of merit. (For further details see minute order.).Mailed notice (smm, ) (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/24/2011

2137

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER (attached). The Court awards plaintiffs' counsel $442,727.93 in attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to plaintiffs' fee petition 2050 . The briefing schedule that was set on the fee petition is stricken. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/24/2011)

03/24/2011 2138 ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City of Chicago Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/24/2011)

03/25/2011

2139

MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The for leave to file excess pages (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit City Objections, # 2 Exhibit A: Ordinance, # 3 Exhibit B: Journal of Proceedings, # 4 Exhibit C: Proposed Order)(Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/25/2011

2140

NOTICE of Motion by Joseph Michael Gagliardo for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages 2139 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/31/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/28/2011

2141

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #14)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

03/28/2011

2142

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: City of Chicago's motion for leave to file brief in excess of fifteen pages 2139 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The City of Chicago shall file the brief as a separately-docketed pleading. The Monitor and Class Plaintiffs shall have until 04/08/11 to respond to the motion. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

03/28/2011

2143

OBJECTIONS by City of Chicago, The to MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for order 2104 (Monitor's Proposed order to Expand Duties) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Ordinance, # 2 Exhibit B: Journal of proceedings, # 3 Exhibit C: proposed order w/edits)(Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

03/28/2011

2144

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #14. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

03/28/2011 2145 ORDER regarding petition 2141 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/28/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/28/2011)

03/30/2011 2146 TRANSMITTED to the USCA for the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal 2107 (USCA no. 11-1546)(dj, ) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

03/30/2011 2147 PETITION Forest Preserve Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1066 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

03/30/2011 2148 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice # 050 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

03/30/2011

2149 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1066. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

03/30/2011 2150 ORDER regarding petition 2147 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/30/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

03/30/2011

2151 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #050. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

03/30/2011 2152 ORDER regarding petition 2148 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/30/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

03/30/2011 2153 USCA RECEIVED on 3/30/11 the long record regarding notice of appeal 2107 (dj, ) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

04/04/2011 2154 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition For Invoice FPD 050 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/04/2011)

04/04/2011 2155 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#050. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2011)

04/04/2011 2156 ORDER regarding petition 2154 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/4/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2011)

04/06/2011 2157 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Adminstrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payments on Invoice 1067 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/07/2011

2158 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1067. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/07/2011)

04/07/2011 2159 ORDER regarding petition 2157 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/7/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/07/2011)

04/08/2011 2160 RESPONSE by Michael L Shakmanin Support of MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for order 2104 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/08/2011)

04/08/2011

2161

REPLY by Noelle C Brennan to objections, 2143 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1), # 2 Exhibit A (Part 2), # 3 Exhibit A (Part 3), # 4 Exhibit A (Part 4), # 5 Exhibit A (Part 5), # 6 Exhibit A (Part 6), # 7 Exhibit B, # 8 Exhibit C)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/08/2011)

04/11/2011

2162 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Forest Preserve District (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/11/2011 2163 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2162 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/14/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/11/2011

2164

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs 2162 is granted; no appearance is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $8,994.76 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/11/2011

2165

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/11/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/11/2011

2166

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #15)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/11/2011

2167

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #15. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/11/2011 2168 ORDER regarding petition 2166 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/11/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/13/2011 2169 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for Invoice # FPD 051 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/13/2011)

04/13/2011 2170 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#051. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/13/2011)

04/13/2011 2171 ORDER regarding petition 2169 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/13/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/13/2011)

04/14/2011 2172 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs Cook County Independent Inspector General (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

04/14/2011 2173 Report to the Court by Patrick Malone Blanchard Independent Inspector General (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

04/14/2011 2174 STATUS Report FPD Sixth Quarterly Report Post-SRO Complaint Administrator by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

04/14/2011 2175 MOTION by Respondent Chgo, Cty of for leave to file Reply To Address New Issues Raised By Monitor and Plaintiff (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

04/14/2011

2176 NOTICE of Motion by Joseph Michael Gagliardo for presentment of motion for leave to file 2175 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/20/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

04/14/2011 2177 Quarterly Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Accord Complaints (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

04/15/2011

2178

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: On 3/07/11, the Monitor filed a motion for entry of an order 2104 . On 3/28/11, the City filed its response 2143 , which included a revised version of the order proposed by the Monitor. On 4/08/11, the Monitor 2161 and the plaintiffs 2160 filed replies in support of the Monitor's motion for entry of an order. The plaintiffs' reply contained yet a third version of the proposed order, which the Monitor has endorsed in lieu of the one she originally proposed. Now before the Court is a motion filed by the City on 4/14/11, which seeks leave to file a reply to address what the City labels as new issues raised by Monitor and Plaintiff 2175 . In that motion, the City asks for leave to file that reply by 5/13/11. The Court is not persuaded that -- apart from the new form of order proposed -the submissions of the Monitor or the plaintiffs raise new issues that were not addressed in the City's submission. Moreover, the Court finds no good reason why it would take the City five weeks from the date the Monitor and the plaintiffs filed their papers to prepare and file a reply. In light of these considerations, the Court will grant the City's motion to file a short reply; no appearance on the motion for leave to file is required. The City's reply shall not exceed seven pages (double spaced) and shall be filed by 4/22/11. No extensions will be granted. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

04/15/2011 2179 Second Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Cardelle Spangler (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

04/18/2011 2180 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Recrorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

04/18/2011

2181

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2180 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/21/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

04/18/2011 2182 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees Corrected Fee Petition with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

04/18/2011

2183

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' (corrected) unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the cook county recorder of deeds 2182 is granted; no appearance is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $12,691.30 in fees and costs for the period through December 31, 2010. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

04/18/2011

2184

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds through December 31, 2010 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/18/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

04/20/2011 2185 PROTECTIVE Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/20/2011: Mailed notice.(is, ) (Entered: 04/20/2011)

04/20/2011 2186 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1068 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 04/20/2011)

04/22/2011

2187

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #16)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 04/22/2011)

04/22/2011

2188

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In accordance with the Court's orders of December 2, 2010 (doc.# 1984) and January 31, 2011 (doc.# 2062), judgment is hereby entered dismissing the Sheriff of Cook County with prejudice. On or before June 1, 2011, plaintiffs shall submit a petition for fees and costs to the Court for

services rendered through April 22, 2011. Cook County Sheriff terminated. Mailed notice (vkd, ) (Entered: 04/22/2011)

04/22/2011

2189

REPLY by Respondent Chgo, Cty of to reply to response to motion, 2161 , response in support of motion 2160 PLaintiff and Monitor's Submissions to Enter Proposed Order (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 04/22/2011)

04/25/2011

2190 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1068. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/25/2011)

04/25/2011 2191 ORDER regarding petition 2186 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/25/2011)

04/25/2011

2192

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #16. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/25/2011)

04/25/2011 2193 ORDER regarding petition 2187 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/25/2011)

04/26/2011 2194 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Sixty-Ninth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 04/26/2011)

04/27/2011 2195 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Sixty-Ninth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/27/2011)

04/27/2011 2196 ORDER regarding petition 2194 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/27/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/27/2011)

04/27/2011 2197 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition for County Invoice # 051 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/27/2011)

04/27/2011 2198 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #051. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/27/2011)

04/27/2011 2199 ORDER regarding petition 2197 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/27/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/27/2011)

04/27/2011

2200

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Pursuant to the Supplemental Relief Order entered on 10/30/08, Clifford L. Meacham has served as Compliance Administrator for the Sheriff of Cook County. By an agreed order dated 4/22/11, the Court has dismissed the Sheriff of Cook County from the case with prejudice. As a result, the

Court hereby releases Clifford L. Meachem from any further obligations as Compliance Administrator. His service was instrumental in assisting the parties in bring this portion of the Shakman litigation to completion. We take this opportunity to recognize and thank Judge Meachem for his tireless service to the Court, to the parties and to the public. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/27/2011)

04/27/2011

2201 LETTER from the Seventh Circuit returning the record on appeal in USCA no. 11-1546 consisting of 1-doc. #908 of sealed envelopes. (ma, ) (Entered: 04/28/2011)

04/29/2011

2202

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. The Monitor's motion to enter proposed order 2104 is granted. Enter order (Attached) with the modifications as stated on the record. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2011)

04/29/2011 2203 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2011)

05/04/2011

2204 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/04/2011)

05/04/2011

2205

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2204 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/11/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/04/2011)

05/04/2011

2206

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 2204 is granted; no appearance is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $143,851.98 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

05/04/2011

2207 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/4/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

05/06/2011 2208 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with respect to the Sheriff (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/06/2011)

05/06/2011

2209

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2208 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/11/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/06/2011)

05/06/2011

2210

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the sheriff 2208 is granted; no appearance is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $46,114.28 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/06/2011)

05/06/2011 2211 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/6/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/06/2011)

05/11/2011

2212

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #17)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 05/11/2011)

05/11/2011

2213

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #17. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2011)

05/11/2011 2214 ORDER regarding petition 2212 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/11/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2011)

05/11/2011 2215 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Adminstrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition for Payment on Invoice 1069 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 05/11/2011)

05/12/2011 2216 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1069. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/12/2011)

05/12/2011 2217 ORDER regarding petition 2215 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/12/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/12/2011)

05/17/2011 2218 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Inspector General, City of Chicago by Lucy D. Schwallie (Schwallie, Lucy) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

05/19/2011 2219 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP053 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/19/2011)

05/23/2011 2220 MOTION by counsel for Unknown Inspector General, City of Chicago to withdraw as attorney (Choi, Soo) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/24/2011

2221 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#053. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/24/2011 2222 ORDER regarding petition 2219 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/24/2011 2223 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP052 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/24/2011 2224 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP 054 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/24/2011

2225

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #18)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/24/2011 2226 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition for Payment on Invoice 1070 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/24/2011 2227 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#052. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/24/2011 2228 ORDER regarding petition 2223 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/24/2011 2229 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#054. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/24/2011 2230 ORDER regarding petition 2224 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/24/2011

2231

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #18. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/25/2011)

05/24/2011 2232 ORDER regarding petition 2225 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/25/2011)

05/24/2011 2233 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1070. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/25/2011)

05/24/2011 2234 ORDER regarding petition 2226 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/25/2011)

05/25/2011 2235 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 053 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/25/2011)

05/25/2011

2236 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #053. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/26/2011)

05/25/2011 2237 ORDER regarding petition 2235 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/26/2011)

05/26/2011

2238

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE'S COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S AGREED ORDER FOR FINAL INVOICE)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 05/26/2011)

05/26/2011

2239

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order as to Cook County Sheriff's Office's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's Final Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/26/2011)

05/26/2011 2240 ORDER regarding petition 2238 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/26/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/26/2011)

05/31/2011

2241

MOTION by Defendant Chicago Park District to amend/correct Agreed Motion to Amend the Chicago Park District's Schedule of Exempt Positions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pokorny, William) (Entered: 05/31/2011)

05/31/2011

2242 NOTICE of Motion by William R Pokorny for presentment of motion to amend/correct 2241 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/2/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Pokorny, William) (Entered: 05/31/2011)

05/31/2011

2243

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE'S COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S AGREED ORDER FOR FINAL INVOICE)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 05/31/2011)

05/31/2011

2246

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Order entered on 5/26/11, which has an error in the case caption, is hereby stricken and replaced by the attached order. Enter Order as to Cook County Sheriff's Office's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's Final Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

05/31/2011 2247 ORDER regarding petition 2243 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/31/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

05/31/2011

2252

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Defendant's agreed motion to amend the Chicago Park District's Schedule of exempt positions 2241 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Chicago Park District's list of exempt positions, initially approved in the Court's 10/26/84 judgment, and last modified by the Court's order of 12/4/08 are hereby modified as follows: 1. ShakmanExempt positions: A. From: Executive Assistant to the President To: Exectutive to the Board B. From: Special Assistant to the President To: Special Assisant to the Board. A complete list of Chicago Park District Shakman-Exempt Positions is attached to this order. Enter list (attached). (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 06/02/2011)

05/31/2011 2253 EXHIBIT A 2252 . (smm) (Entered: 06/02/2011)

06/01/2011 2244 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 052 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/01/2011 2245 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 054 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/01/2011 2248 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #052. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/01/2011 2249 ORDER regarding petition 2244 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/1/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/01/2011 2250 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #054. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/01/2011 2251 ORDER regarding petition 2245 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/1/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/06/2011 2254 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Adminstrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1071 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 06/06/2011)

06/07/2011 2255 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 055 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/07/2011)

06/07/2011 2256 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct Exempt List by Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Attachment A

to Exhibit A, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 06/07/2011)

06/07/2011

2257

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's Petition for payment of Invoice No. 1071 2254 is unopposed, and is granted. Enter Order. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

06/07/2011 2258 ORDER 2257 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/7/2011.Mailed notice(smm) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

06/07/2011

2259

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Complaint Administrator's Petition for payment of invoice #055 2255 is granted. Enter Order. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

06/07/2011 2260 ORDER 2259 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/7/2011.Mailed notice(smm) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

06/13/2011

2261

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S, PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #19 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 06/13/2011)

06/13/2011

2262

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #19. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2011)

06/13/2011 2263 ORDER regarding petition 2261 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/13/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2011)

06/16/2011 2264 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP055 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/16/2011)

06/17/2011 2265 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#055. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/17/2011)

06/17/2011 2266 ORDER regarding petition 2264 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/17/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/17/2011)

06/21/2011

2267

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Defendant's agreed motion to amend/correct to amend various sections of the Cook County exempt list 2256 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/21/2011)

06/21/2011 2268 AGREED ORDER Amending Various Sections of the Cook County Exempt List Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/21/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/21/2011)

06/22/2011

2269

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #20)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 06/22/2011)

06/22/2011

2270 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition for Payment on Invoice #1072 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 06/22/2011)

06/23/2011

2271

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #20. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/23/2011)

06/23/2011 2272 ORDER regarding petition 2269 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/23/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/23/2011)

06/23/2011

2273 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1072. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/23/2011)

06/23/2011 2274 ORDER regarding petition 2270 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/23/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/23/2011)

06/23/2011 2275 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Seventieth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 06/23/2011)

06/23/2011

2276 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Seventieth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/23/2011)

06/23/2011 2277 ORDER regarding petition 2275 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/23/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/23/2011)

06/24/2011 2278 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Chicago, The by Stephen Ray Patton (Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011

2279

MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The for order The City of Chicago's Agreed Motion for Entry of an Order Approving and Substituting a New City of Chicago Hiring Plan for the 2007 City of Chicago Hiring Plan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/24/2011

2280

Defendant City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Ray Patton for presentment of motion for order, 2279 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/30/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 06/24/2011)

06/27/2011 2281 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/27/2011

2282

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2281 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/30/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/27/2011)

06/28/2011 2283 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Seventy-First Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 06/28/2011)

06/29/2011

2284

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The City of Chicago's agreed motion for entry of an order approving and substituting a new City of Chicago Hiring Plan for the 2007 City of Chicago Hiring Plan 2279 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Court hereby approves the new plan, which we refer to as the 2011 City of Chicago Hiring Plan. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011 2285 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition County Invoice #056 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011

2286

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 2281 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011 2287 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition County Invoice # 057 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011 2288 ORDER regarding unopposed motion for attorney fees 2281 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/29/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011

2289 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Seventy-First petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011 2290 ORDER regarding petition 2283 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/29/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011 2291 NOTICE by Stephen Ray Patton of Change of Address (Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011

2292 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #056. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011 2293 ORDER regarding petition 2285 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/29/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011

2294 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #057. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011 2295 ORDER regarding petition 2287 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/29/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

06/29/2011 2296 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Chgo, Cty of by Leslie Michelle Darling. (smm) (Entered: 07/01/2011)

07/05/2011 2297 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice 1073 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 07/05/2011)

07/05/2011

2298 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1073. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/05/2011)

07/05/2011 2299 ORDER regarding petition 2297 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/5/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/05/2011)

07/06/2011

2300

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #21)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 07/06/2011)

07/06/2011

2301

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #21. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/07/2011)

07/06/2011 2302 ORDER regarding petition 2300 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/6/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/07/2011)

07/07/2011 2303 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice # FP 056 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/07/2011)

07/07/2011 2304 AGREED ORDER by Cardelle Spangler AGREED ORDER TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO CERTAIN FORMER EMPLOYEES (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 07/07/2011)

07/07/2011 2305 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#056. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/07/2011)

07/07/2011 2306 ORDER regarding petition 2303 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/7/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/07/2011)

07/07/2011 2307 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:ENTER Agreed Order to Provide Notice to Certain Former Employees. (For further details see order attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/07/2011)

07/07/2011

2308 AGREED ORDER to Provide Notice to Certain Former Employees Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/7/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/07/2011)

07/11/2011 2309 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition For County Invoice # 058 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/11/2011)

07/11/2011

2310 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #058. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/11/2011)

07/11/2011 2311 ORDER regarding petition 2309 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/11/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/11/2011)

07/12/2011 2312 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's SeventySecond Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 07/12/2011)

07/12/2011

2313

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, SeventySecond petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/12/2011)

07/12/2011 2314 ORDER regarding petition 2312 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/12/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/12/2011)

07/14/2011 2315 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 07/14/2011)

07/14/2011 2316 Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 07/14/2011)

07/14/2011 2317 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L ShakmanEnter Agreed Order Submitting Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed

Order, # 2 Exhibit Employment Plan pt. I, # 3 Exhibit Employment Plan pt. 2)(Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 07/14/2011)

07/14/2011

2318

NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Heid Harris for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 2317 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/19/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 07/14/2011)

07/14/2011

2319 Forest Preserve District Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Seventh Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/14/2011)

07/15/2011 2320 Quarterly Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Accord Complaints (Schwallie, Lucy) (Entered: 07/15/2011)

07/18/2011

2321

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion to approve employment plan 2317 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER TO APPROVE EMPLOYMENT PLAN (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2011)

07/18/2011 2322 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition FPD Invoice 057 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/18/2011)

07/18/2011

2323

AGREED ORDER To Approve Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part2A, # 2 Exhibit Part2B), # 3 Exhibit Part2C, # 4 Exhibit Part2D, # 5 Exhibit Part3). Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/18/2011. Mailed notice. (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/6/2017: # 6 Agreed Order) # 8 Exhibit Part2C) # 9 Exhibit Part2D) # 10 Exhibit Part3) (11) Exhibit Part2A) # 12 Exhibit). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerks Office public access terminals.) Modified on 11/6/2017 (eaa, ). Modified on 11/6/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 07/18/2011)

07/18/2011 2324 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#057. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2011)

07/18/2011 2325 ORDER regarding petition 2322 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/18/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2011)

07/18/2011 2326 MOTION by counsel for Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to withdraw as attorney (Perlstadt, Roger) (Entered: 07/18/2011)

07/18/2011 2327 NOTICE of Motion by Roger J Perlstadt for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 2326 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/26/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Perlstadt, Roger) (Entered: 07/18/2011)

07/19/2011

2328

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Motion by plaintiff to withdraw appearance of Roger J. Perlstadt [doc.# 2326] is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Attorney Roger J Perlstadt terminated. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the appearance of Mr. Perlstadt as counsel for the plaintiffs.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 07/19/2011)

07/20/2011 2329 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Resect to the County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/20/2011)

07/20/2011

2330

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2329 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/26/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/20/2011)

07/20/2011

2331

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #22)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 07/20/2011)

07/21/2011 2332 PETITION FOREST PRESERVE Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice #1074 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 07/21/2011)

07/21/2011 2333 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition FPD Invoice # 058 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/21/2011)

07/25/2011

2334

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #22. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011 2335 ORDER regarding petition 2331 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011 2336 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1074. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011 2337 ORDER regarding petition 2332 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011 2338 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#058. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011 2339 ORDER regarding petition 2333 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011

2340

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 2329 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $98,688.85 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011

2341 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011 2342 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to bar frivilous filings (Meador, Lisa) (Document Entered in Error). Modified on 7/26/2011 (smm). (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011

2343

MOTION by Court Monitor Cardelle Spangler for extension of time to file (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing NOTICE OF AGREED MOTION, # 2 Text of Proposed Order ORDER EXTENDING AUGUST 15, 2011 RCA REPORT DEADLINE UNTIL AUGUST 26, 2011)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011

2344

NOTICE of Motion by Lisa Marie Meador for presentment of motion to bar 2342 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/28/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Meador, Lisa) (Document Entered in Error). Modified on 7/26/2011 (smm). (Entered: 07/25/2011)

07/25/2011

2345

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to extend August 15, 2011 RCA report deadline 2343 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The deadline for the report is extended from 8/15/11 to 8/26/11. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/26/2011)

07/25/2011 2346 ORDER Extending August 15, 2011 RCA Report Deadline Until August 26, 2011 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/26/2011)

07/26/2011 2347 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to bar frivolous filings (Amended) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 07/26/2011)

07/26/2011 2348 Re- NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Edward Nowinski for presentment of motion to bar 2347 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/28/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 07/26/2011)

07/26/2011

2349

NOTICE of Correction regarding notice of motion 2344 , MOTION by Defendant Cook County to bar frivilous filings 2342 . The incorrect document (PDF file) was linked to the entry. The text of the entry has been edited. The document must be re-filed. (smm) (Entered: 07/26/2011)

07/27/2011 2351 REPLY to motion to prevent frivolous filings-request for removal of Federal filing bar 2347 (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

07/28/2011

2350

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, in open Court, defendant's agreed amended motion to prevent frivolous filings under the PostSRO Complaint and Arbitration process 2347 is granted. The parties are to submit their proposed order consistent with the Court's statements on the record. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/28/2011)

07/28/2011 2352 LETTER from James T. Struck dated 7/27/11 (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

08/01/2011 2353 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Forest Preserve District (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

08/01/2011

2354

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2353 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/9/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

08/01/2011 2355 STATUS Report Quarterly Report of the Federal Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

08/01/2011

2356

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: For the reason stated in open Court during a hearing held on 7/28/11, the amended agreed motion to prevent frivolous filings under the post-SRO complaint and arbitration process 2347 was granted. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/02/2011)

08/01/2011 2357 AGREED ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/1/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/02/2011)

08/02/2011 2358 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with

respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County 2353 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/02/2011)

08/02/2011

2359

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/2/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/02/2011)

08/05/2011

2360

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #23)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

08/05/2011 2361 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition County Invoice # 059 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

08/05/2011

2362

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #23. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

08/05/2011 2363 ORDER regarding petition 2360 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/5/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

08/05/2011 2364 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #059. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

08/05/2011 2365 ORDER regarding petition 2361 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/5/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

08/10/2011 2366 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition for Payment on Invoice #1075 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/10/2011

2367 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1075. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/10/2011 2368 ORDER regarding petition 2366 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/10/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/11/2011 2369 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 060 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/11/2011)

08/16/2011 2370 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #060. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/16/2011)

08/16/2011 2371 ORDER regarding petition 2369 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/16/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/16/2011)

08/16/2011 2372 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/16/2011)

08/16/2011

2373

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2372 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/23/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/16/2011)

08/17/2011

2374

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the City of Chicago 2372 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/17/2011)

08/17/2011

2375 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/17/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/17/2011)

08/18/2011

2376

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #24)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/18/2011)

08/18/2011

2377

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #25)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/18/2011)

08/22/2011

2378

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #24. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2011)

08/22/2011 2379 ORDER regarding petition 2376 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/22/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2011)

08/22/2011

2380

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #25. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2011)

08/22/2011 2381 ORDER regarding petition 2377 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/22/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2011)

08/23/2011 2382 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice FP 059 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/23/2011)

08/24/2011 2383 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition FPD Invoice # 060 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/24/2011)

08/24/2011

2384 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#059. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/24/2011)

08/24/2011 2385 ORDER regarding petition 2382 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/24/2011)

08/24/2011

2386 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#060. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/24/2011)

08/24/2011 2387 ORDER regarding petition 2383 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/24/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/24/2011)

08/25/2011

2388 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition For Payment on Invoice #1076 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/25/2011)

08/25/2011 2389 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1076. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/25/2011 2390 ORDER regarding petition 2388 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011 2391 RCA'S THIRD REPORT by Cardelle Spangler (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

09/01/2011 2392 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition County Invoice #061 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/01/2011)

09/01/2011

2393 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #061. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/01/2011)

09/01/2011 2394 ORDER regarding petition 2392 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/1/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/01/2011)

09/08/2011

2395

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #26 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/08/2011)

09/08/2011

2396

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #26. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2011)

09/08/2011 2397 ORDER regarding petition 2395 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/8/2011.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2011)

09/09/2011 2398 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's SeventyThird Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/09/2011)

09/09/2011

2399 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Seventy-Third petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/09/2011)

09/09/2011 2400 ORDER regarding petition 2398 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/9/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/09/2011)

09/13/2011

2401 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson, Fee Petition for payments on invoice 1077 (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/13/2011)

09/13/2011 2402 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1077. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/13/2011)

09/13/2011 2403 ORDER regarding petition 2401 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/13/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/13/2011)

09/14/2011 2404 NOTICE of Motion by Helen Burke for presentment of before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/14/2011)

09/14/2011 2405 MOTION by counsel for Unknown Jan Carlson to withdraw as attorney (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/14/2011)

09/14/2011 2406 NOTICE of Motion by Helen Burke for presentment of before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/14/2011)

09/14/2011 2407 MOTION by Unknown Jan Carlson to substitute attorney (Attachments: # 1 Appearance)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/14/2011)

09/16/2011 2408 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Forest Preserve District (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/16/2011)

09/16/2011

2409

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2408 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/21/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/16/2011)

09/16/2011

2410 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/16/2011)

09/16/2011

2411

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2410 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/21/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/16/2011)

09/16/2011 2412 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respct to the Forest Preserve District Unopposed Amended (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/16/2011)

09/16/2011

2413

Amended Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2412 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/21/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/16/2011)

09/19/2011

2414

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 2410 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $19,147.50 in fees and costs for the period through July 31, 2011. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

09/19/2011

2415

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds through July 31, 2011 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/19/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

09/19/2011

2416

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In light of plaintiff's filing an amended motion, plaintiff's unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 2408 is withdrawn as moot. Plaintiff's unopposed amended motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County 2412 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

09/19/2011

2417

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/19/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

09/19/2011

2418

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Agreed motion for leave to withdraw as counsel 2405 is granted. no appearance on the motion is required. Helen M. Burke is given leave to withdraw her appearance as counsel for the District Compliance Administrator. Compliance Administrator for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County's agreed motion for substitution of counsel and for leave to file substitute appearance instanter 2407 is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the appearance of Peter Monahan as counsel for the Compliance Administrator for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County instanter. Enter Order Attached. Attorney Peter A. Monahan for Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois added. Attorney Helen Burke terminated. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

09/19/2011 2419 ORDER 2418 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/19/2011.Mailed notice(smm) (Entered: 09/19/2011)

09/20/2011 2420 MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order (Robinson, Keino) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

09/20/2011

2421

MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Employment Plan, # 2 Notice of Filing)(Robinson, Keino) (Document Entered in error). Modified on 9/21/2011 (smm). (Entered: 09/20/2011)

09/21/2011 2422 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois (Robinson, Keino) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office). Modified on 9/22/2011 (smm). (Entered: 09/21/2011)

09/21/2011

2423

PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition for Payments on Invoices 1078 (Burke, Helen) (Document Entered in error) Modified on 9/22/2011 (smm). (Entered: 09/21/2011)

09/21/2011

2424

PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition for payment on Invoice 1078 (Monahan, Peter) (Document Entered in error). Modified on 9/22/2011 (smm). (Entered: 09/21/2011)

09/22/2011 2425 NOTICE of Correction regarding petition 2423 , petition 2424 . The incorrect document (PDF file) was linked to the entry. The text of the

entry has been edited. The document must be re-filed. (smm) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

09/22/2011

2426 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson revised fee petition for payment on Invoice 1078 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

09/22/2011

2427

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion to approve amended employment plan 2420 is granted. Enter Agreed Order to Approve Amended Employment Plan for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

09/22/2011

2428

AGREED ORDER to Approve Amended Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/22/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

09/22/2011 2429 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1078. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/23/2011)

09/22/2011 2430 ORDER regarding petition 2426 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/22/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/23/2011)

09/23/2011

2443

PETITION by James T. Struck for rehearing: Request for removal of the filing bar and $500 fine, so that slavery of different under guardianships, Clean Air Act, Federal Nursing Home Act, Fair Housing Act, religious restoration, Geneva Convention Violations can end. (smm) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/27/2011

2431

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #27)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/27/2011)

09/27/2011

2432

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #27. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/27/2011)

09/27/2011 2433 ORDER regarding petition 2431 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/27/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/27/2011)

09/28/2011 2434 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition FPD Invoice 061 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/28/2011 2435 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition FPD Invoice 062 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/28/2011 2436 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition County Invoice 062 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/28/2011 2437 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#061. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/28/2011 2438 ORDER regarding petition 2434 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/28/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/28/2011 2439 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#062. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/28/2011 2440 ORDER regarding petition 2435 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/28/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/28/2011 2441 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #062. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/28/2011 2442 ORDER regarding petition 2436 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/28/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

09/30/2011

2444

MOTION by Court Monitor Mary Robinson to substitute attorney Helen Burke (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing Notice of Agreed Motion for Substitution of Counsel, # 2 Exhibit Attorney Appearance Form, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order for Substitution of Counsel)(Burke, Helen) (Entered: 09/30/2011)

10/03/2011

2445

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Compliance Administrators for Cook County and the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' agreed Motion for substitution of counsel and for leave to file substitute appearance instanter 2444 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Matthew D. Pryer is given leave to substitute and to file his substitute appearance as counsel for the Compliance Administrators for Cook County and the Cook County recorder of Deeds instanter. Enter Order Attached. Attorney Matthew D. Pryer for Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Compliance Administrators for Cook County added. (For further detail see separate order(s).)Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 10/04/2011)

10/03/2011 2446 ATTORNEY Appearance for Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Compliance Administrators for Cook County by Matthew David Pryor. (smm) (Entered: 10/04/2011)

10/03/2011 2447 ORDER for leave to substitute counsel 2445 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/3/2011.Mailed notice(smm) (Entered: 10/04/2011)

10/04/2011

2448 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's SeventyFourth Petition for Payment (Burke, Helen) (DOCUMENT Entered in error). Modified on 10/5/2011 (smm). (Entered: 10/04/2011)

10/05/2011

2449

NOTICE of Correction regarding petition 2448 . The incorrect document (PDF file) was linked to the entry. The text of the entry has been edited. The document must be re-filed. (smm) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

10/05/2011 2450 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's SeventyFourth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

10/05/2011 2451 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Seventy-Fourth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

10/05/2011 2452 ORDER regarding petition 2450 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/5/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

10/07/2011 2453 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/07/2011)

10/07/2011

2454

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2453 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/13/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/07/2011)

10/07/2011

2455

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 2453 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $62,807.55 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/07/2011)

10/07/2011

2456 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/7/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/07/2011)

10/13/2011 2457 Seventh Report to Court by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/13/2011 2458 Forest Preserve District Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/13/2011)

10/14/2011 2459 Quarterly Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Accord Complaints (Schwallie, Lucy) (Entered: 10/14/2011)

10/14/2011

2460

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #28)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/14/2011)

10/14/2011

2461

MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The for order Unopposed Motion for Entry of an Order Approving A City of Chicago Police Department Hiring Plan For Sworn Titles (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2011)

10/14/2011

2462

Defendant's NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Ray Patton for presentment of motion for order 2461 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/20/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2011)

10/17/2011

2463

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #28. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011 2464 ORDER regarding petition 2460 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/17/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011

2465

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The City of Chicago's unopposed motion for entry of an order approving a City of Chicago Police Department hiring plan for sworn titles 2461 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Police Department Hiring Plan is hereby approved, shall be deemed fully incorporated into the Accord dated 5/31/07 642 , and may be used immediately by the City of Chicago. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011 2466 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition County Invoice #063 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011 2467 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard OIIG Recorder Qtrly. Report 2468 . (Blanchard, Patrick) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office). Modified on 10/18/2011 (smm). (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011 2468 OIIG Qtrly Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011

2469 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #063. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/17/2011 2470 ORDER regarding petition 2466 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/17/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/18/2011 2471 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/18/2011)

10/18/2011

2472

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2471 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/18/2011)

10/18/2011

2477

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the City of Chicago 2471 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/18/2011 2478 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 2473 Document entered in error. Modified on 10/19/2011 (vcf, ). (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 2474 Document entered in error. Modified on 10/19/2011 (vcf, ). (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 2475 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Revised Fee Petition for payment on Invoice 1079 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011

2476 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Revised Fee Petition for payment on Invoice 1080 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 2479 Report by Jan Carlson Compliance Administrator for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Fifth Report (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 2480 NOTICE of Correction regarding petition 2474 , petition 2473 . (vcf, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 2481 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1079. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 2482 ORDER regarding petition 2475 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/19/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 2483 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1080. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/19/2011 2484 ORDER regarding petition 2476 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/19/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/21/2011 2485 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/21/2011

2486

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2485 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/27/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/21/2011 2487 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Seventy-Fifth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/21/2011

2488

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 2485 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $16,467.30 in fees and costs for the period through September 30, 2011. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/21/2011 2489 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/21/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/21/2011 2490 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Seventy-Fifth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/21/2011 2491 ORDER regarding petition 2487 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/21/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/24/2011 2492 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/24/2011)

10/24/2011

2493

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of Unopposed motion to award Plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs for 11/2/11 at 8:30 a.m. before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier, in courtroom 1700 (Hays, Brian) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office). Modified on 10/25/2011 (smm). (Entered: 10/24/2011)

10/24/2011 2494 MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order on Supplemental Policies (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Robinson, Keino) (Entered: 10/24/2011)

10/24/2011

2497 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion to approve supplemental policies manual 2494 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/24/2011 2498 AGREED ORDER to approve supplemental policies manual Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/24/2011. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/25/2011

2495

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 2492 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $20,066.21 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/25/2011)

10/25/2011 2496 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/25/2011)

10/31/2011

2499 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Forest Preserve District (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

10/31/2011

2500

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2499 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

10/31/2011

2501

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County 2499 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER

(attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $51,588.78 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

10/31/2011

2502

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/31/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

11/01/2011

2503 Report by Jan Carlson Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator Monthly Report for September (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/01/2011)

11/01/2011 2504 STATUS Report Quarterly Report of the Federal Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 11/01/2011)

11/03/2011 2505 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice # 064 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/03/2011)

11/03/2011

2506

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #29)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/03/2011)

11/03/2011

2507 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #064. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/03/2011)

11/03/2011 2508 ORDER regarding petition 2505 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/3/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/03/2011)

11/03/2011

2509

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #29. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/03/2011)

11/03/2011 2510 ORDER regarding petition 2506 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/3/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/03/2011)

11/04/2011

2511 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson Fee Petition for Payment on Invoice 1081 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/04/2011)

11/04/2011 2512 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1081. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/04/2011)

11/04/2011 2513 ORDER regarding petition 2511 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/4/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/04/2011)

11/08/2011 2514 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 065 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/08/2011)

11/08/2011

2515 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #065. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2011)

11/08/2011 2516 ORDER regarding petition 2514 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2011)

11/10/2011

2517

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct Cook County Exempt List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

11/10/2011

2518 NOTICE of Motion by Lisa Marie Meador for presentment of motion to amend/correct 2517 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/16/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

11/14/2011

2519

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #30)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/14/2011)

11/14/2011

2520

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #30. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/14/2011)

11/14/2011 2521 ORDER regarding petition 2519 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/14/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/14/2011)

11/15/2011

2522

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct Cook County Exempt List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 11/15/2011)

11/15/2011

2523 NOTICE of Motion by Lisa Marie Meador for presentment of motion to amend/correct 2522 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/22/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 11/15/2011)

11/15/2011

2524

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In light of defendant filing an amended agreed motion to amend various sections of the Cook County exempt list 2522 , defendant's agreed motion to amend various sections of the Cook County exempt list 2517 is terminated as moot. Defendant's amended agreed motion to amend various sections of the Cook county exempt list 2522 is granted; no

appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Amending Various Sections of the Cook County Exempt List (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/15/2011)

11/15/2011 2525 AGREED ORDER Amending Various Sections of the Cook County Exempt List. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/15/2011. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/15/2011)

11/16/2011 2526 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP 063 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/16/2011)

11/16/2011 2527 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP064 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/16/2011)

11/16/2011 2528 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP065 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/16/2011)

11/16/2011

2529 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#063. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2011)

11/16/2011 2530 ORDER regarding petition 2526 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/16/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2011)

11/16/2011

2531 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#064. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2011)

11/16/2011 2532 ORDER regarding petition 2527 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/16/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2011)

11/16/2011

2533 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#065. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2011)

11/16/2011 2534 ORDER regarding petition 2528 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/16/2011. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2011)

11/17/2011

2535 Report by Jan Carlson Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Report for October, 2011 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/17/2011)

11/21/2011

2536

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #31)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/21/2011)

11/23/2011

2537

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #31. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/23/2011)

11/23/2011 2538 ORDER regarding petition 2536 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/23/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/23/2011)

11/28/2011

2539 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator, Jan Carlson, Petition for payment on invoice 1082 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/28/2011)

11/29/2011 2540 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1082. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/29/2011)

11/29/2011 2541 ORDER regarding petition 2539 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/29/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/29/2011)

12/01/2011 2542 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice # 066 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/01/2011)

12/01/2011

2543 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #066. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/01/2011)

12/01/2011 2544 ORDER regarding petition 2542 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/1/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/01/2011)

12/02/2011 2545 MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Robinson, Keino) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011 2546 NOTICE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois (Robinson, Keino) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011

2547

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion to approve amended employment plan 2545 is granted. Enter Agreed Order to Approve Amended Employment Plan (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011 2548 AGREED ORDER to Approve Amended Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/2/2011. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011 2549 LETTER from Mark S. Stein dated 11/28/11. (smm) (Entered: 12/05/2011)

12/05/2011 2550 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Seventy-Sixth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/05/2011)

12/05/2011

2551 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Seventy-Sixth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2011)

12/05/2011 2552 ORDER regarding petition 2550 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/5/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2011)

12/06/2011 2553 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 067 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/06/2011 2554 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #067. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/06/2011 2555 ORDER regarding petition 2553 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/6/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/06/2011 2556 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition FP Invoice 067 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/06/2011

2557 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#067. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/06/2011 2558 ORDER regarding petition 2556 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/6/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/07/2011

2559

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #32)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/07/2011)

12/15/2011

2560

MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, TheCity of Chicago's Unopposed Motion for Entry of an Order Approving A City of Chicago Fire Department Hiring Plan for Uniformed Positions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/15/2011

2561

The City of Chicago's NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Ray Patton for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 2560 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/21/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/15/2011

2562 PETITION Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson Fee Petition for payment on Invoice 1083 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/15/2011 2563 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1083. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/15/2011 2564 ORDER regarding petition 2562 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/15/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/15/2011

2565

FOURTH REPORT of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Pryor, Matthew) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office). Modified on 12/16/2011 (smm). (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/15/2011

2567

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The City of Chicago's unopposed motion for entry of an order approving a City of Chicago Fire Department hiring plan for uniformed positions 2560 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Court hereby approves and adopts the fire department hiring plan (attached as Exhibit 1), and permits its immediate use by the City of Chicago. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/15/2011 2568 EXHIBIT 1. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/16/2011 2566 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition FPD Invoice FPD 066 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/16/2011 2569 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#066. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/16/2011 2570 ORDER regarding petition 2566 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/16/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/16/2011 2571 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct Cook County Exempt List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/16/2011

2572 NOTICE of Motion by Lisa Marie Meador for presentment of motion to amend/correct 2571 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/21/2011 at 08:30 AM. (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/19/2011

2573

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Defendant's agreed motion to amend various sections of the Cook County exempt list 2571 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order (attached) amending various sections of the Cook County exempt list. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/19/2011)

12/19/2011 2574 AGREED ORDER Amending Various Sections of the Cook County Exempt List. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/19/2011. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/19/2011)

12/20/2011 2575 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice #068 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/20/2011)

12/20/2011 2576 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's SeventySeventh Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/20/2011)

12/20/2011

2577 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #068. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/20/2011 2578 ORDER regarding petition 2575 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/20/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/20/2011

2579

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, SeventySeventh petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/20/2011 2580 ORDER regarding petition 2576 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/20/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/21/2011 2581 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice FP068 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/21/2011 2582 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#068. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/21/2011 2583 ORDER regarding petition 2581 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/21/2011. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/27/2011

2584

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #33)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/27/2011)

12/27/2011

2585

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice # 32 (doc. # 2559) is unopposed, and is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached).Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 12/27/2011)

12/27/2011 2586 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, AGREED ORDER for Invoice #32

2585 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/27/2011.Mailed notice(smm) (Entered: 12/27/2011)

12/28/2011

2587

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice # 33 (doc. # 2584) is unopposed, and is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached).Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011

2588

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS'S COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Cardelle Spangler, AGREED ORDER for invoice #33 2587 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/28/2011.Mailed notice(smm) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011

2589

CERTIFIED ORDER from the USCA for the 7th Circuit dated 9/20/11 in USCA case no. 11-1546. The following are before the court: 1. Brief and required short appendix of Plaintiff-Appellant, Victor M. Crown, filed on 7/27/11, by the pro se appellant. 2. Motion requesting settlement of judgment enforcing agency [IRS} Order, filed 9/13/11, by the pro se appellant. This court has carefully reviewed the orders of the district court being appealed, the record on appeal, and appellant's opening brief. Based on this review, the court has determined that any issues which could be raised are insubstantial and that further briefing would not be helpful to the court's consideration of the issues. See Taylor v. City of New Albany, 979 F.2d 87 (7th Cir. 1992); Mather v. Village of Mundelein, 869 F.2d 356, 357 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (court can decide case on motions papers and record where briefing would be a waste of time and no member of the panel desires briefing or argument). In his brief, appellant Victor Crown says that he is appealing the 3/22/11, order entered in Shakman v. City of Chicago, 69-cv-2145, and the 3/28/11, order entered in Barnett v. Board of Election Commissioners, 92-cv-1683. But Crown's notice of appeal was filed on 3/8/11, and so the notice of appeal is premature as to these two orders. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that to the extent Crown is appealing those two orders, the appeal is DISMISSED. In his notice of appeal, Crown says that he is appealing the Executive Committee of the Norther District of Illinois' order dated 2/7/11, case no. 07 C 2533. The Executive Committee did not abuse its discretion when it required Crown to see permission before filing papers in the Northern District of Illinois or when it denied Crown leave to file specific papers in its February order. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 2/7/11, order entered by the Executive Committee is summarily AFFIRMED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that #2 is DENIED. (smm) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011

2590

CERTIFIED ORDER from the USCA for the 7th Circuit dated 10/6/11 in USCA case no. 11-1546. The following are before the court: 1. Motion entering judgment and mandate under FRAP 16 and FRAP 41, filed on 9/20/11, by the pro se appellant. 2. Revised disclosure statement under FED R. APP 26.1, Circuit Rule 26.1 FRAP 28 - Citation of supplemental authority, filed on 9/22/11, by the pro se appellant. 3. Motion request procedural order under FRCP 26[b]; FRCP 27(b) - Local Rules 66.1 and 69.1 [Administrators of Estates]., filed on 9/22/11, by the pro se appellant. On 9/20/11, this court dismissed appellant Victor Crown's claims relating to orders that were entered after he filed his notice of appeal and summarily affirmed his challenged to the Northern District of Illinois' order dated 2/7/11. IT IS ORDERED that Crown's motions in which he asks for relief from the Internal Revenue Service {#1 and #3) are DENIED. To the extent that Crown wants to challenge the court's resolution of his appeal, he may file a petition for rehearing on or before 12/20/11.(smm) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011

2591

CERTIFIED ORDER from the USCA for the 7th Circuit dated 12/20/11 in USCA case no. 11-1546. The following are before the court: 1. Motion to reconsider under FRAP 27[b]; Request for affirmative relief - Rule 27(a)(3)(A) and (a)(4); Circuit Rule 40(e); Circuit Rule 53(c) - Response to motion, construed as appellant's petition for rehearing, filed on 10/25/11, by the pro se appellant. 2. Motion requesting procedural order under FRAP 26[b]; Request for affirmative relief; Procedural order under FRAP 24(b) Social Security Act [IRS Publication 857], filed on 12/6/11, by the pro se appellant. IT IS ORDERED THAT #1 and #2 are DENIED. (smm) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011

2592 MANDATE of USCA dated 12/28/11 regarding notice of appeal; USCA No. 11-1546 consisting of no record to be returned. (smm) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/29/2011 2593 Monthly Report by Jan Carlson Forest Preserve District of Cook County District Compliance Administrator's Report for November 2011 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/29/2011)

12/30/2011 2594 PETITION Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Fee Petition for payment on Invoice 1084 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/30/2011)

01/03/2012

2595 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1084. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/03/2012)

01/03/2012 2596 ORDER regarding petition 2594 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/3/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/03/2012)

01/10/2012

2597 PETITION Forest Preserve District Compliance Adminstrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment on Invoice 1085 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/10/2012)

01/10/2012 2598 PETITION Vogel FDP Fee Petition # FPD 069 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/10/2012)

01/10/2012

2599 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1085. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/10/2012)

01/10/2012 2600 ORDER regarding petition 2597 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/10/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/10/2012)

01/11/2012

2601

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #34)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012 2602 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 069 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012 2603 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition 070 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012 2604 Forest Preserve District Ninth Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012

2605

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #34. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012 2606 ORDER regarding petition 2601 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/11/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012

2607 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #069. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012 2608 ORDER regarding petition 2602 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/11/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012 2609 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #070. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012 2610 ORDER regarding petition 2603 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/11/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/12/2012 2611 PETITION Vogel FPD Amended Fee Petition Invoice FP 069 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

01/12/2012

2612 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#069. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

01/12/2012 2613 ORDER regarding petition 2611 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/12/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

01/12/2012

2614

MOTION by counsel for Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan to withdraw as attorney (Petrovic, Ana) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

01/12/2012 2615 NOTICE of Motion by Ana D. Petrovic for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney, 2614 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/17/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Petrovic, Ana) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

01/13/2012 2616 Quarterly Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Accord Complaints (Schwallie, Lucy) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/13/2012 2617 OIIG Quarterly Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/13/2012 2618 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG Quarterly Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/13/2012

2619

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Motion to withdraw appearance of Ana D. Petrovic (Doc. # 2614 ) is granted 2614 ; no appearance on the motion is required. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the appearance of Ms. Ana D. Petrovic as counsel of record for plaintiffs. Attorney Ana D. Petrovic terminated.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/20/2012

2620 PETITION Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1086 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/20/2012)

01/23/2012 2621 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1086. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/23/2012)

01/23/2012 2622 ORDER regarding petition 2620 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/23/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/23/2012)

01/26/2012

2623

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #35)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/26/2012)

01/26/2012

2624

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #35. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/26/2012)

01/26/2012 2625 ORDER regarding petition 2623 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/26/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/26/2012)

01/26/2012 2626 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's SeventyEighth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/26/2012)

01/27/2012

2627 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Seventy-Eighth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/27/2012)

01/27/2012 2628 ORDER regarding petition 2626 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/27/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/27/2012)

01/27/2012 2629 Report by Jan Carlson for December, 2011 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/27/2012)

01/31/2012 2630 MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Amended Employment Plan)(Lisa, Lee) (Entered: 01/31/2012)

01/31/2012

2631 NOTICE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois re MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order 2630 (Lisa, Lee) (Entered: 01/31/2012)

01/31/2012

2632

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion to approve amended employment plan 2630 is granted. Enter Agreed Order (attached) approving amended employment plan. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/01/2012)

01/31/2012 2633 AGREED ORDER to Approve Amended Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/31/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/01/2012)

02/03/2012 2634 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP070 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/03/2012)

02/03/2012 2635 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#070. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/03/2012)

02/03/2012 2636 ORDER regarding petition 2634 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/3/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/03/2012)

02/10/2012 2637 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with respect to the Forest Preserve District Unopposed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

2638

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2637 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/16/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

2639 PETITION Forest Preserve District of Cook County Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for invoice 1087 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

2640

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees with respect to the Forest Preserve District 2637 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required.ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

2641

ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/10/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012

2642 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1087. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/10/2012 2643 ORDER regarding petition 2639 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/10/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/10/2012)

02/14/2012 2644 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice # 071 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/14/2012)

02/14/2012 2645 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice # 072 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/14/2012)

02/14/2012 2646 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's SeventyNinth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/14/2012)

02/14/2012 2647 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #071. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/14/2012)

02/14/2012 2648 ORDER regarding petition 2644 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/14/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/14/2012)

02/14/2012 2649 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #072. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/14/2012)

02/14/2012 2650 ORDER regarding petition 2645 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/14/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/14/2012)

02/15/2012 2651 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Seventy-Ninth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2012)

02/15/2012 2652 ORDER regarding petition 2646 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/15/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2012)

02/16/2012 2653 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City Unopposed (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/16/2012)

02/16/2012

2654

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2653 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/23/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/16/2012)

02/17/2012

2655

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's unopposed motion for an order awarding attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the City 2653 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

02/17/2012 2656 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

02/21/2012 2657 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct order 1025 Appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook

County and the Forest Preserve District (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

02/21/2012

2658

NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct, motion for relief 2657 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/1/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

02/21/2012

2659

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #36)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

02/21/2012

2660

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #36. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

02/21/2012 2661 ORDER regarding petition 2659 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/21/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

02/22/2012

2662

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Agreed motion to modify appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County and the Forest Preserve District 2657 is GRANTED: no appearance on the motion is required. Motion hearing scheduled for 3/1/2012 2658 is stricken. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jlj) (jlj, ). (Entered: 02/22/2012)

02/22/2012

2663

AGREED ORDER MODIFYING APPOINTMENT OF POST-SRO COMPLAINT ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY AND THE FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/22/2012.Mailed notice.(jlj) (Entered: 02/22/2012)

02/23/2012

2664

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #37)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

02/23/2012 2665 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

02/23/2012 2666 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2665 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/1/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

02/23/2012 2667 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

02/23/2012 2668 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2667 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/1/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

02/23/2012

2669

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #37. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

02/23/2012 2670 ORDER regarding petition 2664 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/23/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

02/24/2012

2671

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 2665 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $106,500.83 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 2672 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/24/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

2673

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 2667 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $8,685.67 in fees and costs for the period through December 31, 2011. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

2674 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/24/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 2675 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's petition for payment on Invoice 1088 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012

2676 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1088. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/24/2012 2677 ORDER regarding petition 2675 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/24/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2012)

02/27/2012

2678 Report by Jan Carlson Report by Forest Preserve District of Cook County Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson for the month of January, 2012 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/27/2012)

02/29/2012 2679 MOTION by counsel for Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to withdraw as attorney (Friebus, David) (Entered: 02/29/2012)

02/29/2012

2680

NOTICE of Motion by David Michael Friebus for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 2679 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/6/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Friebus, David) (Entered: 02/29/2012)

03/01/2012

2681

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Motion to withdraw appearance of David M. Friebus [doc.# 2679 ] is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the appearance of Mr. David M. Friebus as one of the attorneys for Defendant Patrick Quinn. Attorney David Michael Friebus terminated.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/06/2012 2682 STATUS Report Quarterly Report of the Federal Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/06/2012)

03/06/2012 2683 STATUS Report Revised Quarterly Report of the Federal Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/06/2012)

03/07/2012

2684

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #38)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/07/2012

2685

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #38. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/07/2012 2686 ORDER regarding petition 2684 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/7/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

03/09/2012 2687 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 073 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/09/2012 2688 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #073. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/09/2012 2689 ORDER regarding petition 2687 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/9/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/12/2012 2690 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice # 074 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/12/2012

2691 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #074. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/12/2012 2692 ORDER regarding petition 2690 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/12/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/12/2012 2693 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP 071 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/12/2012 2694 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice 072 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/12/2012 2695 PETITION Vogel FDP Fee Petition Invoice 073 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/12/2012 2697 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#071. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/12/2012 2698 ORDER regarding petition 2693 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/12/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/12/2012

2699 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#073. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/12/2012 2700 ORDER regarding petition 2695 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/12/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/13/2012

2696 PETITION Forest Preserve District of Cook County Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1089 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/13/2012 2701 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct Exempt List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/13/2012

2702

NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Edward Nowinski for presentment of motion to amend/correct 2701 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/20/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/13/2012 2703 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#072. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/13/2012 2704 ORDER regarding petition 2694 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/13/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/13/2012 2705 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1089. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/13/2012 2706 ORDER regarding petition 2696 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/13/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/13/2012 2707 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Eightieth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/14/2012 2708 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Shandra Lynn Leary (Leary, Shandra) (Entered: 03/14/2012)

03/14/2012

2709

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend various sections of the Cook County exempt list 2701 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached) amending the exempt list. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)

03/14/2012

2710 AGREED ORDER Amending Various Sections of the Cook County Exempt List Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/14/2012. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)

03/14/2012 2711 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Eightieth petition for payment. Mailed notice (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)

03/14/2012 2712 ORDER regarding petition 2707 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/14/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)

03/16/2012 2713 Report by Jan Carlson Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Report for the month of February 2012 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/16/2012)

03/19/2012 2714 MOTION by Defendant Cook County for order To Approve Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2

Exhibit Cook County Employment Plan, # 3 Exhibit A to the Employment Plan, # 4 Exhibit B to the Employment Plan, # 5 Exhibit C to the Employment Plan, # 6 Exhibit D to the Employment Plan, # 7 Exhibit E to the Employment Plan, # 8 Exhibit F to the Employment Plan, # 9 Exhibit G to the Employment Plan, # 10 Exhibit H to the Employment Plan)(Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 03/19/2012)

03/19/2012

2715 NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Edward Nowinski for presentment of motion for order,, 2714 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/21/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 03/19/2012)

03/19/2012

2716

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion to approve employment plan for Cook County 2714 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER TO APPROVE EMPLOYMENT PLAN (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/19/2012)

03/19/2012 2717 AGREED ORDER to Approve Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/19/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/19/2012)

03/21/2012

2718 RESPONSE by Defendant City of Chicago, The to status report 2682 Response Of The City Of Chicago To The Quarterly Report Of The Federal Monitor (Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 03/21/2012)

03/23/2012 2719 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice of appeal 2107 ; USCA Case No. 12-1676. (smm) (Entered: 03/23/2012)

03/26/2012

2720

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #39)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/26/2012)

03/27/2012

2721

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #39. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/27/2012)

03/27/2012 2722 ORDER regarding petition 2720 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/27/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/27/2012)

03/27/2012

2723 PETITION Forest Preserve District of Cook County Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's petition for payment on invoice 1090 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/27/2012)

03/29/2012 2724 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1090. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/29/2012)

03/29/2012 2725 ORDER regarding petition 2723 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/29/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/29/2012)

04/04/2012

2726

PETITION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #40)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012

2727

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #40. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 2728 ORDER regarding petition 2726 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/4/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 2729 MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Employment Plan)(Lisa, Lee) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 2730 NOTICE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois re MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order 2729 , order 2728 (Lisa, Lee) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012

2741

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion to approve amended and restated employment plan for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (doc.#2729) is granted. Enter order. Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/04/2012 2742 AGREED Order to approve amended and restated employment plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/4/2012.(Exhibits) Mailed notice(vcf, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/05/2012 2731 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 075 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

04/05/2012 2732 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Eighty-First Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

04/06/2012

2737

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Complaint Administrator's petition for invoice #75 with respect to Cook County (doc.# 2731) is granted. Defendant Cook County shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $39,977.769 to Mark J. Vogel,

as Complaint Administrator. Enter Order. Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/06/2012 2738 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/6/2012. Mailed notice(vcf, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/06/2012

2739

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Compliance Administrator's 81st petition for payment with respect to Cook County (doc. # 2732) is granted. Defendant Cook county shall submit as soon as practicable in the amount of $50,108.49 to Mary T. Robinson, as Compliance Administrator. Enter order. Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/06/2012 2740 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/6/2012. Mailed notice(vcf, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012

2733 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #075. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012 2734 ORDER regarding petition 2731 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/9/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012

2735 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Eighty-First petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012 2736 ORDER regarding petition 2732 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/9/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/11/2012 2743 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 076 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/11/2012

2744

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court hereby strikes docket numbers 2733 , 2734 , 2735 , and 2736 as they are duplicate entries of docket numbers 2737 , 2738 , 2739 , and 2740 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/11/2012

2745 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #076. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/11/2012 2746 ORDER regarding petition 2743 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/11/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/12/2012

2747 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Monitor is given leave to file under seal its position concerning what portions of an investigative report should be filed publicly. The City of Chicago

may file a response by 4/13/12. The Monitor and the plaintiffs may file replies by 4/27/12. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2012)

04/13/2012 2748 Quarterly Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Accord Complaints (Schwallie, Lucy) (Entered: 04/13/2012)

04/13/2012

2749

SEALED DOCUMENT by Unknown Noelle C Brennan Recommendation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/13/2012)

04/13/2012 2750 Forest Preserve District 10th Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/13/2012)

04/13/2012

2752

CERTIFIED Copy of OPINION from the USCA for the 7th Circuit; Argued 3/22/12; Decided 4/13/12 in USCA case no. 12-1676. To the extent that Victor Crown is attempting to appeal the Northern District of Illinois Executive Committee's most recent order, we summarily affirm. Any additional request for relief by Crown are DENIED. it is unnecessary to rule on the motions filed by Crown. In his last appeal to this court, Crown filed multiple motions raising similar issues to those raised in his current filings, all of which were denied. Crown seems to be following a similar pattern in this appeal. Accordingly, Crown is ORDERED to show cause, by 4/26/12, why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal and motions. (smm) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 2751 SEALED RESPONSE by City of Chicago, The to sealed document, 2749 (Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 2753 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF IIG Quarterly Report for the Recorder (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 2754 IIG Quarterly Report for Recorder by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 2755 Report by Cardelle Spangler FIFTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/17/2012

2756 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard OIIG Quarterly Report for Cook County and Forest Preserve District (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/17/2012)

04/17/2012 2757 OIIG Quarterly Report for Cook County and Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/17/2012)

04/17/2012 2758 MOTION by Unknown Cynthia Pennick to withdraw AS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD (Stein, Mark) (Entered: 04/17/2012)

04/17/2012

2759

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report that the deposition of Deborah Tate cannot proceed as she has recently retained counsel, as represented in open Court. By agreement of the parties, the deposition is reset to 5/09/12 at 1:30 p.m. As stated on the record, if the parties report that after further interviews are taken, a deposition is not necessary then the deposition set for 5/9/12 will be stricken. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2012)

04/18/2012 2760 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Daniel H. Brennan, Jr (Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/19/2012

2761

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The minute order dated 4/17/12 (doc. # 2759 )is corrected to reflect that the deponent's name is Denisa McReynolds, not Deborah Tate. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

04/19/2012

2762

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Motion to withdraw as attorneys of record [doc.# 2758 ] is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the appearances of Gilbert A. Cornfield, Robert A. Seltzer, and Mark S. Stein, and the Law Firm of Cornfield and Feldman as attorneys of record. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to remove movants from the e-mail distribution list and that Sharon A. Farmer (sfarmer@cornfieldand feldman.com), secretary to Gilbert A. Cornfield, also be removed from the e-mail distribution list. Attorney Mark Shale Stein; Gilbert A. Cornfield and Robert A. Seltzer terminated.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

04/19/2012 2763 PETITION Forest Preserve District of Cook County Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1091 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

04/20/2012

2764

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's unopposed petition for payment of invoice no. 1091 (doc. # 2763 ) is granted. SEE SEPARATE ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/20/2012)

04/20/2012 2765 ORDER regarding petition 2763 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/20/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/20/2012)

04/20/2012

2766

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #41 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/20/2012)

04/20/2012 2767 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 077 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/20/2012)

04/20/2012 2768 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice FP074 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/20/2012)

04/20/2012 2769 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #077. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/20/2012)

04/20/2012 2770 ORDER regarding petition 2767 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/20/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/20/2012)

04/21/2012 2771 Report by Jan Carlson Forest Preserve District of Cook County Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Report for March 2012 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/21/2012)

04/24/2012

2772

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: All replies in connection with the Monitor's recommendation concerning what portions of an investigative report should be filed publicly 2749 shall be filed by 5/04/12. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

04/25/2012 2773 PETITION Forest Preserve District of Cook County Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1092 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

04/25/2012

2774 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1092. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

04/25/2012 2775 ORDER regarding petition 2773 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/25/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

04/26/2012 2776 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition FP074 Revised (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/26/2012)

04/26/2012 2777 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#074. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)

04/26/2012 2778 ORDER regarding petition 2776 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/26/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)

04/26/2012

2779

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #41. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)

04/26/2012 2780 ORDER regarding petition 2766 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/26/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)

04/27/2012

2781 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois by Lee Irene Lisa (Lisa, Lee) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 2782 NOTICE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois re attorney appearance 2781 (Lisa, Lee) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/30/2012 2783 MOTION by counsel for Defendant Cook County to withdraw as attorney (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012

2784

NOTICE of Motion by Patricia Maria Fallon for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 2783 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/15/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012

2785 Report by Mary Robinson Eighth Report of the Compliance Administrator for Cook County (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

05/01/2012 2786 MOTION by counsel for Movant Unknown Forest Perserve District of Cook County, Illinois to withdraw as attorney Keino Robinson (Lisa, Lee) (Entered: 05/01/2012)

05/01/2012

2787 NOTICE of Motion by Lee Irene Lisa for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 2786 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/16/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Lisa, Lee) (Entered: 05/01/2012)

05/01/2012

2788

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Motion for leave to withdraw [doc.# 2783 ] is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Patricia M. Fallon is given leave to withdraw as one of the attorneys of record for the County of Cook. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the appearance of Ms. Patricia M. Fallon. Attorney Patricia Maria Fallon terminated.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 05/02/2012)

05/02/2012

2789

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Motion for leave to withdraw [doc.# 2786 ] is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Keino Richard Robinson is given leave to withdraw as one of the counsel of record for the Forest Preserve

District of Cook County. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the appearance of Mr. Keino Richard Robinson. Attorney Keino Richard Robinson terminated.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 05/04/2012)

05/04/2012

2790

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S, PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #42 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/04/2012)

05/04/2012 2791 SEALED REPLY by Michael L Shakman to sealed response 2751 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/04/2012)

05/07/2012 2792 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 078 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/07/2012 2793 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/07/2012

2794 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2793 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/16/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/08/2012 2795 UNOPPOSED MOTION to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs by Plaintiffs. (Hays, Brian) (Docket text modified by clerk's office) (vmj, ). (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012

2796 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2795 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/16/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012

2797

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Complaint Administrator's petition for payment of invoice #78 (doc. # 2792 ) is granted; no appearance on the petition is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012 2798 ORDER regarding petition 2792 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012

2799

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs attorneys' and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 2793 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012

2800

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012 2801 EIGHTY-Second PETITION for payment by Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson. (Pryor, Matthew) (Docket Text modified by clerk's office) (vmj, ). (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012

2802

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #42. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012 2803 ORDER regarding petition 2790 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012

2804

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 2795 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012 2805 ORDER awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012 2806 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Eighty-Second petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/08/2012 2807 ORDER regarding petition 2801 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/09/2012

2808

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report that the deposition of Ms. Denisa McReynolds cannot proceed as she has recently informed her attorney, Mr. Travis Richardson, that she is unable to appear due to an illness. The Court hereby resets the deposition is to 5/15/12 at 9:00 a.m. If the deposition cannot take place on 5/15/12, Mr. Richardson is to notify Mr. Mark Vogel at the Cook County Compliance Administrator's office by no later than noon time on 5/14/12. The Court further orders that if the deposition is cancelled, all of the attorneys will be required to appear before the magistrate judge for a status hearing on 5/15/12 at 9:00 a.m. for a report on the parties' inability to complete this deposition. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/09/2012)

05/15/2012

2810

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report that they are ready to proceed with the deposition of Ms. Denisa McReynolds. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

05/16/2012 2809 PETITION Forest Preserve District of Cook County Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's petition for payment on invoice 1093 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

05/16/2012

2811 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1093. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

05/16/2012 2812 ORDER regarding petition 2809 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/16/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

05/17/2012

2813

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S, PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #43 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2814 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2815 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2814 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2816 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition FP075 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2817 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP 076 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2818 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice # FP 077 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012

2819

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #43. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2820 ORDER regarding petition 2813 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2821 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs 2814 is granted;

no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012

2822 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2823 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#075. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2824 ORDER regarding petition 2816 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2825 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#076. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2826 ORDER regarding petition 2817 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2827 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#077. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2828 ORDER regarding petition 2818 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/22/2012 2829 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Status hearing held on 5/22/2012 with respect to the City. Mailed notice. (srb,) (Entered: 05/22/2012)

05/23/2012 2830 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Lilianna Maria Kalin (Kalin, Lilianna) (Entered: 05/23/2012)

05/29/2012 2831 PETITION Forest Preserve District of Cook County Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for invoice 1094 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/29/2012)

05/30/2012

2832 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1094. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2012)

05/30/2012 2833 ORDER regarding petition 2831 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/30/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2012)

06/07/2012 2834 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Forest Preserve District (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

06/07/2012 2835 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2834 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/14/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

06/07/2012

2836

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S, PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #44 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

06/07/2012 2837 MOTION by Court Monitor Mark J Vogel to compel testimony of Denisa Mcreynolds (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

06/07/2012

2838 NOTICE of Motion by Mark J. Vogel for presentment of motion to compel 2837 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/13/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

06/08/2012

2839

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #44. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

06/08/2012 2840 ORDER regarding petition 2836 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/8/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

06/08/2012

2841

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County 2834 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $71,866.30 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

06/08/2012

2842

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/8/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

06/08/2012 2843 Report by Jan Carlson Report by District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson for the month of April, 2012 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

06/12/2012 2844 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 079 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

06/12/2012 2845 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 080 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

06/12/2012

2846 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #079. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

06/12/2012 2847 ORDER regarding petition 2844 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/12/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

06/12/2012

2848 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #080. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

06/12/2012 2849 ORDER regarding petition 2845 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/12/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

06/13/2012

2850

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Court Monitor Mark J. Vogel's motion to compel testimony of Denisa McReynolds 2837 is denied, but the Court will require Ms. McReynolds to provide a declaration setting forth the information as described on the record. Ms. McReynold's counsel is further directed to provide Mr. Mark J. Vogel with Ms. McReynold's declaration by no later than 6/15/12. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

06/19/2012 2851 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Agreed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

06/19/2012

2852 NOTICE of Motion by Daniel H. Brennan, Jr for presentment of motion to amend/correct 2851 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/26/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

06/20/2012

2853

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 2851 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/20/2012 2854 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/20/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/20/2012

2855

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S, PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #45 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/20/2012 2856 Request For Instructions From The Court by Mark J Vogel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/20/2012 2857 NOTICE by Mark J Vogel Request for Instructions From The Court (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/20/2012

2858

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #45. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/20/2012 2859 ORDER regarding petition 2855 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/20/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/21/2012

2860 MOTION by Defendant Cook County for order to allow interview of candidate (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Agreed Order)(Leary, Shandra) (Entered: 06/21/2012)

06/21/2012 2861 NOTICE of Motion by Shandra Lynn Leary for presentment of motion for order 2860 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/26/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Leary, Shandra) (Entered: 06/21/2012)

06/22/2012

2862

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Defendant's agreed motion to allow interview of candidate prior to closing posting period 2860 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

06/22/2012 2863 AGREED ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/22/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

06/22/2012

2864 PETITION Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's petition for payment for invoice 1095 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

06/22/2012 2865 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Eighty-Third Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

06/22/2012

2866 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Amended Eighty-Third Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

06/22/2012 2867 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on invoice no. 1095. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

06/22/2012 2868 ORDER regarding petition 2864 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/22/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

06/22/2012 2869 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Eighty-Third petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

06/22/2012 2870 ORDER regarding petition 2866 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/22/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

06/26/2012

2871

MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Fourth Amended Exempt List)(Lisa, Lee) (Entered: 06/26/2012)

06/26/2012 2872 NOTICE of Motion by Lee Irene Lisa for presentment of motion for order 2871 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/3/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Lisa, Lee) (Entered: 06/26/2012)

06/26/2012

2873

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion to approve fourth amended exempt list for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County 2871 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/27/2012)

06/26/2012

2874

AGREED ORDER to Approve Fourth Amended Exempt List for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/26/2012. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/27/2012)

06/27/2012 2875 STATUS Report Report of the Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 06/27/2012)

06/29/2012

2876 PETITION Forest Preserve District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1096 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/29/2012)

06/29/2012 2877 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice no. 1096. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2012)

06/29/2012 2878 ORDER regarding petition 2876 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/29/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2012)

07/03/2012

2879

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S, PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #46 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/03/2012)

07/03/2012

2880

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #46. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/03/2012)

07/03/2012 2881 ORDER regarding petition 2879 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/3/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/03/2012)

07/05/2012 2882 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 081 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/05/2012)

07/05/2012 2883 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 082 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/05/2012)

07/05/2012 2884 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #081. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/05/2012)

07/05/2012 2885 ORDER regarding petition 2882 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/5/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/05/2012)

07/05/2012 2886 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #082. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/05/2012)

07/05/2012 2887 ORDER regarding petition 2883 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/5/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/05/2012)

07/09/2012 2888 Report by Jan Carlson District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's report for the month of May 2012 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/09/2012)

07/11/2012 2889 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's EightyFourth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/11/2012)

07/11/2012 2890 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Eighty-Fourth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/11/2012)

07/11/2012 2891 ORDER regarding petition 2889 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/11/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/11/2012)

07/11/2012 2892 FPD Eleventh Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/11/2012)

07/13/2012 2893 Quarterly Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago Regarding Accord Complaints (Schwallie, Lucy) (Entered: 07/13/2012)

07/16/2012 2894 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice 078 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/16/2012)

07/16/2012 2895 NOTICE by All Parties NOF OIIG FPD Qtrly Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 07/16/2012)

07/16/2012 2896 STATUS Report FPD OIIG Qtrly Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 07/16/2012)

07/17/2012

2897 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#078. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 2898 ORDER regarding petition 2894 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 2899 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP079 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 2900 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP080 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 2901 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP081 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012

2902

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's request for instructions from the Court 2856 is granted. The Court hereby authorizes compliance with the document subpoena as limited by the Court's statements on the record. The Court further orders that the Compliance Administrator shall not testify in connection with the testimonial subpoena. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 2903 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#079. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 2904 ORDER regarding petition 2899 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 2905 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#080. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 2906 ORDER regarding petition 2900 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 2907 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#081. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/17/2012 2908 ORDER regarding petition 2901 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

07/18/2012

2909

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #47 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/18/2012 2910 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 083 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/18/2012 2911 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for invoice 1097 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/18/2012

2912

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #47. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/18/2012 2913 ORDER regarding petition 2909 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/18/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/18/2012 2914 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #083. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/18/2012 2915 ORDER regarding petition 2910 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/18/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/18/2012 2916 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice no. 1097. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/18/2012 2917 ORDER regarding petition 2911 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/18/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/20/2012 2918 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct the Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A I)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012

2919 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct 2918 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/26/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012 2920 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Inspector General, City of Chicago by Jonneida Alexis Davis (Davis, Jonneida) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012

2921

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 2918 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012

2922 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/20/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Part2, # 2 Part3, # 3 Part4). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/31/2012 2923 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 05-22-12 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Mary M. Hacker, (312) 435-5564, Mary_Hacker@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 8/21/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/31/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/29/2012. (Hacker, Mary) (Entered: 07/31/2012)

08/01/2012 2924 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's petition for payment for invoice 1098 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
08/01/2012 2925 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice no. 1098. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
08/01/2012 2926 ORDER regarding petition 2924 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/1/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/01/2012)

08/03/2012 2927 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/03/2012

2928 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2927 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/9/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/03/2012 2929 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/03/2012 2930 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2929 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/9/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/03/2012

2931

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 2927 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $98,289.19 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/03/2012

2932 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/3/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/03/2012

2933

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 2929 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $19,513.63 in fees and costs for the period through June 30, 2012. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/03/2012 2934 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/3/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/08/2012

2935

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for hearing on Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement (Assessor)(Hays, Brian) Modified on 8/9/2012 (smm). Modified on 8/10/2012 (smm). (Entered: 08/08/2012)

08/14/2012

2936 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard IIG's Report Addressing the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/14/2012)

08/14/2012 2937 IIG Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard Report Addressing the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/14/2012)

08/15/2012 2938 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's petition for payment for invoice 1099 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/15/2012)

08/15/2012 2939 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion and preliminary approval hearings held. The plaintiff's unopposed motion

for hearing on preliminary approval of class settlement 2935 is granted. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court preliminarily approves the class action settlement. The parties are to submit their revised proposed preliminary approval order, with the modifications as stated on the record, to the judge's proposed order box by no later than the end of business day today. A separate preliminary approval order is to follow. The matter is set for a final approval hearing before the magistrate judge on 9/19/12 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/15/2012)

08/15/2012

2940

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Preliminary Order Approving Agreed Order for the Cook County Assessor's Office (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/15/2012)

08/15/2012 2941 PRELIMINARY ORDER Approving Agreed Order for the Cook County Assessor's Office Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/15/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/15/2012)

08/15/2012

2942 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice no. 1099. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/15/2012)

08/15/2012 2943 ORDER regarding petition 2938 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/15/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/15/2012)

08/15/2012 2944 SIXTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/15/2012)

08/20/2012 2945 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP082 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

08/20/2012 2946 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP 083 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

08/20/2012

2947 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#082. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

08/20/2012 2948 ORDER regarding petition 2945 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/20/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

08/20/2012

2949 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#083. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

08/20/2012 2950 ORDER regarding petition 2946 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/20/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

08/21/2012 2951 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP 084 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/2012 2952 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#084. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/21/2012 2953 ORDER regarding petition 2951 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/24/2012

2954

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #48 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/24/2012 2955 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Eighty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/24/2012 2956 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for invoice 1100 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/24/2012

2957 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Eighty-Fifth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/24/2012 2958 ORDER regarding petition 2955 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/24/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/24/2012

2959 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1100. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/24/2012 2960 ORDER regarding petition 2956 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/24/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/27/2012 2961 LETTER from Zachary Ferguson dated 8/22/12 (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 08/29/2012)

08/30/2012 2962 MOTION by Movant Zachary Ferguson for intervention of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Office of Special Counsel. (smm) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/30/2012 2963 NOTICE of Motion by Zachary Ferguson for presentment of motion for intervention of U.S. Attorney General Erice Holder and U.S.

Office of Special Counsel 2962 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/2/2012 at 8:30 A.M. (smm) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/30/2012

2964 MOTION by Movant Zachary Ferguson to provide relief to Prose Class Member(s) from consent decree violations, etc. (smm) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/30/2012

2965

NOTICE of Motion by Zachary Ferguson for presentment of motion to provide relief to Prose Class Member(s) from consent decree violations, etc. 2964 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/2/2012 at 8:30 A.M. (smm) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012 2966 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012

2967 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 2966 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/11/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012

2968

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #49 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012

2969

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs 2966 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/04/2012)

08/31/2012

2970 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/31/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/04/2012)

09/04/2012

2975

MOTION and PETITION by Unknown Victor M. Crown for rule to show cause to hold Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the City of Chicago in civil contempt of court; FRCP 37, 59 and 60 (Exhibits). (smm) (Entered: 09/06/2012)

09/04/2012 2976 NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion for rule to show cause 2975 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/11/2012 at 9:30 A.M. (smm) (Entered: 09/06/2012)

09/05/2012

2971

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #48. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/05/2012)

09/05/2012 2972 ORDER regarding petition 2954 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/5/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/05/2012)

09/05/2012

2973

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #49. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/05/2012)

09/05/2012 2974 ORDER regarding petition 2968 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/5/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/05/2012)

09/06/2012

2977

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #50 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/06/2012)

09/10/2012

2978

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #50. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/10/2012)

09/10/2012 2979 ORDER regarding petition 2977 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/10/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/10/2012)

09/11/2012 2980 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 084 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/11/2012 2981 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 085 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/11/2012

2982

MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Motion hearing held. Petitioner's motion for rule to show cause 2975 is taken under advisement. Respondent's response shall be filed by 10/2/12. Petitioner's reply in support shall be filed by 10/23/12. Court will rule electronically. Notice mailed by judge's staff (ntf, ) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/11/2012

2983

DECLARATION of Brian I. Hays Regarding Mailing Notice of Hearing on Approval of Agreed Order for the Cook County Assessor's Office to Terminated Employees (Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/11/2012

2984 DECLARATION of Katherine Hied Harris On Proof of Publication of Notice of Hearing on Approval of Agreed Order for the Cook County Assessor's Office (Harris, Katherine) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/11/2012 2985 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #084. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/11/2012 2986 ORDER regarding petition 2980 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/11/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/11/2012 2987 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #085. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/11/2012 2988 ORDER regarding petition 2981 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/11/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

09/17/2012 2989 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 086 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 09/17/2012)

09/17/2012 2990 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for invoice 1101 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/17/2012)

09/17/2012

2998

MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown requesting establishment of registry account under Local Rules 67.1 and 78.5. (Exhibits) (vcf, ) (Document Removed per court order dated 9/20/12). Modified on 9/24/2012 (smm). (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/17/2012

2999

NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown requesting establishment of registry account 2998 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2012 at 09:00 AM. (vcf, ) (Document Removed per court order dated 9/20/12). Modified on 9/24/2012 (smm). (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/17/2012

3000

MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown requesting judicial notice; entry of extraordinary writ of prohibition.(Exhibits) (vcf, ) (Document Removed per court order dated 9/20/12). Modified on 9/24/2012 (smm). (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/17/2012

3001

NOTICE of Motion by Kenneth Ayers for presentment of motion requesting judicial notice 3000 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2012 at 09:00 AM. (vcf, ) (Document Removed per court order dated 9/20/12). Modified on 9/24/2012 (smm). (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/18/2012 2991 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #086. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/18/2012)

09/18/2012 2992 ORDER regarding petition 2989 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/18/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/18/2012)

09/18/2012 2993 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1101. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/18/2012)

09/18/2012 2994 ORDER regarding petition 2990 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/18/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/18/2012)

09/18/2012

2995

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct terminate motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, status hearing, set/reset hearings 569 (agreed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 09/18/2012)

09/18/2012

2996

NOTICE of Motion by Daniel H. Brennan, Jr for presentment of motion to amend/correct, motion for relief,, 2995 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/25/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 09/18/2012)

09/19/2012

2997

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #51 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/19/2012

3002

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #51. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/19/2012 3003 ORDER regarding petition 2997 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/19/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/19/2012

3004

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend various sections of the Cook County Exempt List 2995 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER REVISED EXEMPT LIST (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/19/2012 3005 REVISED EMPLOYMENT PLAN EXEMPT LIST. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/19/2012

3006

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Final approval hearing held. The parties report on the status of their settlement agreement. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court gives final approval of the class action settlement agreement. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 10/23/12 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/19/2012 3007 AGREED ORDER for the Cook County Assessor's Office Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/19/2012. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2012)

09/20/2012

3011

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:The Court has received various motions in this case filed by Mr. Victor M. Crown, which were noticed for a hearing on 9/20/12 at 9:00 a.m. The motions filed include a motion requesting establishment of registry account under Local Rules 67.1 and 78.5 (doc.# 2998 ) and a motion requesting judicial notice and entry of extraordinary writ of prohibition (doc.# 3000 ). Pursuant to an Executive Committee Order entered on 3/12/12, Mr. Victor M. Crown is restricted from filing any documents in this case. As stated in the Executive Committee Order, any new case submissions by Mr. Crown are to be destroyed until 3/11/13. In light of this order, the Court hereby strikes the motions and noticed hearing dates. The Clerk of the Court is further order to strike and remove docket entry #s 2998, 2999, 3000 and 3001 from the docket.Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 09/24/2012)

09/21/2012 3008 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for invoice 1102 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/21/2012)

09/21/2012 3009 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1102. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/21/2012)

09/21/2012 3010 ORDER regarding petition 3008 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/21/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/21/2012)

09/24/2012 3012 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Eighty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/24/2012)

09/25/2012 3013 MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Lee, Lisa) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

09/25/2012 3014 NOTICE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois re MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order 3013 (Lee, Lisa) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

09/25/2012

3015 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Eighty-Sixth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

09/25/2012 3016 ORDER regarding petition 3012 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/25/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

09/25/2012

3017

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion to approve second amended and restated employment plan for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County 3013 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

09/25/2012

3018

AGREED ORDER to Approve Second Amended and Restated Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/25/2012. (Exhibits). (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2012)

10/01/2012

3019

MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Supplemental Policies Manual)(Lee, Lisa) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

10/01/2012 3020 NOTICE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois re MOTION by Unknown Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois for order 3019 (Lee, Lisa) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

10/02/2012

3021

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion to approve amended supplemental policies manual 3019 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice (jj, ) (Entered: 10/02/2012)

10/02/2012

3022

AGREED ORDER to Approve Amended Supplemental Policies Manual Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/2/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/02/2012)

10/02/2012 3023 RESPONSE by City of Chicago, Thein Opposition to MOTION by Unknown Victor M. Crown for rule to show cause 2975 (Convery, James) (Entered: 10/02/2012)

10/02/2012

3024

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearings held. For the reasons stated on the record, movant Zachary Ferguson's motion for intervention of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Office of Special Counsel 2962 and motion to provide relief to Prose Class Member(s) from consent decree violations, etc. 2964 are denied. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/02/2012)

10/04/2012 3025 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 087 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/04/2012)

10/04/2012 3026 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #087. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2012)

10/04/2012 3027 ORDER regarding petition 3025 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/4/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2012)

10/05/2012 3028 MOTION by counsel for Defendant Cook County to withdraw as attorney (Leary, Shandra) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/05/2012

3029

NOTICE of Motion by Shandra Lynn Leary for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 3028 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/11/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Leary, Shandra) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/05/2012

3030 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Forest Preserve District (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/05/2012 3031 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3030 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/17/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/05/2012

3032

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County 3030 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $61,672.16 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/05/2012

3033

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/5/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/05/2012

3046

MOTION by Victor M. Crown requesting judicial notice; entry of extraordinary writ of prohibition (Exhibits) (np, ) (Main Document 3046 replaced on 10/15/2012) (mgh, ). [Removed per Court Order dated on 10/11/2012] (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/05/2012

3047

NOTICE of Motion by Victor M. Crown for presentment of motion requesting judicial notice; entry of extraordinary writ of prohibition 3046 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/11/2012 at 09:00 AM. (ao,) (Main Document 3047 replaced on 10/15/2012) (mgh, ). [Removed per Court Order dated 10/11/2012] (Entered: 10/11/2012)

10/08/2012 3034 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1103 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/08/2012)

10/09/2012 3035 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 088 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/09/2012)

10/09/2012 3036 MOTION by Court Monitor Mark J Vogel to compel Excess Pages and Testimony (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/09/2012)

10/09/2012

3037 NOTICE of Motion by Mark J. Vogel for presentment of motion to compel 3036 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/17/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/09/2012)

10/09/2012

MOTION by Court Monitor Mark J Vogel for leave to file excess pages (Omitted relief from entry 3036) (td, ) (Entered: 10/17/2012)

10/10/2012

3038 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1103. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/10/2012

3039

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion for leave to withdraw (doc. # 3028) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Shandra Lynn Leary is given leave to withdraw as one of the counsel of record for the Defendant Cook County. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to terminate the appearance of Ms. Shandra Lynn Leary. Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/10/2012 3040 ORDER regarding petition 3034 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/10/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/10/2012

3041 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #088. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/10/2012 3042 ORDER regarding petition 3035 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/10/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/10/2012

3043

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #52 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/10/2012 3044 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice FP 085 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/10/2012 3045 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice FP 086 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/11/2012 3048 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's EightySeventh Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/11/2012)

10/11/2012 3049 STATUS Report 2012 3rd Quarter Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Davis, Jonneida) (Entered: 10/11/2012)

10/11/2012

3062

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court has received a motion in this case filed by Mr. Victor M. Crown, which was noticed for a hearing on 10/11/12 at 9:00 a.m. The motion filed requested a judicial notice and entry of extraordinary writ of prohibition (doc. #3046). Pursuant to an Executive Committee Order entered on 3/12/12, Mr. Victor M. Crown is restricted from filing any documents in this case. As stated in the Executive Committee Order and a previous minute order dated 9/20/12 (doc. #3011), any new case submissions by Mr. Crown are to be destroyed until 3/11/13. In light of this order, the Court hereby strikes the motion 3046 and noticed hearing date. The Clerk of the Court is further ordered to strike and remove docket entry #s 3046 and 3047 from the docket. Mailed notice (mgh, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/12/2012

3050

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #52. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/12/2012 3051 ORDER regarding petition 3043 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/12/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/12/2012

3052 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#085. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/12/2012 3053 ORDER regarding petition 3044 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/12/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/12/2012

3054 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#086. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/12/2012 3055 ORDER regarding petition 3045 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/12/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/12/2012

3056 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Eighty-Seventh petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/12/2012 3057 ORDER regarding petition 3048 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/12/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012

3058 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 3059 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3058 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/23/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 3060 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012

3061 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3060 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/23/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 3063 FPD Qtrly. Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 3064 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard FPD Qtrly. Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 3065 Forest Preserve District Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Twelfth Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 3066 NOTICE by Mark J Vogel Notice of Filing of Forest Preserve District's Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Twelfth Quarterly Report (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012

3067

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 3058 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $167,454.13 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 3068 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/15/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012

3069 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds Amended (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 3070 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds Second Amended (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012

3071

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' second amended unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 3070 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $18,027.10 in fees and costs. In light of this filing, plaintiffs' motions (doc.#'s 3060 , 3069 ) are hereby administratively terminated. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012

3072 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/15/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/17/2012 3073 Assessor Compliance Administrator's Initial Report by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/17/2012)

10/17/2012

3074

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. The Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's unopposed motion for leave to file motion in excess of 15 pages 3036 is granted. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court sets the following briefing schedule regarding Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's motion to compel testimony of Doris Gershon 3036 : Ms. Doris Gershon's response is due by 11/16/12; Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's reply is due by 11/30/12. The Court will not set a further hearing date at this time. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2012)

10/18/2012 3075 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP087 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/18/2012 3076 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP088 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/18/2012 3077 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#087. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/18/2012 3078 ORDER regarding petition 3075 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/18/2012 3079 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#088. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/18/2012 3080 ORDER regarding petition 3076 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/22/2012

3081 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012 3082 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3081 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/30/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012

3083

EXHIBIT for Petition District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1104 (Monahan, Peter) Docket Text modified by the Clerk's Office on 10/23/2012 (mgh, ). (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012 3084 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1104 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012

3085

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 3081 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $77,705.15 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012 3086 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/22/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012

3087 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1104. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2012)

10/22/2012 3088 ORDER regarding petition 3084 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/22/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2012)

10/23/2012

3089

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of personal notices provided to former employees (who were terminated) and who fall within the potential claim group. For the reasons stated on the record, the parties are to submit their revised proposed agreed order for notice by the close of business today. The Court will not set a further status hearing date at this time. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2012)

10/23/2012 3090 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order Requiring Notice to Additional Separated Employees and

Extending Time for Them to Respond (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2012)

10/23/2012

3091

AGREED ORDER Requiring Notice to Additional Separated Employees and Extending Time for Them to Respond Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/23/2012. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2012)

10/25/2012

3092 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City of Chicago (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/25/2012)

10/25/2012 3093 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3092 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/1/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/25/2012)

10/25/2012

3094 PETITION COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S, FIRST PETITION FOR PAYMENT (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/25/2012)

10/25/2012

3095

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs 3092 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/25/2012)

10/25/2012 3096 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2012.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/25/2012)

10/26/2012

3097

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order as to Cook County Assessor's Office Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, First Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/26/2012)

10/26/2012 3098 ORDER regarding petition 3094 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/26/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/26/2012)

11/01/2012

3099 PETITION COOK COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAMS, SECOND PETITION FOR PAYMENT (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012

3100

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order as to Cook County Assessor's Office Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Second Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012 3101 ORDER regarding petition 3099 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/1/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012

3102 PETITION COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S, THIRD PETITION FOR PAYMENT (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012

3103

PETITION COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #53 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012

3104

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order as to Cook County Assessor's Office Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Third Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012 3105 ORDER regarding petition 3102 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/1/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012

3106

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #53. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012 3107 ORDER regarding petition 3103 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/1/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/02/2012 3108 INTERIM REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

11/02/2012 3109 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 089 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

11/05/2012 3110 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #089. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/05/2012)

11/05/2012 3111 ORDER regarding petition 3109 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/5/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/05/2012)

11/08/2012 3112 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1105 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/08/2012)

11/08/2012

3113 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1105. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2012)

11/08/2012 3114 ORDER regarding petition 3112 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2012)

11/13/2012

3115 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice of appeal 2107 ; USCA Case No. 12-3583 (mgh, ) (Entered: 11/14/2012)

11/19/2012 3116 RESPONSE by Material Witness Doris Gershon to motion to compel 3036 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cook County Ordinances, # 2 Exhibit Newspapers)(Winslow, Heather) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

11/20/2012

3117

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The parties' joint request to extend the briefing schedule is granted. Enter Agreed Order to Extend Briefing Schedule (attached). The Court adopts the parties agreed briefing schedule regarding Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's motion to compel testimony of Doris Gershon 3036 as follows: Ms. Doris Gershon's response is due by 11/19/12; Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's reply is due by 12/03/12. The Court will not set a further hearing date at this time. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/20/2012)

11/20/2012

3118 AGREED ORDER to Extend Briefing Schedule Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/20/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/20/2012)

11/21/2012 3119 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 090 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/21/2012 3120 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 091 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/21/2012 3121 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #090. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/21/2012 3122 ORDER regarding petition 3119 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/21/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/21/2012 3123 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #091. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/21/2012 3124 ORDER regarding petition 3120 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/21/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/21/2012 3125 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time for Post-SRO Complaint Administrator to Complete County Investigations (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/21/2012 3126 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of extension of time 3125 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/29/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/26/2012

3127 Fee Petition by Clifford Meacham Assessor's Compliance Administrator's Fourth Petiton for Fees (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

11/26/2012

3128

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order as to Cook County Assessor's Office Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Fourth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

11/26/2012 3129 ORDER regarding other 3127 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/26/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

11/26/2012 3130 STATUS Report Quarterly Report of the Federal Monitor by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

11/28/2012

3131

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct the Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 1, # 5 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit A-I)(Kalin, Lilianna) (Entered: 11/28/2012)

11/28/2012

3132 NOTICE of Motion by Lilianna Maria Kalin for presentment of motion to amend/correct, 3131 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/4/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Kalin, Lilianna) (Entered: 11/28/2012)

11/28/2012

3133

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 3131 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/28/2012)

11/28/2012 3134 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/28/2012. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/28/2012)

11/28/2012

3136

ORDER dated 11/28/2012 from the 7th Circuit regarding notice of appeal 2107 ; Appellate case no. : 12-3583 ; IT IS ORDERED that the appellant file this overdue Docketing Statement with the clerk of this court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. Failure to do

so will result in a one hundred dollar ($100.00) fine and/or dismissal of this notice of appeal. (mgh, ) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012

3135

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. The parties report that they have reached agreement regarding plaintiff's motion for extension of time for Post-SRO Complaint Administrator to Complete County Investigations 3125 . The motion is therefore granted. As stated on the record, the parties are to submit a copy of their proposed order to the judges proposed order box by no later than the end of business day today. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012 3137 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds to amend/correct Exempt List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kalin, Lilianna) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012 3138 NOTICE of Motion by Lilianna Maria Kalin for presentment of motion to amend/correct 3137 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/5/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Kalin, Lilianna) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012

3139

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order Modifying Appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County (Attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012 3140 AGREED ORDER Modifying Appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/29/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012

3141

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. Mr. James Struck appears for an unscheduled court hearing on his own motion without proper leave of Court to do so. The Court advised Mr. Struck that it would not hear any written or oral motions as it was a violation of the Executive Committee Order entered on 1/20/12. The Court also provided Mr. Struck with an additional copy of said order and informed Mr. Struck that he is a restricted filer and does not have leave of Court to file a motion, whether it is oral or written. In light of this order, Mr. Struck's petition for request for removal of the filing bar and $500 fine, so that slavery of different under guardianships, Clean Air Act, Federal Nursing Home Act, Fair Housing Act, religious restoration, Geneva Convention Violations can end 2443 is stricken. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012

3142

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend Cook County Recorder of Deeds' exempt list 3137 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

11/29/2012 3143 AGREED ORDER to Amend Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Exempt List Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/29/2012. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

11/30/2012 3144 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1106 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

11/30/2012 3145 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1106. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

11/30/2012 3146 ORDER regarding petition 3144 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/30/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

12/03/2012 3147 REPLY by Mark J Vogel to MOTION by Court Monitor Mark J Vogel to compel Excess Pages and Testimony 3036 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/03/2012)

12/04/2012

3148

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #54 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/04/2012)

12/04/2012 3149 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/04/2012)

12/05/2012

3150

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #54. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2012)

12/05/2012 3151 ORDER regarding other 3148 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/5/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2012)

12/05/2012

3152

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #55. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2012)

12/05/2012 3153 ORDER regarding other 3149 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/5/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2012)

12/06/2012

3154

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #56 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/06/2012 3155 Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Assessor's Office Fifth Petition for Fees by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/06/2012 3156 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's EightyEighth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/06/2012

3157

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #56. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/06/2012 3158 ORDER regarding other 3154 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/6/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/06/2012

3159

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter Order as to Cook County Assessor's Office Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Fifth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/06/2012 3160 ORDER regarding other 3155 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/6/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/06/2012

3161 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Eighty-Eighth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/06/2012 3162 ORDER regarding petition 3156 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/6/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/12/2012

3163 MOTION by Defendant Cook CountyAgreed Motion for Interim Approval of CCHHS Direct Appointment Process (Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 12/12/2012)

12/12/2012

3164

NOTICE of Motion by Daniel H. Brennan, Jr for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 3163 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/18/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 12/12/2012)

12/12/2012 3165 Agreed Order by Cook County (Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 12/12/2012)

12/13/2012

3166

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to enter an order approving on an interim basis a Direct Appointment Process for the Cook County Health and Hospital Systems ("CCHHS") 3163 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required.

ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012)

12/13/2012

3167

AGREED ORDER Approving the CCHHS Direct Appointment Process On An Interim Basis Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/13/2012. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012)

12/17/2012 3168 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard OIIG Report Addressing the Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/17/2012)

12/17/2012 3169 OIIG Report Addressing Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/17/2012)

12/17/2012 3170 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice 089 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/17/2012)

12/17/2012 3171 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition FP090 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/17/2012)

12/17/2012 3172 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP091 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/17/2012)

12/17/2012

3173 SEVENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/17/2012)

12/17/2012 3175 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#089. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

12/17/2012 3176 ORDER regarding petition 3170 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

12/17/2012 3177 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#090. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

12/17/2012 3178 ORDER regarding petition 3171 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

12/17/2012 3179 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#091. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

12/17/2012 3180 ORDER regarding petition 3172 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/17/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

12/18/2012 3174 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for invoice 1107 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/18/2012)

12/18/2012

3181 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1107. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/19/2012)

12/18/2012 3182 ORDER regarding petition 3174 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/18/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/19/2012)

12/26/2012

3183 Agreed Motion to Extend Time by Clifford Meacham Agreed Motion to Extend Time to Determine Claims (Monahan, Peter) Modified on 12/27/2012 (td, ). (Entered: 12/26/2012)

12/26/2012 3184 Notice of Agreed Motion by Clifford Meacham Notice of Agreed Motion to Extend Time to determine Claims (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/26/2012)

12/27/2012

3185

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion for extension of time to complete claims adjudication 3183 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The deadline for determining claims is extended to 4/07/13. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/27/2012)

12/27/2012

3186

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM, AGREED ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR DETERMINING CLAIMS Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/27/2012. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/27/2012)

12/27/2012

3187 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 12/27/2012)

12/27/2012 3188 MOTION by Defendant Cook County for order Amending Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 12/27/2012)

12/27/2012

3189

NOTICE of Motion by Daniel H. Brennan, Jr for presentment of motion to amend/correct 3187 , motion for order 3188 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/2/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 12/27/2012)

12/28/2012

3190

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 3187 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

12/28/2012 3191 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/28/2012. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

12/31/2012

3192

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 57 by Cardelle Spangler by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/31/2012 3193 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 092 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

12/31/2012 3194 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 093 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 12/31/2012)

01/02/2013

3195

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook county Record of Deeds' Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of Invoice No. 57 (doc. # 3192) is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached)Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/02/2013

3196

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEED'S COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #57 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/2/2013.Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/02/2013

3197

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Complaint Administrator's petitions for payment of Invoices Nos. 92 and 93 (doc. ## 3193-3194) are granted. ENTER ORDERS (attached).Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/02/2013 3198 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/2/2013.Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/02/2013 3199 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/2/2013.Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/03/2013

3200 MOTION by Court Monitor Mark J Vogel to quash subpoena, or in the alternative, for a protective order and instruction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

01/03/2013 3201 NOTICE of Motion by Mark J. Vogel for presentment of motion to quash 3200 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/16/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

01/04/2013 3202 Report by Clifford Meacham Second Report of the Compliance Administrator for the Office of the Cook County Assessor (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/04/2013)

01/07/2013 3203 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1108 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/07/2013 3204 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Eighty-Ninth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/08/2013

3205

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice no. 1108 (doc. # 3203) is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached).Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

01/08/2013 3206 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/8/2013.Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

01/08/2013

3207

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Compliance Administrator's, Mary Robinson, Eighty-Ninth Petition for Payment (doc. # 3204) is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached).Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

01/08/2013 3208 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/8/2013.Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

01/10/2013 3209 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 094 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/10/2013)

01/10/2013

3210

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 58 by Cardelle Spangler by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/10/2013)

01/10/2013 3211 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #094. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/10/2013)

01/10/2013 3212 ORDER regarding petition 3209 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/10/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/10/2013)

01/10/2013 3213 Petition by Clifford Meacham Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Assessor's Office Sixth Petition for payment of Fees (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/10/2013)

01/10/2013 3214 Petition by Clifford Meacham Compliance Administrator for the Cook Couty Assessor's Office Seventh Petition for Payment of Fees (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/10/2013)

01/11/2013

3215

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Records of Deeds' Compliance Administrator Petition for Payment of Invoice # 58 (doc. # 3210 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/11/2013 3216 ORDER regarding other 3210 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/11/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/11/2013

3217

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petitions for Payment of Invoices #'s 06 and 07 (doc. #'s 3213 and 3214 ) are granted. ENTER ORDERS (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/11/2013 3218 ORDER regarding other 3213 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/11/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/11/2013 3219 ORDER regarding other 3214 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/11/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/15/2013

3220 City of Chicago Inspector General Quarterly Report 2012 Q4 by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Hengesbach, Theodor) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/15/2013 3221 OIIG Qtrly FPD Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/15/2013 3222 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG Qtrly FPD Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/15/2013 3223 Forest Preserve District Thirteenth Quarterly Report by Mark J Vogel (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/15/2013

3224

RESPONSE by RICKEY COLEMANin Opposition to MOTION by Court Monitor Mark J Vogel to quash subpoena, or in the alternative, for a protective order and instruction 3200 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit complaint, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit ATTACHMENT TO SUBPOENA)(Moran, John) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/16/2013 3225 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated in open Court, Court Monitor Mark

Vogel's motion to quash subpoena 3200 is withdrawn without prejudice. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/16/2013)

01/18/2013 3226 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1109 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/18/2013)

01/18/2013 3227 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1109. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/18/2013)

01/18/2013 3228 ORDER regarding petition 3226 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/18/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/18/2013)

01/25/2013 3229 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1110 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/25/2013)

01/25/2013

3230 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1110. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/25/2013)

01/25/2013 3231 ORDER regarding petition 3229 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/25/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/25/2013)

01/28/2013 3232 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition FPD # 092 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/28/2013)

01/28/2013 3233 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice FPD #093 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/28/2013)

01/29/2013 3234 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP#092. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)

01/29/2013 3235 ORDER regarding petition 3232 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/29/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)

01/29/2013 3236 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP# 093. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)

01/29/2013 3237 ORDER regarding petition 3233 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/29/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)

01/29/2013

3238

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (attached). The motion by the Complaint Administrator, Mark Vogel, to compel the testimony of Doris Gershon 3036 is granted. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 2/12/13 at 9:00 a.m.; the

Complaint Administrator and counsel for Ms. Gershon shall attend. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)

01/29/2013

3239

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for order for a finding of Substantial Compliance and Dismissal of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Agreed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A.1-1, # 3 Exhibit A.1-2, # 4 Exhibit A.1-3, # 5 Exhibit A.2 and A.3)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2013)

01/29/2013

3240 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/29/2013.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)

01/29/2013 3241 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for order, 3239 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/4/2013 at 02:30 PM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2013)

01/30/2013 3242 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Ninetieth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/30/2013)

01/30/2013

3243

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 59 by Cardelle Spangler by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/30/2013)

01/30/2013 3244 PETITION Fee Petition on Post-SRO Complaint Administrator's Invoice FP094 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/30/2013)

01/30/2013

3245 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Ninetieth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

01/30/2013 3246 ORDER regarding petition 3242 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/30/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

01/30/2013

3247

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #59. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

01/30/2013 3248 ORDER regarding other 3243 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/30/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

01/30/2013

3249 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP# 094. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

01/30/2013 3250 ORDER regarding petition 3244 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/30/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

01/31/2013 3251 PETITION Post-SRO Complaint Administrator Mark Vogel's Petition for Payment of Invoice 095 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

01/31/2013 3252 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #095. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

01/31/2013 3253 ORDER regarding petition 3251 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/31/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

02/01/2013

3254

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At the request of the parties, the status hearing set for 2/12/13 at 9:00 a.m. before the magistrate judge is RESET to 2/12/13 at 11:00 a.m.; the Complaint Administrator and counsel for Ms. Gershon shall attend. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/01/2013)

02/04/2013

3255

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for a Finding of Substantial Compliance and Dismissal of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (doc. #3239) is granted. Enter Agreed Order Finding Substantial Compliance and Dismissing the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (attached). The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to terminate any entity involving the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. Mailed notice [ For further detail see separate order(s).] (mgh, ) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

02/04/2013

3256

AGREED ORDER finding substantial compliance and dismissing the Forest Preserve District of Cook County signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/4/2013. (Exhibits) (Attachments: # 1 part 2 of Agreed Order, # 2 part 3 of Agreed Order, # 3 part 4 of Agreed Order, # 4 part 5 of Agreed Order)(mgh, ) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

02/05/2013

3257

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITON FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 8 by Clifford L. Meacham by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/05/2013)

02/05/2013

3258

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #08 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2013)

02/05/2013 3259 ORDER regarding other 3257 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2013)

02/05/2013

3260

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 60 by Cardelle Spangler by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2013)

02/06/2013

3261 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct CCHHS Direct Appointment Position List (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

02/06/2013 3262 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct 3261 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/14/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

02/06/2013

3263

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #60. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

02/06/2013 3264 ORDER regarding other 3260 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/6/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

02/06/2013

3265

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's agreed motion to amend the CCHHS Direct Appointment Position List 3261 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Amending the CCHHS Direct Appointment List (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

02/06/2013 3266 AGREED ORDER Amending the CCHHS Direct Appointment List Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/6/2013. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

02/08/2013

3267 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds Motion for Appointment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shannon, Robert) (Entered: 02/08/2013)

02/08/2013

3268

NOTICE of Motion by Robert Thomas Shannon for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 3267 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/14/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Shannon, Robert) (Entered: 02/08/2013)

02/11/2013 3269 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FPD 95 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 02/11/2013)

02/11/2013 3270 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1111 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/11/2013)

02/11/2013

3271 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP# 095. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/11/2013 3272 ORDER regarding petition 3269 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/11/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/11/2013

3273 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Forest Preserve Compliance Administrator's petition for payment on Invoice No. 1111. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/11/2013 3274 ORDER regarding petition 3270 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/11/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/12/2013

3275

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case and that Ms. Gershon has agreed for her deposition to be taken. By agreement, prior to the deposition, the parties are to meet and confer in order to exchange information that will assist in streamlining the deposition. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 2/27/13 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/14/2013

3276

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Plaintiffs' counsel does not appear. For the reasons stated on the record, the petition for appointment of special state's attorneys 3267 is entered and continued generally pending the next status hearing. In light of the parties' report, the Court will have an in camera hearing with defense counsel to determine what filings are needed (if necessary) to resolve the petition. Defense counsel is to contact plaintiffs' counsel to verify whether there is any opposition to the in camera hearing. The matter is set for an in camera hearing with the magistrate judge on 2/20/13 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/14/2013)

02/15/2013

3277

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion to withdraw as counsel for the Inspector General's Office (doc.#2220) is granted. Attorney, Soo Choi, is given leave to withdraw as counsel for the City of Chicago Inspector General's Office. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to terminate the appearance of Soo Choi as one of the attorneys of record for the City of Chicago Inspector General's Office. Mailed notice (mgh,) (Entered: 02/15/2013)

02/18/2013 3278 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City of Chicago (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/18/2013)

02/18/2013 3279 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3278 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/27/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/18/2013)

02/19/2013

3280

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the City of Chicago 3278 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) awarding plaintiffs' counsel $8,638.92 in fees and costs. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

02/19/2013

3281 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/19/13. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

02/19/2013 3282 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct Appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

02/19/2013 3283 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct 3282 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/27/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

02/20/2013

3284

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' agreed motion to modify appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County 3282 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Modifying Appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/20/2013)

02/20/2013

3285 AGREED ORDER Modifying Appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/20/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/20/2013)

02/20/2013

3286

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In camera hearing held on petition for appointment of special state's attorneys 3267 . As a result of the discussion conducted during the hearing, the petition is withdrawn. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/20/2013)

02/22/2013 3287 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Forest Preserve District (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013 3288 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3287 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/28/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013 3289 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013

3290 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3289 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/28/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013 3291 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013

3292 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3291 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/28/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013

3293

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 09 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013

3294

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County 3287 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013

3295

ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/22/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013

3296

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 3289 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013

3297

ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/22/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013

3298

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 3291 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013 3299 ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/22/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013 3300 Eighth Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/25/2013

3301

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #09 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2013)

02/25/2013 3302 ORDER regarding other 3293 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/25/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2013)

02/26/2013

3303

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 61 by Cardelle Spangler by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

02/26/2013

3304

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITON FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #10 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

02/26/2013

3305

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #61. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

02/26/2013 3306 ORDER regarding other 3303 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/26/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

02/26/2013

3307

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #10 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

02/26/2013 3308 ORDER regarding other 3304 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/26/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

02/27/2013 3309 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Ninety-First Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/27/2013)

02/27/2013

3310

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report that they participated in a meet and confer and exchanged information that would assist in streamlining the deposition of Ms. Doris Gershon. As stated on the record, by agreement of the parties, the deposition of Ms. Gershon is scheduled to take place on 3/20/13 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/27/2013)

02/27/2013 3311 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Ninety-First petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/27/2013)

02/27/2013 3312 ORDER regarding petition 3309 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/27/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/27/2013)

03/06/2013 3313 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Forest Preserve Invoice FP096 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/06/2013)

03/06/2013

3314 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/06/2013)

03/06/2013 3315 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3314 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/14/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/06/2013)

03/07/2013

3316

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs (doc. # 3314 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. [For further details see separate order.] Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (psm, ) (Entered: 03/07/2013)

03/07/2013

3317 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/7/2013.(psm, ) (Entered: 03/07/2013)

03/07/2013

3318

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Pst-SRO Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice # FP 096 (doc. # 3313 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. [For further details see separate order.] Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (psm, ) (Entered: 03/07/2013)

03/07/2013 3319 ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/7/2013.(psm, ) (Entered: 03/07/2013)

03/08/2013 3320 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1112 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/08/2013)

03/08/2013 3321 PETITION District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's Petition for payment for Invoice 1113 (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/08/2013)

03/11/2013

3322

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Petitions by District Compliance Administrator Jan Carlson's petitions for payment for Invoices Nos. 1112-1113 (doc. # 3320 , 3321 ) are granted. ENTER ORDERS (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/11/2013)

03/11/2013 3323 ORDER regarding petition 3320 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/11/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/11/2013)

03/11/2013 3324 ORDER regarding petition 3321 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/11/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/11/2013)

03/12/2013

3325

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 62 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/12/2013

3326

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITON FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #11 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/12/2013 3327 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 096 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/12/2013 3328 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 097 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/12/2013

3329

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #62. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/12/2013 3330 ORDER regarding other 3325 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/12/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/12/2013 3331 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice

#11 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/12/2013 3332 ORDER regarding other 3326 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/12/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/12/2013 3333 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #096. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/12/2013 3334 ORDER regarding petition 3327 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/12/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2013)

03/13/2013 3335 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #097. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2013)

03/13/2013 3336 ORDER regarding petition 3328 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/13/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2013)

03/18/2013 3337 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's NinetySecond Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013

3338 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Ninety-Second petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013 3339 ORDER regarding petition 3337 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/18/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/19/2013 3340 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 098 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/19/2013)

03/19/2013

3341 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #098. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/19/2013)

03/19/2013 3342 ORDER regarding petition 3340 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/19/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/19/2013)

03/22/2013 3343 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 099 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/22/2013

3344

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #12 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/22/2013 3345 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #099. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/22/2013 3346 ORDER regarding petition 3343 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/22/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/22/2013

3347

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #12 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/22/2013 3348 ORDER regarding other 3344 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/22/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

03/26/2013

3349

COOK County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's Petition for payment of invoice # 62 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Docket text Modified by Clerk's office on 3/27/2013 (vcf, ). (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013

3350

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #63. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/26/2013 3351 ORDER regarding other 3349 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/26/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

03/27/2013 3352 MOTION by counsel for Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to withdraw as attorney (Maggio, Timothy) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/27/2013 3353 NOTICE of Motion by Timothy M. Maggio for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 3352 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/3/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Maggio, Timothy) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/27/2013

3354

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion to withdraw (3352) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the appearance of Timothy M. Maggio as one of the attorneys for plaintiffs. Mailed notice (mgh, ) (Entered: 03/28/2013)

04/01/2013

3355

MOTION by Unknown Clifford Meacham for extension of time COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S AGREED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE CLAIMS ADJUDICATION (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/01/2013)

04/02/2013

3356

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Assessor Compliance Administrator's agreed motion for extension of time to complete claims adjudication 3355 is granted. The deadline for determining all claims is hereby extended to 6/15/13. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/02/2013)

04/05/2013 3357 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice 097 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2013)

04/05/2013 3358 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP 098 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2013)

04/05/2013 3359 PETITION Vogel FPD Fee Petition Invoice FP 099 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2013)

04/05/2013

3360 NINTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/05/2013)

04/08/2013

3361

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on February 4, 2013 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Carolyn Cox, Carolyn_Cox@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312) 435-5639.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 4/29/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/9/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/8/2013. (Cox, Carolyn) Modified on 4/8/2013 (lcw, ). (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/08/2013

3362 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP# 097. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/08/2013 3363 ORDER regarding petition 3357 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/08/2013

3364 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP# 098. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/08/2013 3365 ORDER regarding petition 3358 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/08/2013

3366 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice FP# 099. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/08/2013 3367 ORDER regarding petition 3359 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/08/2013)

04/09/2013

3368

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 64 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/09/2013)

04/10/2013

3369

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #13 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/10/2013)

04/10/2013

3370

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #64. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/10/2013)

04/10/2013 3371 ORDER regarding other 3368 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/10/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/10/2013)

04/10/2013

3372

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #13 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/10/2013)

04/10/2013 3373 ORDER regarding other 3369 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/10/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/10/2013)

04/12/2013 3374 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Ninety-Third Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/12/2013)

04/15/2013 3375 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Ninety-Third petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

04/15/2013 3376 ORDER regarding petition 3374 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/15/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

04/15/2013 3377 First Quarterly Report 2013 by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Davis, Jonneida) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

04/15/2013 3378 OIIG Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard Inspector General's Report Addressing the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

04/15/2013 3379 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF Inspector General's Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

04/16/2013 3380 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 100 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

04/16/2013

3381 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #100. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

04/16/2013 3382 ORDER regarding petition 3380 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/16/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

04/26/2013

3383

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 65 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/26/2013

3384

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #65. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/26/2013 3385 ORDER regarding other 3383 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/26/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/30/2013 3386 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 101 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 04/30/2013)

04/30/2013 3387 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #101. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/01/2013)

04/30/2013 3388 ORDER regarding petition 3386 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/30/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/01/2013)

05/08/2013

3389

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 66 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013 3390 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to approve consent judgment the Office of the Independent Inspector General

Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A Part 2)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013

3391

NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to approve consent judgment 3390 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013

3392

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #14 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013

3393

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #15 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013

3394

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #66. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013 3395 ORDER regarding other 3389 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013

3396

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #14 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013 3397 ORDER regarding other 3392 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013

3398

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #15 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013 3399 ORDER regarding other 3393 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013

3400

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for Approval of the Office of the Independent Inspector General of Cook County Employment Plan 3390 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Order (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/08/2013

3401

AGREED ORDER Approving the Office of the Independent Inspector General of Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2013. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/13/2013 3402 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 102 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/13/2013

3403 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/13/2013 3404 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3403 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/13/2013

3405 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/13/2013 3406 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3405 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/13/2013 3407 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/13/2013 3408 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3407 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/14/2013 3409 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #102. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013 3410 ORDER regarding petition 3402 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/14/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013

3411

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 3403 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013 3412 ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/14/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013

3413

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 3405 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013 3414 ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/14/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013

3415

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 3407 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013

3416 ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/14/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/15/2013 3417 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's NinetyFourth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/15/2013 3418 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Ninety-Fourth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/15/2013 3419 ORDER regarding petition 3417 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/15/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/20/2013 3420 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/20/2013

3421 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3420 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/29/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/21/2013

3422

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs 3420 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/21/2013)

05/21/2013 3423 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City 3420 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/21/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/21/2013)

05/23/2013

3424

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 67 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/23/2013)

05/23/2013

3425

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #67. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2013)

05/23/2013 3426 ORDER regarding other 3424 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2013)

05/31/2013 3427 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct Appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

05/31/2013

3428 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct 3427 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/6/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

06/03/2013

3429

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #16 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/03/2013

3430

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's agreed motion to modify appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County 3427 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Modifying Appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/03/2013 3431 AGREED ORDER Modifying Appointment of Post-SRO Complaint Administrator for Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/3/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/03/2013

3432

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #16 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/03/2013 3433 ORDER regarding other 3429 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/3/2013.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/13/2013

3434

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE 68 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

06/13/2013

3435

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #68. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

06/13/2013 3436 ORDER regarding other 3434 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/13/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

06/18/2013 3437 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 103 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

06/18/2013 3438 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 104 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

06/18/2013

3439 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #103. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/18/2013 3440 ORDER regarding petition 3437 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/18/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/18/2013 3441 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #104. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/18/2013 3442 ORDER regarding petition 3438 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/18/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/20/2013 3443 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Ninety-Fifth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/20/2013)

06/20/2013

3444 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Ninety-Fifth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2013)

06/20/2013 3445 ORDER regarding petition 3443 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/20/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2013)

06/21/2013 3446 COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF

INVOICE #17 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

06/21/2013

3447

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #17 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached) Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

06/21/2013 3448 ORDER regarding other 3446 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/21/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

06/26/2013

3449

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 69 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/26/2013)

06/27/2013

3450

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #69. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/27/2013)

06/27/2013 3451 ORDER regarding other 3449 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/27/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/27/2013)

06/28/2013

3452

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct the Office of the Independent Inspector General's Employment Plan (Agreed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-G)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

06/28/2013

3453 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct 3452 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/11/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

06/28/2013

3454

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's agreed motion for approval of the amendments to the Office of the Independent Inspector General of Cook County Employment Plan 3452 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Approving Amendments to the Office of the Independent Inspector General of Cook County Employment (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

06/28/2013

3455

AGREED ORDER Approving Amendments to the Office of the Independent Inspector General of Cook County Employment Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/28/2013. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Part 2) (jj, ) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

07/08/2013

3456

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 70 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/08/2013)

07/08/2013

3457

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #18 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/08/2013)

07/08/2013

3458

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #70. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/08/2013)

07/08/2013 3459 ORDER regarding other 3456 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/08/2013)

07/08/2013

3460

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #18 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/08/2013)

07/08/2013 3461 ORDER regarding other 3457 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/08/2013)

07/09/2013 3462 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 105 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/09/2013 3463 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 106 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/09/2013 3464 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #105. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/09/2013 3465 ORDER regarding petition 3462 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/9/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/09/2013 3466 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #106. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/09/2013 3467 ORDER regarding petition 3463 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/9/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/11/2013 3468 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Ninety-Sixth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/11/2013)

07/11/2013 3469 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Ninety-Sixth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/11/2013)

07/11/2013 3470 ORDER regarding petition 3468 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/11/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/11/2013)

07/15/2013 3471 Quarterly Report of Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Davis, Jonneida) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/23/2013 3472 PETITION Vogel Fee Petition Invoice 107 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 07/23/2013)

07/23/2013 3473 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #107. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/23/2013)

07/23/2013 3474 ORDER regarding petition 3472 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/23/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/23/2013)

07/29/2013

3475

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #19 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/29/2013)

07/29/2013

3476

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #20 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/29/2013)

07/29/2013

3477

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 71 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/29/2013)

07/30/2013

3478

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #19 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)

07/30/2013 3479 ORDER regarding other 3475 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/30/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)

07/30/2013

3480

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #20 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)

07/30/2013 3481 ORDER regarding other 3476 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/30/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)

07/30/2013

3482

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #71. Mailed notice (jj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)

07/30/2013 3483 ORDER regarding other 3477 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/30/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)

07/31/2013

3484

STATUS Report July 31, 2013 Report Regarding Monitor's Recommendations for Discipline of City Employees Engaged in Hiring Fraud by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/31/2013)

08/08/2013

3485 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with respect to the Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013 3486 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3485 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/15/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013 3487 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013 3488 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3487 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/15/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013 3489 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013

3490 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3489 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/15/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013 3491 MOTION by Defendant Cook CountyMotion to Amend Cook County Employment Plan Agreed (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exempt List, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013

3492 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 3485 is granted; no appearance

on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013

3493 ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2013.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013

3494

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 3487 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013 3495 ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013 3496 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City of Chicago (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013

3497 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3496 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/15/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013

3498

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 3489 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013 3499 ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2013.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013

3500

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 3491 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/08/2013 3501 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2013. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/12/2013 3502 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs 3496 is granted;

no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/12/2013)

08/12/2013

3503 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City 3496 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/12/2013.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/12/2013)

08/13/2013 3504 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's NinetySeventh Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/13/2013)

08/13/2013

3505

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court hereby strikes and vacates the order entered on 8/08/13 (doc. #3499). Enter revised order awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)

08/13/2013

3506

REVISED ORDER Awarding Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/13/2013.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)

08/13/2013

3507 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Ninety-Seventh petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)

08/13/2013 3508 ORDER regarding petition 3504 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/13/2013.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)

08/14/2013

3509

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to approve consent judgment Approval of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan (Agreed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1.A, # 2 Exhibit 1.A.A-G)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/14/2013)

08/14/2013

3510

NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to approve consent judgment 3509 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/14/2013)

08/14/2013

3511

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's agreed motion for approval of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds employment plan 3509 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Approving The Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/14/2013)

08/14/2013 3512 AGREED ORDER Approving The Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on

8/14/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2). Mailed notice. (Exhibits). (jj, ) (Entered: 08/14/2013)

08/15/2013 3513 OIIG Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard Addressing the Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2013)

08/15/2013 3514 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2013)

08/16/2013

3515

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 72 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/16/2013)

08/16/2013

3516

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #72. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/16/2013)

08/16/2013 3517 ORDER regarding other 3515 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/16/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/16/2013)

08/16/2013

3518

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #21 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/16/2013)

08/19/2013

3519

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #21 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/20/2013)

08/19/2013 3520 ORDER regarding other 3518 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/19/2013.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/20/2013)

08/21/2013 3521 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct Cook County Assessor's Exempt List (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/21/2013)

08/21/2013 3522 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct 3521 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/28/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/21/2013)

08/21/2013

3523 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' agreed motion to amend the Cook County Assessor's exempt list 3521 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed

Order Amending the Cook County Assessor's Office Exempt List (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/21/2013)

08/21/2013

3524 AGREED ORDER Amending the Cook County Assessor's Office Exempt List Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2013. (Exhibits).Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/21/2013)

08/27/2013 3525 PETITION For Payment on Invoice 108 (Vogel, Mark) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

08/27/2013

3526

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct the Office of the Independent Inspector General of Cook County Employment Plan (Agreed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1.A part 1, # 2 Exhibit 1.A part 2, # 3 Exhibit 1.A.A-G)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

08/27/2013

3527 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct, 3526 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/5/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

08/27/2013 3528 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Complaint Administrator's Petition for Payment on Invoice #108. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

08/27/2013 3529 ORDER regarding petition 3525 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/27/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

08/27/2013

3530

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's agreed motion for approval of the amendments to the Office of the Independent Inspector General of Cook County Employment Plan 3526 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Approving Amendments to the Office of the Independent Inspector General of Cook County Employment (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

08/27/2013

3531

AGREED ORDER Approving Amendments to the Office of the Independent Inspector General of Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/27/2013. Mailed notice. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2). (jj, ) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

08/27/2013

3532

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #22 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

08/27/2013 3533 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice

#22 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/28/2013)

08/27/2013 3534 ORDER regarding other 3532 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/27/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/28/2013)

09/04/2013

3535

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 73 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/04/2013)

09/06/2013

3536

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #73. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/06/2013 3537 ORDER regarding other 3535 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/6/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/10/2013 3538 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's NinetyEighth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

09/11/2013

3539 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Ninety-Eighth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2013)

09/11/2013 3540 ORDER regarding petition 3538 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/11/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2013)

09/12/2013

3541

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 74 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/12/2013)

09/12/2013

3542

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #74. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/12/2013)

09/12/2013 3543 ORDER regarding other 3541 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/12/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/12/2013)

09/17/2013

3544

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #23 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

09/17/2013

3545

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #23 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

09/17/2013 3546 ORDER regarding other 3544 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/17/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

09/18/2013 3547 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiff John R Jackson by Michael Joseph Kralovec (Kralovec, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/18/2013 3548 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiff John R Jackson by Sara R. McClain (McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/18/2013 3549 MOTION by Intervenor Plaintiff John R Jackson to vacate (McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/18/2013 3550 MEMORANDUM motion to vacate 3549 by John R Jackson (McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/18/2013 3551 Exhibits by John R Jackson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2-1, # 3 Exhibit 2-2, # 4 Exhibit 2-3, # 5 Exhibit 2-4)(McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/18/2013 3552 Exhibits by John R Jackson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3-1, # 2 Exhibit 3-2)(McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/18/2013 3553 Exhibits by John R Jackson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4, # 2 Exhibit 5)(McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/18/2013 3554 Exhibits by John R Jackson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6, # 2 Exhibit 7, # 3 Exhibit 8, # 4 Exhibit 9, # 5 Exhibit 10)(McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/18/2013 3555 Exhibits by John R Jackson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11, # 2 Exhibit 12, # 3 Exhibit 13, # 4 Exhibit 14)(McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/18/2013 3556 Exhibit by John R Jackson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 15)(McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/18/2013 3557 NOTICE of Motion by Sara R. McClain for presentment of motion to vacate 3549 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/26/2013 at 08:30 AM. (McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/19/2013 3558 COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF

INVOICE #24 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

09/20/2013

3559

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #24 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

09/20/2013 3560 ORDER regarding other 3558 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

09/24/2013 3561 NOTICE of Motion by Sara R. McClain for presentment of motion to vacate 3549 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/10/2013 at 08:30 AM. (McClain, Sara) (Entered: 09/24/2013)

10/04/2013

3562 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Keino Richard Robinson (Robinson, Keino) (Entered: 10/04/2013)

10/07/2013

3563

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #75 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/07/2013

3564

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #75. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/07/2013 3565 ORDER regarding other 3563 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/7/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/08/2013

3566

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #25 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/08/2013)

10/08/2013

3567

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #25 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/08/2013)

10/08/2013 3568 ORDER regarding other 3566 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/08/2013)

10/09/2013 3569 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 76 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/09/2013)

10/09/2013

3570

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #76. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/09/2013)

10/09/2013 3571 ORDER regarding other 3569 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/9/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/09/2013)

10/10/2013

3572

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court sets the following briefing schedule regarding Intervenor John R. Jackson's motion to vacate arbitration award 3549 : the Defendant Forest Preserve's response is due by 11/12/13; and Intervenor's reply is due by 11/26/13. The Court will issue a ruling in writing by mail on the motion. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/10/2013)

10/14/2013 3573 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City of Chicago (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/14/2013)

10/14/2013 3574 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3573 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/22/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/14/2013)

10/15/2013

3575

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion by plaintiff for attorneys' fees with respect to the City of Chicago 3573 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/15/2013 3576 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City 3573 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/15/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/15/2013 3577 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's Ninety-Ninth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/15/2013 3578 Chicago OIG 3rd Quarter 2013 Report by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Davis, Jonneida) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/15/2013

3579 MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Ninety-Ninth petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/15/2013 3580 ORDER regarding petition 3577 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/15/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/16/2013

3581 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2013)

10/16/2013 3582 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3581 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/23/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2013)

10/16/2013 3583 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Resepct to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2013)

10/16/2013

3584 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3583 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/23/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2013)

10/16/2013 3585 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2013)

10/16/2013

3586 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3585 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/23/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2013)

10/17/2013

3587

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 3581 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2013)

10/17/2013 3588 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/17/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2013)

10/17/2013

3589

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 3583 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2013)

10/17/2013

3590 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/17/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2013)

10/17/2013

3591

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 3585 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2013)

10/17/2013 3592 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/17/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2013)

11/04/2013

3593

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 77 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

11/04/2013

3594

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #77. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

11/04/2013 3595 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/4/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

11/05/2013

3596

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #26 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/05/2013)

11/05/2013

3597

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #26 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/05/2013)

11/05/2013 3598 ORDER regarding other 3596 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/5/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/05/2013)

11/07/2013

3599

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #27 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

11/07/2013

3600

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #27 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

11/07/2013 3601 ORDER regarding other 3599 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/7/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

11/08/2013

3602 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Forest Preserve District of Cook County by Hubert O. Thompson (Thompson, Hubert) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/08/2013

3603

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 78 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/08/2013

3604

MINUTE entry before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #78. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/08/2013 3605 ORDER regarding other 3603 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/12/2013

3606

MEMORANDUM by Forest Preserve District of Cook County in Opposition to motion to vacate 3549 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Arbitration Award, # 2 Exhibit Shakman Complaint, # 3 Exhibit SRO Form 5, # 4 Exhibit Job Posting, # 5 Exhibit Discovery Ruling, # 6 Exhibit Transcript Excerpts)(Thompson, Hubert) (Entered: 11/12/2013)

11/12/2013 3607 NOTICE by Forest Preserve District of Cook County re memorandum in opposition to motion, 3606 (Thompson, Hubert) (Entered: 11/12/2013)

11/20/2013 3608 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's One Hundred Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/20/2013)

11/20/2013

3609 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/20/2013 3610 ORDER regarding petition 3608 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/20/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/26/2013

3611 REPLY by John R Jackson to memorandum in opposition to motion, 3606 , MOTION by Intervenor Plaintiff John R Jackson to vacate 3549 (McClain, Sara) (Entered: 11/26/2013)

11/26/2013 3612 NOTICE by John R Jackson re reply to response to motion 3611 (McClain, Sara) (Entered: 11/26/2013)

12/02/2013

3613

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Exempt List, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 12/02/2013)

12/03/2013

3614

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 3613 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/03/2013)

12/03/2013 3615 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/3/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/03/2013)

12/03/2013 3616 NINTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/03/2013)

12/05/2013

3617 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County,Cook County Assessor, Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Kent Stephen Ray (Ray, Kent) (Entered: 12/05/2013)

12/05/2013

3618

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 79 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/05/2013)

12/05/2013

3619 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County, Unknowns Cook County Assessor, Cook County Recorder of Deeds by James Charles Pullos (Pullos, James) (Entered: 12/05/2013)

12/05/2013 3620 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County, Unknowns Cook County Assessor, Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Donald J. Pechous (Pechous, Donald) (Entered: 12/05/2013)

12/09/2013

3621

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #79. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/09/2013 3622 ORDER regarding other 3618 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/9/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/10/2013 3623 PETITION Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's One Hundred and One Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/10/2013)

12/11/2013

3624

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and One petition for payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/11/2013)

12/11/2013 3625 ORDER regarding petition 3623 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/11/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/11/2013)

12/12/2013

3626

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #28 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/12/2013)

12/12/2013

3627

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #28 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/12/2013)

12/12/2013 3628 ORDER regarding other 3626 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/12/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/12/2013)

12/16/2013 3629 IIG Report Addressing Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/16/2013)

12/16/2013 3630 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF IIG Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/16/2013)

12/19/2013

3631

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 80 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/19/2013)

12/19/2013

3632

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #80. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/19/2013)

12/19/2013 3633 ORDER regarding other 3631 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/19/2013. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/19/2013)

01/10/2014 3634 MOTION by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman Plaintiffs' Motion to Release Thirteen of Monitor's Sorich-Sanchez Reports

(Shakman, Michael) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office) (mr, ). (Entered: 01/10/2014)

01/10/2014

3635

MEMORANDUM by Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 3636 Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Suport of Motion to Release Thirteen of Monitor's Sorich-Sanchez Reports (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Shakman, Michael) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office) (mr, ). (Entered: 01/10/2014)

01/13/2014 3636 MOTION by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman Plaintiffs' Motion to Release Thirteen of Monitor's Sorich-Sanchez Reports (Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014

3637

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 81 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014

3638

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 29 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014

3639

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 30 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014

3640

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 31 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014

3641

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #81. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014 3642 ORDER regarding other 3637 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/13/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014

3643

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #29 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014 3644 ORDER regarding other 3638 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/13/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014

3645

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #30 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014 3646 ORDER regarding other 3639 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/13/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014

3647

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #31 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/13/2014 3648 ORDER regarding other 3640 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/13/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)

01/15/2014 3649 4th Qtr 2013 Report of Accord Complaints from the City of Chicago Inspector General's Office by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Davis, Jonneida) (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/15/2014

3650

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan by Kay L. Dawson (Dawson, Kay) (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/15/2014

3651

MOTION by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan for order to Remove Fredrick E. Vars from the Service List (Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/15/2014 3652 NOTICE of Motion by Michael L. Shakman for presentment of motion for order, 3651 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/21/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/15/2014

3653

ORDER ; Plaintiff's motion to remove Frederick E. Vars from the service list (doc. # 3651 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove Mr. Vars from the service list. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/15/2014. Mailed notice. (ea, ) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

01/17/2014 3654 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 01/17/2014)

01/21/2014

3655

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 3654 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/21/2014)

01/21/2014

3656

AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/21/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Part Two). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/21/2014)

01/21/2014

3657

RESPONSE by City of Chicago, Thein Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman Plaintiffs' Motion to Release Thirteen of Monitor's Sorich-Sanchez Reports 3636 (Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 01/21/2014)

01/27/2014

3658

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #82 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/27/2014)

01/27/2014

3659

COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, MARY ROBINSINS PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 102 by Mary Robinson (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/27/2014)

01/27/2014

3660

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #82. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/28/2014)

01/27/2014 3661 ORDER regarding other 3658 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/27/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/28/2014)

01/28/2014

3662

REPLY by Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan to response in opposition to motion 3657 , MOTION by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman Plaintiffs' Motion to Release Thirteen of Monitor's Sorich-Sanchez Reports 3636 (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 01/28/2014)

01/29/2014 3663 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary T. Robinson's, Petition for Payment of Invoice #102. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/29/2014)

01/29/2014 3664 ORDER regarding other 3659 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/29/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/29/2014)

01/30/2014

3665

RESPONSE by Noelle C Brennan to MOTION by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman Plaintiffs' Motion to Release Thirteen of Monitor's Sorich-Sanchez Reports 3636 RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF COMPLETED MONITOR DISCIPLINE REPORTS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 01/30/2014)

01/30/2014

3666

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 83 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/30/2014)

01/31/2014

3667

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #83. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2014)

01/31/2014 3668 ORDER regarding other 3666 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/31/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2014)

01/31/2014

3669

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 32 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/31/2014)

01/31/2014

3670

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #32 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2014)

01/31/2014 3671 ORDER regarding other 3669 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/31/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/31/2014)

02/10/2014

3672

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE 33 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/10/2014)

02/11/2014 3673 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of

Invoice #33 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/11/2014)

02/11/2014 3674 ORDER regarding other 3672 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/11/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/11/2014)

02/13/2014 3675 PETITION by Mary Robinson Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's One-Hundred Third Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

02/13/2014

3676

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary T. Robinson's, One Hundred and Third Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

02/13/2014 3677 ORDER regarding other 3675 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/13/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

02/17/2014 3678 PETITION by Cardelle Spangler RCA'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 84 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/17/2014)

02/18/2014

3679

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #84. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014)

02/18/2014 3680 ORDER regarding other 3678 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/18/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014)

02/21/2014

3681

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion to release certain reports prepared by the Accord Monitor 3636 is granted in part. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/21/2014)

02/21/2014 3682 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/21/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/21/2014)

02/24/2014

3683 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/24/2014 3684 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3683 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/27/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/24/2014 3685 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/24/2014 3686 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3685 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/27/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/24/2014

3687 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/24/2014 3688 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3687 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/27/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/25/2014

3689

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 3683 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2014)

02/25/2014

3690 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/25/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2014)

02/25/2014

3691

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 3685 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2014)

02/25/2014 3692 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/25/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2014)

02/25/2014

3693

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 3687 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2014)

02/25/2014

3694 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Costs and Fees with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/25/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2014)

02/28/2014

3695

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #34 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 02/28/2014)

02/28/2014 3696 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City of Chicago (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/28/2014)

02/28/2014

3697 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3696 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/6/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/28/2014)

03/03/2014

3698

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #34 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/03/2014)

03/03/2014 3699 ORDER regarding other 3695 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/3/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/03/2014)

03/03/2014

3700

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion by plaintiff for attorneys' fees with respect to the City of Chicago 3696 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/03/2014)

03/03/2014 3701 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City 3696 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/3/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/03/2014)

03/11/2014

3702

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #85 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/11/2014)

03/11/2014

3703

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S AMENDED PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #85 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/11/2014)

03/12/2014

3704

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, amended petition for payment of Invoice #85. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2014)

03/12/2014 3705 ORDER regarding other 3703 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/12/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2014)

03/14/2014 3706 PETITION Shakman Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's 104th Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/14/2014)

03/14/2014 3710 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (ph, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/14/2014 3711 PRO SE Appearance by Movant Zachary Ferguson. (ph, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/14/2014

3712

MOTION by Movant Zachary Ferguson to appoint an "Article III" Judge over Shakman Decree Grounds: Title 7, Section 703(n)(3), 706(f)(4), (5), (g)(1) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc. and three copies. (Exhibits) (ph, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/14/2014 3713 PROOF of Service Affidavit of Zackary Ferguson. (ph, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/17/2014

3707

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary T. Robinson's, One Hundred and Fourth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/17/2014)

03/17/2014 3708 ORDER regarding petition 3706 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/17/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/17/2014)

03/17/2014

3709

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Notice of Filing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 03/17/2014)

03/18/2014

3714 TENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/19/2014

3715

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 3709 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

03/19/2014 3716 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/19/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

03/20/2014 3717 COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF

INVOICE #35 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 03/20/2014)

03/20/2014

3718

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #35 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)

03/20/2014 3719 ORDER regarding other 3717 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/20/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)

03/24/2014

3720

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 86 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/24/2014)

03/24/2014

3721

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #86. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/24/2014)

03/24/2014 3722 ORDER regarding other 3720 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/24/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/24/2014)

04/03/2014

3723

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #36 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/03/2014)

04/03/2014

3724

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #36 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/03/2014)

04/03/2014 3725 ORDER regarding other 3723 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/3/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/03/2014)

04/14/2014 3726 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG Report Addressing Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

04/14/2014 3727 OIIG Report Addressing Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

04/14/2014 3728 1st Qtr 2014 Report of Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Davis, Jonneida) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

04/17/2014 3729 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 87 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014

3730

COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 88 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014

3731

MOTION by Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds to amend/correct Recorder of Deeds Exempt List (Agreed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Exempt List, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Agreed Order)(Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014

3732

NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Edward Nowinski for presentment of motion to amend/correct 3731 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/22/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014 3733 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's 105th Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014

3734

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #87. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014 3735 ORDER regarding other 3729 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/17/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014

3736

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #88. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014 3737 ORDER regarding other 3730 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/17/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014

3738

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Exempt List 3731 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014

3739 AGREED ORDER to Amend Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Exempt List Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/17/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014

3740

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary T. Robinson's, One Hundred and Fifth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014 3741 ORDER regarding petition 3733 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/17/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/22/2014

3742 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct the CCHHS Direct Appointment Position List (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

04/22/2014 3743 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct 3742 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/30/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

04/22/2014

3744

MOTION by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan for Entry of Supplemental Relief With Respect to the Governor of Illinois (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

04/22/2014

3745

NOTICE of Motion by Edward W. Feldman for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief,, 3744 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

04/22/2014

3746

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's agreed motion to amend the CCHHS Direct Appointment Position List 3742 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Amending the CCHHS Direct Appointment List (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

04/22/2014 3747 AGREED ORDER Amending the CCHHS Direct Appointment List Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/22/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

04/25/2014

3748

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #37 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/25/2014)

04/28/2014

3749

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #38 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

3750

COOK COUNTY RECORDER COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLERS PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #89 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014 3751 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois by Andrew Laurence Dryjanski (Dryjanski, Andrew) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

3752 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois by Rachel Laird TidwellNeal (Tidwell-Neal, Rachel) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014 3753 COOK County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham, Agreed Order for Invoice #37. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 04-28-14. (ph, ) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

04/28/2014

3754

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #38 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

04/28/2014 3755 ORDER regarding other 3749 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/28/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

04/28/2014

3756

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #89. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

04/28/2014 3757 ORDER regarding other 3750 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/28/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

04/29/2014

3758

ORDER: Motion hearing held. In light of the plaintiffs having filed an amended motion (doc. # 3744 ), plaintiff's motion for entry of supplemental relief with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 1460 ) is hereby stricken. By agreement, the Court sets the following briefing schedule regarding plaintiffs' amended motion for entry of supplemental relief with respect to the governor of Illinois (doc. # 3744 ): the Governor's response is due by no later than 6/06/14. For the reasons stated on the record, defense counsel's oral motion for leave to withdraw the appearance of Deborah Joyce Allen is granted.

The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to terminate the appearance of Deborah Joyce Allen as counsel for the Governor. The matter is set for a status hearing with the magistrate judge on 6/17/14 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on April 29, 2014. Mailed notice (ph, ) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

05/02/2014 3759 TENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/02/2014)

05/02/2014

3760

STATUS Report of Investigations Summary by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Discipline Report 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, Discipline Report 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, Discipline Report 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, Discipline Report 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, Discipline Report 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, Discipline Report 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, Discipline Report 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, Discipline Report 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, Discipline Report 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, Discipline Report 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, Discipline Report 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, Discipline Report 12)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/02/2014)

05/08/2014

3761

MOTION by Movant Zachary Ferguson to hold Chicago Transit Authority, and those Defendants aiding and abetting, in contempt for violation of court orders (Shakman Decree), etc; Motion to appoint an "Article III" Judge over Shakman Decree Grounds: Title 7, Section 703(n)(3), 706(f)(4),(5), (g)(1) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc. (ea, )(Exhibits) (Entered: 05/13/2014)

05/15/2014

3762

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for hearing on Joint Motion for a Finding of Substantial Complaince and Dismissal of the City of Chicago (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 2.A, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 3.A, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 4.A, # 7 Exhibit 5-6)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

05/15/2014

3763

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion for setting a hearing date and for a finding of substantial compliance and dismissal of the City of Chicago (doc. # 3762 ) is granted. The matter is set for a hearing before the magistrate judge on 6/16/14 at 10:00 a.m. ENTER AGREED ORDER SETTING A HEARING DATE. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

05/15/2014 3764 AGREED ORDER SETTING A HEARING DATE Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/15/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

05/15/2014

3765 MEMORANDUM by City of Chicago, The In Support of the Agreed Motion for Entry of an Order of Substantial Compliance (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B,

# 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J)(Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

05/15/2014 3766 STATUS Report Regarding Substantial Compliance by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

05/16/2014 3767 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion by Zachary J. Ferguson (doc. # 3761 ) is denied. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/16/2014)

05/16/2014 3768 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/16/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/16/2014)

05/19/2014 3769 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's 106th Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014

3770

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary T. Robinson's, One Hundred and Sixth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014 3771 ORDER regarding petition 3769 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/19/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014 3772 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014 3773 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3772 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/28/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014 3774 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014

3775 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3774 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/28/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014

3776

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 3772 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014 3777 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/19/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014

3778

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 3774 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/19/2014 3779 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/19/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

05/20/2014 3782 LETTER from Barney Hunt dated 5/16/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 05/22/2014)

05/20/2014 3783 LETTER from Brock F. Merck dated 5/19/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 05/22/2014)

05/21/2014 3780 STATUS Report May 21, 2014 Report on Substantial Compliance by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/21/2014)

05/22/2014 3781 AMENDED May 21, 2014 Report on Substantial Compliance (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/22/2014)

05/23/2014

3784

AGREED MOTION by Cook County to Amend Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit)(Brennan, Daniel) (Docket text modified by Clerk's office on 5/23/2014 (rp, )). (Entered: 05/23/2014)

05/23/2014

3785

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 3784 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2014)

05/23/2014

3786 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2014)

05/27/2014 3787 SERVICE by Publication filed by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

05/27/2014

3788 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City of Chicago (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

05/27/2014 3789 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3788 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/5/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

05/27/2014 3792 LETTER from Donald W. Walsh dated 5/22/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 05/28/2014)

05/28/2014

3790

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion by plaintiff for attorneys' fees with respect to the City of Chicago 3788 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/28/2014)

05/28/2014 3791 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to the City 3788 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/28/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/28/2014)

05/29/2014

3793

COOK COUNTY RECORDER COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLERS PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #90 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/29/2014)

05/29/2014

3794

COOK COUNTY RECORDER COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLERS PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #91 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/29/2014)

05/29/2014

3795

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #90. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/29/2014)

05/29/2014 3796 ORDER regarding other 3793 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/29/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/29/2014)

05/29/2014

3797

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #91. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/29/2014)

05/29/2014 3798 ORDER regarding other 3794 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/29/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/29/2014)

05/30/2014 3799 LETTER from Jay Stone dated 5/30/14. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2014)

06/02/2014

3800 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's motion to vacate arbitration award (doc. # 3549 ) is denied; the arbitration award

dated June 20, 2013 denying Mr. Jackson's claim is confirmed. The case is terminated. Mailed notice (ber, ) Modified on 6/2/2014 (ber, ). (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 3801 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/2/2014. Mailed notice (ber, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 3802 LETTER from Dominique Fulgiam-Hudson dated 5/28/14. (Exhibits) (ea, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)

06/03/2014 3805 LETTER from Bernard Crawford dated 5/31/14. (Exhibits) (ea, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)

06/04/2014 3806 OBJECTION to the motion for a finding of substantial compliance by Bruce Randazzo and Patrick McDonough, City of Chicago Department of Water Management. (ea, ) (Entered: 06/05/2014)

06/05/2014 3803 Shakman Class Members Written Objection to Joint Motion for Substantial Compliance by Employees Various (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Herbert, Daniel) (Entered: 06/05/2014)

06/05/2014

3804 NOTICE by Employees Various re other 3803 Shakman Class Members Written Objection to Joint Motion for Substantial Compliance (Herbert, Daniel) (Entered: 06/05/2014)

06/05/2014 3807 LETTER from Michael Outley dated 6/4/2014. (Exhibits) (ea, ) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/05/2014 3808 LETTER from Bruce Randazzo dated 6/4/2014. (Exhibits) (ea, ) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/05/2014 3831 LETTER from Daniel Sheehan dated 6/1/14. (rp, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/05/2014 3835 LETTER from David E. Davis dated 6/5/14. (rp, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/06/2014

3809

RESPONSE by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to MOTION by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stu 3744 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Dryjanski, Andrew) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/06/2014 3810 MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for leave to file excess pages ,

MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to file instanter (Dryjanski, Andrew) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/06/2014

3811

NOTICE by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois re MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for leave to file excess pages MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to file instanter 3810 , response to motion, 3809 and Certificate of Service (Dryjanski, Andrew) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

06/06/2014 3814 LETTER from Peter Paul Tortorice dated 6/04/14. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/06/2014 3830 LETTER from Alonzo Goodlet dated 6/5/2014. (Exhibits) (rp, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/06/2014 3832 LETTER from Michael E Sullivan dated 6/5/14. (Exhibits)(rp, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/06/2014 3833 LETTER from Michael E Sullivan dated 6/5/14. (rp, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/06/2014 3834 LETTER from James Maloney dated 6/1/14. (rp, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/06/2014 3836 LETTER from Gilda Archer. (rp, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/06/2014 3838 LETTER from Peter Paul Tortorice dated 6/4/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/06/2014 3839 LETTER from Jay Stone dated 6/5/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/06/2014

3840

LETTER from Jay Stone. (ea, ) (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (eaa, ). Modified on 11/6/2017 (eaa, ). (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/06/2014 3841 LETTER from Bertha R. Coleman dated 6/03/14. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/06/2014

3846 LETTER from Micheal Outley dated 6/4/2014. (Exhibits) (Poor Quality Document - Paper Document on file) (ea, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

06/09/2014

3812

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Governon Quinn's unopposed motion for leave to file an oversize brief instanter 3810 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

3813

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #39 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

3815

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #40 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

3816

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #41 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

3817

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The joint motion for a finding of substantial compliance and dismissal of the City of Chicago (doc. # 3762 ) is set for hearing on 6/16/14 at 10:00 a.m. THE HEARING WILL TAKE PLACE IN COURTROOM #2525. Three individuals (Messrs. Walsh (doc. # 3792 ), Stone (doc. # 3799 ) and Outley (doc. # 3807 ) have requested an opportunity to speak at the hearing. The Court grants those requests; each of the individuals will be given ten minutes for their remarks. No audio visual equipment will be available or may be used for the presentations, which are limited to oral remarks. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

3818 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014 3819 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3818 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/17/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

3820

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #39 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014 3821 ORDER regarding other 3813 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/9/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

3822

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #40 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014 3823 ORDER regarding other 3815 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/9/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

3824

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #41 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014 3825 ORDER regarding other 3816 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/9/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

3826

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 3818 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014

3827 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/9/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014 3828 LETTER from Reginald B. Williams, Sr. dated 6/03/14. (Exhibits). (jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014 3829 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's 107th Petition for Payment. (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/09/2014 3843 LETTER from Bertha R. Coleman dated 6/3/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

06/10/2014 3837 LETTER from Frank Anton dated 6/09/14. (Exhibits). (jj, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/10/2014

3842

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Mr. Sullivan has filed a belated objection to the joint motion for a finding of substantial compliance and dismissal of the City of Chicago, along with a request to speak at the hearing (doc. #'s 3832 - 3833 ). We grant Mr. Sullivan's request to address the Court at the hearing set for 6/16/14 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #2525, for up to ten minutes. No audio visual equipment will be available or may be used for the presentation, which will be limited to oral remarks. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)

06/10/2014 3844 LETTER from Cathy Wimms. (ea, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

06/10/2014 3845 LETTER from Philip A. Brooks. (ea, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

06/11/2014

3847

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary T. Robinson's, One Hundred and Seventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

06/11/2014 3848 ORDER regarding petition 3829 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/11/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

06/11/2014

3849

MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago, The for order Approving and Substituting New Hiring Procedures for the Office of the Inspector General (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

06/11/2014

3850 NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Ray Patton for presentment of motion for order 3849 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/17/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 06/11/2014)

06/12/2014

3851

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: City of Chicago's agreed motion for entry of an order approving and substituting new hiring procedures for the Office of the Inspector General 3849 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Court hereby approves the Office of Inspector General Hiring Procedures attached as Exhibit A to the motion for substitution into the 2011 City of Chicago Hiring Plan and for immediate use. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/12/2014

3852

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Messrs. Goodlet (doc. # 3830 ), Randazzo and McDonough (doc. # 3808 ) all have filed objections and requests to speak at the hearing on the joint motion for a finding of substantial compliance and dismissal of the City of Chicago (doc. # 3762 ), which will take place on June 16, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #2525. The Court grants the requests by those individuals to speak at the hearing. Each individual will be given ten minutes for his remarks. No audio visual equipment will be available or may be used for the presentations, which are limited to oral remarks. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/12/2014

3853

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #92 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/12/2014

3854

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #92. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/12/2014 3855 ORDER regarding other 3853 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/12/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/13/2014

3856 NOTICE by City of Chicago, The re order 3764 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of John M. Arvetis II)(Patton, Stephen) (Entered: 06/13/2014)

06/16/2014 3857 INVOICE SUMMARY by Noelle C Brennan and Susan Cox. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/16/2014)

06/16/2014 3858 PUBLIC HEARING TESTOMONY of Donald E. Walsh. (jj, ). Modified on 6/17/2014 (jj, ). (Entered: 06/16/2014)

06/16/2014

3860

ORDER; Motion hearing held. Bruce Randazzo's oral motion to allow Mr. Archie High the opportunity to speak at the hearing is granted. The Court grants leave for Mr. Archie High to speak at the hearing for up to ten minutes. For the reasons stated on the record, the parties' joint motion for a finding of substantial compliance and dismissal of the City of Chicago (doc. # 3762 ) is granted. The Clerk of the Court is further ordered to terminate the City of Chicago as defendant to the case. Enter Order (attached). Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/16/2014. Mailed notice. (ea, ) (Entered: 06/17/2014)

06/16/2014

3861 ORDER Finding Substantial Compliance and Dismissing The City of Chicago, Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/16/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 06/17/2014)

06/16/2014 3862 NOTICE of Correction regarding other 3858 . (jj, ) (Entered: 06/17/2014)

06/17/2014

3859

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record and by agreement, the Court sets the following briefing schedule regarding plaintiffs' amended motion for entry of supplemental relief with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 3744 ): the plaintiff's reply is due by no later than 7/08/14. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 7/29/14 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/17/2014)

07/01/2014 3864 MOTION by Movant Zachary Ferguson for Intervention, to appoint an "Article III" Judge, and to vacate court ruling by Sidney I. Schenkier. (Exhibits) (ea, ) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/01/2014 3865 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (ea, ) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/01/2014 3866 PRO SE Appearance by Movant Zachary Ferguson. (ea, ) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/01/2014

3867

NOTICE of Motion by Zachary Ferguson as to City of Chicago Attn: Rahm Emanuel, Mayor, Chicago Fire Department, City of Chicago Attn: Department of Human Resources, City of Chicago Office of Legal Compliance, U.S. Department of Justice and White House. (Attachments: # 1 to Chicago Fire Department, # 2 City of Chicago, # 3 City of Chicago Office of Legal Compliance, # 4 U.S. Department of Justice, # 5 White House)(ea, ) Modified on 7/3/2014 (ea, ). (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/02/2014

3863

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's unopposed oral motion to file it's reply brief to plaintiffs' amended motion for entry of supplemental relief with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 3744 ) in the amount of 20 pages is granted. Plaintiff is given leave to file it's reply brief, up to 20 pages, by no later than 7/08/14. The status hearing before the magistrate judge set for 7/29/14 at 9:30 a.m. remains unchanged. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/03/2014)

07/08/2014

3868

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #93 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014

3869

REPLY by Michael L Shakman to response to motion, 3809 , MOTION by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stu 3744 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-5)(Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014

3870

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #93. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014 3871 ORDER regarding other 3868 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/8/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/09/2014 3872 ORDER: Motion for intervention by Zachary J. Ferguson (doc. #3864) is denied. ENTER ORDER. (For further details see order(s) attached).

Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/9/2014. (jh, ) (Entered: 07/10/2014)

07/09/2014 3873 ORDER signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/9/2014. (jh, ) (Entered: 07/10/2014)

07/11/2014

3874

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 94 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/11/2014)

07/11/2014

3875

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #43 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/11/2014)

07/11/2014

3876

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #42 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 07/11/2014)

07/14/2014

3877

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #94. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/14/2014 3878 ORDER regarding other 3874 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/14/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/14/2014

3879

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #43 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/14/2014 3880 ORDER regarding other 3875 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/14/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/14/2014

3881

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #42 is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/14/2014 3882 ORDER regarding other 3876 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/14/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/15/2014 3883 Second Quarterly Report of 2014 Shakman Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Davis, Jonneida) (Entered: 07/15/2014)

07/16/2014 3884 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Eighth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/16/2014)

07/16/2014

3885

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary T. Robinson's, One Hundred and Eighth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/16/2014)

07/16/2014 3886 ORDER regarding petition 3884 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/16/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/16/2014)

07/17/2014

3887

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Employment Plan Exempt List)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 07/17/2014)

07/17/2014

3888

MOTION by Defendant Cook County for order Agreed Order Amending Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Employment Plan Exempt List)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 07/17/2014)

07/17/2014

3889

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 3887 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). The Defendant, Cook County's, motion for an agreed order amending Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 3888 ) is terminated as it is a duplicate motion (doc. # 3887 ). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2014)

07/17/2014 3890 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/17/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2014)

07/23/2014

3891

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Telephone status conference held with parties. The in court status hearing set for 7/29/14 remains unchanged. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/23/2014)

07/24/2014

3892 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

07/24/2014 3893 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3892 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/31/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

07/25/2014

3894

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 3892 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2014)

07/25/2014 3895 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/25/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2014)

07/25/2014 3896 ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Ricardo Meza by Francis Neil MacDonald (MacDonald, Francis) (Entered: 07/25/2014)

07/29/2014

3897

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Exhibit J Actively Recruited Positions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Actively Recruited List, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2014)

07/29/2014

3898

ORDER Entered by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/29/2014: Magistrate Judge Status hearing held. Motion hearing held. Oral motion by Attorneys Francis Neil MacDonald and Long Truong on behalf of the Office of the Executive Inspector General (OEIG), for leave to appear as Amicus is granted without objection. Surresponse to Plaintiffs' Motion 3744 for Entry of Supplemental Relief With Respect to the Governor of Illinois along with any submission by Amicus OEIG is due by 9/15/14. Any Surreply in support of the motion is due by 10/06/14. Magistrate judge status hearing set for 10/22/14 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice(tlm, ) (Entered: 07/30/2014)

07/30/2014

3899

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 3897 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2014)

07/30/2014 3900 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/30/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2014)

08/07/2014 3901 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the City (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/07/2014)

08/07/2014 3902 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3901 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/14/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/07/2014)

08/07/2014

3903

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the City of Chicago (doc. # 3901 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required.ENTER ORDER.Mailed notice (gel, ) (Entered: 08/07/2014)

08/07/2014 3904 ORDER, Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/7/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 08/08/2014)

08/12/2014 3905 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014 3906 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3905 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014

3907 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014 3908 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3907 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014

3909 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/12/2014. (ma,) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014 3910 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/12/2014. (ma,) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/15/2014 3911 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard OIIG Report Addressing the Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2014)

08/15/2014 3912 OIIG Report Addressing the Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2014)

08/20/2014

3913

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #44 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 08/20/2014)

08/20/2014

3914

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 95 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/20/2014)

08/20/2014

3915

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 96 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/20/2014)

08/21/2014

3916

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #44 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

08/21/2014 3917 ORDER regarding other 3913 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

08/21/2014

3918

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #95. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

08/21/2014 3919 ORDER regarding other 3914 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

08/21/2014

3920

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #96. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

08/21/2014 3921 ORDER regarding other 3915 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

08/21/2014 3922 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds Amended (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

08/21/2014 3923 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3922 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/28/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

08/21/2014

3924

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court enters Amended Order Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor, replacing the previous order entered on 8/12/14 (doc. # 3909 ). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2014)

08/21/2014

3925

AMENDED ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/22/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2014)

08/21/2014

3926

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' amended unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 3922 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached) hereby amending the order entered on 8/12/14 (doc. # 3910 ). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2014)

08/21/2014

3927

AMENDED ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2014)

09/02/2014 3928 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Ninth Petition for Payment. (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/02/2014)

09/03/2014

3929

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Ninth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/03/2014)

09/03/2014 3930 ORDER regarding petition 3928 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/3/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/03/2014)

09/08/2014

3931 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 09/08/2014)

09/08/2014

3932

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 3931 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/09/2014)

09/08/2014 3933 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/8/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/09/2014)

09/10/2014

3934

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #45 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

09/10/2014

3935

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #46 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

09/11/2014

3936

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #45 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2014)

09/11/2014 3937 ORDER regarding other 3934 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/11/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2014)

09/11/2014

3938

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #46 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2014)

09/11/2014 3939 ORDER regarding other 3935 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/11/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2014)

09/12/2014

3940

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #97 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/12/2014)

09/12/2014

3941

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #97. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/12/2014)

09/12/2014 3942 ORDER regarding other 3940 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/12/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/12/2014)

09/15/2014 3943 ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Ricardo Meza by Christopher J. Kim (Kim, Christopher) (Entered: 09/15/2014)

09/15/2014

3944

AMICUS CURIAE SUBMISSION BY THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE AGENCIES OF THE ILLINOIS GOVERNOR by Ricardo Meza (Attachments: # 1 Appendix OEIG FINAL SUMMARY REPORT, CASE # 11-01567, AND RESPONSES: COVER SHEET, # 2 Appendix OEIG FINAL SUMMARY REPORT, CASE # 11-01567, AND RESPONSES: PART 1 OF 4, # 3 Appendix OEIG FINAL SUMMARY REPORT, CASE # 11-01567, AND RESPONSES: PART 2 OF 4, # 4 Appendix OEIG FINAL SUMMARY REPORT, CASE # 11-01567, AND RESPONSES: PART 3 OF 4, # 5 Appendix OEIG FINAL

SUMMARY REPORT, CASE # 11-01567, AND RESPONSES: PART 4 OF 4)(Kim, Christopher) (Entered: 09/15/2014)

09/15/2014

3945

RESPONSE by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to reply to response to motion, 3869 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Notice of Filing)(Tidwell-Neal, Rachel) (Entered: 09/15/2014)

09/25/2014 3946 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Tenth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/25/2014)

09/26/2014

3947

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Tenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/26/2014)

09/26/2014 3948 ORDER regarding petition 3946 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/26/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/26/2014)

10/06/2014

3949

SUR-REPLY by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan to Response, 3945 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 10/06/2014)

10/06/2014

3950

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #98 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/06/2014)

10/06/2014

3951

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #99 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/06/2014)

10/07/2014

3952

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/7/2014: Administrator's Ninety-Ninth Unopposed Petition for Payment 3951 is granted. (See order for further details) Mailed notice(gel, ) (Entered: 10/07/2014)

10/07/2014 3953 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/7/2014:Administrator's Ninety-Eighth Unopposed Petition for

Payment 3950 is granted. (See order for further details) Mailed notice(gel, ) (Entered: 10/07/2014)

10/10/2014

3954 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014 3955 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3954 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/16/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/10/2014 3956 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/10/2014:Motion for attorney fees 3954 is granted. (See order for further details)Mailed notice(gel, ) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/14/2014 3957 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Chicago Park District by Annette Michele McGarry (McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 10/14/2014)

10/14/2014 3958 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Chicago Park District by Marianne C. Holzhall (Holzhall, Marianne) (Entered: 10/14/2014)

10/14/2014 3959 MOTION by Defendant Chicago Park District for leave to file additional appearances of counsel (McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 10/14/2014)

10/14/2014 3960 NOTICE of Motion by Annette Michele McGarry for presentment of motion for leave to file 3959 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/21/2014 at 08:30 AM. (McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 10/14/2014)

10/15/2014

3961

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Chicago Park District's agreed motion for leave to file additional appearances of counsel 3959 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Annette M. McGarry and Marianne C. Holzhall, of the firm of McGarry & McGarry, LLC, may file their appearance. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

10/15/2014

3962 Office of Inspector General Accord Filing for 3rd Quarter of 2014 by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Davis, Jonneida) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

10/20/2014

3963

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 47 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/20/2014 3964 COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF

INVOICE #48 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/20/2014

3965

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #49 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/20/2014

3966

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #47 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/20/2014 3967 ORDER regarding other 3963 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/20/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/20/2014

3968

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #48 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/20/2014 3969 ORDER regarding other 3964 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/20/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/20/2014

3970

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #49 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/20/2014 3971 ORDER regarding other 3965 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/20/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/22/2014

3972

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status and motion hearings held. The parties report on the status of the case. For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiffs' amended motion for entry of supplemental relief with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 3744 ) is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants plaintiffs' request for the appointment of a special master with respect to certain matters raised in the amended motion concerning the Illinois Department of Transportation. The parties shall meet and confer and propose to the Court an order, consistent with the Court's statement on the record, specifying the work to be performed by the special master. The Court denies plaintiffs' request for leave to take additional discovery. The matter is set for a further status hearing with the magistrate judge on 10/29/14 at 9:30 a.m. in Chambers, Rm. #1846. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/22/2014 3973 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/22/2014 3974 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3973 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/29/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/22/2014

3975 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/22/2014 3976 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 3975 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/29/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/22/2014

3977

MOTION by Defendant Cook County for order Entering CCHHS Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Notice of Filing)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/22/2014

3978

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 3973 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/22/2014

3979 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Assessor 3973 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/22/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/22/2014

3980

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 3975 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/22/2014

3981

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds 3975 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/22/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/22/2014 3982 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10/22/14 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Lisa Breiter at (312) 818-6683 or lisa_breiter@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 11/12/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/24/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/20/2015. (Breiter, Lisa) (Entered: 10/22/2014)

10/23/2014

3983

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to enter the Cook County Health & Hospital Systems Employment Plan (doc. # 3977 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/23/2014 3984 AGREED ORDER entering the Cook County Health & Hospital Systems Employment Plan 3977 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/23/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

10/24/2014

3985 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Eleventh Petition for Payment. (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/24/2014)

10/24/2014

3986

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Eleventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/24/2014)

10/24/2014 3987 ORDER regarding petition 3985 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/24/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
10/24/2014 3988 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The matter is set for a status hearing with respect to the Recorder of Deeds on 12/03/14 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/24/2014)

10/24/2014

3989

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Telephone status hearing held with the parties. In line with the Court's ruling on 10/22/14, the Court hereby appoints Noelle Brennan to act as the special master. The details of the appointment will be set forth in a later order that the Court will enter after receiving input from the parties. The status hearing in chambers set for 10/29/14 is converted to a telephone status conference to be held on 10/29/14 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/24/2014)

10/27/2014

3990

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The status hearing with respect to the Recorder of Deeds set for 12/03/14 is RESET to 12/05/14 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014 3991 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Assessor to amend/correct Assessor's Exempt List (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014

3992

NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Edward Nowinski for presentment of motion to amend/correct 3991 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/30/2014 at 08:30 AM. (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/28/2014

3993

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 100 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/28/2014)

10/28/2014

3994

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #101 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/28/2014)

10/28/2014

3995

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE 50 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 10/28/2014)

10/29/2014

3996 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Telephone status hearing held. The matter is set for a status hearing in chambers on 11/06/14 at 5:30 p.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014

3997

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed Motion to Amend the Cook County Assessor's Exempt List 3991 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014

3998

AGREED ORDER Amending Various Sections of the Cook County Assessor's Office Exempt List Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/29/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014

3999

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #100. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014 4000 ORDER regarding other 3993 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/29/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014

4001

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #101. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014 4002 ORDER regarding other 3994 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/29/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014

4003

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #50 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014 4004 ORDER regarding other 3995 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/29/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

11/10/2014

4005

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #102 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014

4006

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #51 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014

4007 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twelfth Petition for Payment. (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014

4008

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #102. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014 4009 ORDER regarding other 4005 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/10/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014

4010

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #51 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014 4011 ORDER regarding other 4006 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/10/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014

4012

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Twelfth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/10/2014 4013 ORDER regarding petition 4007 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/10/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/10/2014)

11/13/2014

4014

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order on motion for order, terminate hearings 2716 , order 2717 Agreed Motion Amending Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Notice of Filing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 11/13/2014)

11/13/2014 4018 ENTERED IN ERROR. Modified on 11/19/2014 (ea, ). (Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/14/2014

4015

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 4014 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/14/2014 4016 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/14/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/14/2014 4017 AFFIDAVIT of Noelle C. Brennan PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 53 (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/18/2014 4019 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order Appointing a Special Master for IDOT (Attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014

4020 ORDER Appointing A Special Master For IDOT Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/18/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/19/2014 4021 NOTICE of Correction regarding 4018 . (ea, ) (Entered: 11/19/2014)

12/03/2014 4022 MOTION by Defendant Chicago Park Districtfor approval of Employment Plan (agreed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 12/03/2014)

12/03/2014 4023 NOTICE of Motion by Annette Michele McGarry for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 4022 before Honorable Sidney I.

Schenkier on 12/11/2014 at 08:30 AM. (McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 12/03/2014)

12/03/2014

4025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion by Chicago Park District for approval of employment plan (doc. # 4022 ) is granted. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/03/2014 4026 AGREED ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/3/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/05/2014

4024

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement of the parties, the status hearing set for 12/05/14 before the magistrate judge is RESET to 12/19/14 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/09/2014

4027

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #103 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/09/2014

4028

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 104 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/09/2014)

12/09/2014

4030

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #103. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

12/09/2014 4031 ORDER regarding other 4027 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/9/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

12/09/2014

4032

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #104. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

12/09/2014 4033 ORDER regarding other 4028 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/9/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

12/10/2014

4029 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Notice of Filing)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 12/10/2014)

12/11/2014

4034

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S FILED THIRD REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

12/11/2014

4035

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Court's Order of November 14, 2014 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Employment Plan, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A to Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

12/11/2014

4036

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S ELEVENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

12/11/2014

4037

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion by defendant Cook County to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 4029 is granted. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

12/11/2014 4038 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/11/2014. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

12/11/2014

4039

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the order entered on 11/14/14 regarding County of Cook (doc. # 4035 ) is granted. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/12/2014)

12/11/2014

4040

AGREED ORDER Amending the Court's Order Amending the Cook County Employment Plan Dated November 14, 2014 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/11/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/12/2014)

12/15/2014 4041 IIG Report Addressing the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014 4042 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard IIG Report Addressing the Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/19/2014

4043 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held and continued to 2/6/2015 at 10:00 AM.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 12/19/2014)

12/22/2014 4044 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirteenth Petition for Payment. (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014

4045

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Thirteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 4046 ORDER regarding petition 4044 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/22/2014. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/30/2014

4047

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #52 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

12/30/2014

4048

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #53 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

12/30/2014

4049

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #54 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

12/30/2014

4050

ORDER; The Assessor's Compliance Administrator's Fifty-Second Unopposed Petition for Payment is granted. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2014. Mailed notice. (ea, ) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

12/30/2014 4051 Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham, Agreed Order for invoice #52, Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

12/30/2014

4052

ORDER ; The Assessor's Compliance Administrator's Fifty-Third Unopposed Petition for Payment is granted. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2014. Mailed notice. (ea, ) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

12/30/2014

4053 Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham, Agreed Order for Invoice #53, Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

12/30/2014 4054 ORDER, The Assessor's Compliance Administrator's Fifty-Fourth Unopposed Petition for Payment is granted, Signed by the Honorable

Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2014. Mailed notice. (ea, ) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

12/30/2014

4055 Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham, Agreed Order for Invoice #54, Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2014. (ea, ) (Entered: 12/30/2014)

01/06/2015 4056 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 12/19/14 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Lisa Breiter at (312) 818-6683 or lisa_breiter@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 1/27/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/6/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/6/2015. (Breiter, Lisa) (Entered: 01/06/2015)

01/06/2015 4057 MOTION by counsel for Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to withdraw as attorney Andrew L. Dryjanski (Dryjanski, Andrew) (Entered: 01/06/2015)

01/06/2015

4058

NOTICE of Motion by Andrew Laurence Dryjanski for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 4057 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/13/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Dryjanski, Andrew) (Entered: 01/06/2015)

01/06/2015

4060

ORDER: Motion to withdraw Andrew L. Dryjanski as counsel of record for the Governor of the State of Illinois (doc. # 4057 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Clerk of the Court is request to terminate the appearance of Mr. Dryjanski as counsel of record for the Governor of the State of Illinois. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on January 6, 2015. Mailed notice(mr, ) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/07/2015 4059 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's First Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/08/2015 4061 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, First Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/08/2015

4062

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER, NOELLE C. BRENNAN, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #1571 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/8/2015. mailed notice(jj, ) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/12/2015

4063

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 105 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

01/12/2015

4064

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 106 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

01/13/2015

4065

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #105. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

01/13/2015 4066 ORDER regarding other 4063 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/13/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

01/13/2015

4067

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #106. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

01/13/2015 4068 ORDER regarding other 4064 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/13/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

01/14/2015 4069 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fourteenth Petition for Payment. (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

01/14/2015

4070

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit B to Cook County Employment Plan, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

01/14/2015

4071

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fourteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

01/14/2015 4072 ORDER regarding petition 4069 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/14/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

01/14/2015

4074

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 4070 is granted. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/14/2015 4075 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/14/2015. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/15/2015 4073 4th QTR 2014 Report of Accord Complaints by Inspector General, City of Chicago (Davis, Jonneida) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/22/2015

4076

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S NOTICE AND SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY by Clifford Meacham (Monahan, Peter) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/23/2015

4077

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S ATTORNEY by Lauretta Higgins (Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) Modified on 1/26/2015 (ea, ). (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015

4078 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015

4079

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4078 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/29/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015

4080

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER. Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 4078 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015

4081 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs With Respect to Cook County Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/23/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/29/2015 4082 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

01/29/2015 4083 (Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4082 before Honorable

Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

01/29/2015

4084 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

01/29/2015

4085

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4084 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

01/30/2015

4086

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for awards of attorneys' fees and costs as to the County Assessor 4082 and the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 4084 are granted; no appearance on the motions is required. ENTER ORDERS. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

01/30/2015 4087 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4082 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/30/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

01/30/2015

4088 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4084 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/30/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

01/30/2015

4089

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion by Movant Zachary Ferguson to appoint an "Article III" Judge over Shakman Decree Grounds: Title 7, Section 703(n)(3), 706(f)(4), (5), (g)(1) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc. (doc. # 3712 ) is terminated as it is a duplicate motion (doc. # 3761 ) for which the Court issued a ruling pursuant to the orders entered on 5/16/14 (doc. #'s 3767 , 3768 ). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

02/05/2015 4090 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Second Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 02/05/2015)

02/05/2015 4091 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fifteenth Petition for Payment. (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2015)

02/05/2015

4092 INTERIM REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2015)

02/05/2015 4093 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Second Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/05/2015

4094

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S SECOND PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/05/2015

4095

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fifteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/05/2015 4096 ORDER regarding petition 4091 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/06/2015

4097

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held and continued to 3/31/15 at 10:00 a.m. As stated on the record, the Recorder's supplemental report on Christiansen is due by 3/09/15. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/10/2015

4098

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE 107 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015

4099

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 108 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015

4100

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #107. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015 4101 ORDER regarding other 4098 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/10/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015

4102

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #108. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/10/2015 4103 ORDER regarding other 4099 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/10/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

02/17/2015

4104

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #55 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

4105

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #56 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

4106

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #57 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

4107

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 109 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

4108

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #55 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

4109

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #58 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015 4110 ORDER regarding other 4104 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/17/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015

4111

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #56 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015 4112 ORDER regarding other 4105 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/17/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015 4113 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of

Invoice #57 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/17/2015 4114 ORDER regarding other 4106 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/17/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2015)

02/18/2015

4115

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #109. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

02/18/2015 4116 ORDER regarding other 4107 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/18/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

02/18/2015

4117

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #58 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

02/18/2015 4118 ORDER regarding other 4109 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/18/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

02/18/2015

4119

MOTION by Unknown Clifford MeachamASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINSTRATORS MOTION FOR PROMPT PAYMENT OF FEES AND FOR INCREASE IN COMPENSATION RATE OF COMPLIANCE STAFF (Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

02/18/2015

4120

Motion for Prompt Payment of Fees and for Increase in Compensation Rate of Compliance Staff NOTICE of Motion by Lauretta Jean Higgins Wolfson for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 4119 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/24/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 02/18/2015)

02/20/2015

4121

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court, sua sponte, RESETS the motion hearing regarding the Assessor Compliance Administrator's motion for prompt payment of fees and for increase in compensation rate of compliance staff 4119 set for 2/24/15 before the magistrate judge to 3/04/15 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/20/2015)

02/26/2015

4122

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The deadline for the Special Master to file her report previously set for 2/27/15 (doc. # 4020 ) is hereby extended to 3/04/15. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/26/2015)

03/02/2015 4123 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Chicago Park District (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/02/2015)

03/02/2015

4124

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4123 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/02/2015)

03/03/2015

4125

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Chicago Park District 4123 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We award to plaintiffs' counsel $82,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/03/2015)

03/03/2015 4126 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/3/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/03/2015)

03/04/2015

4127

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, the Assessor Compliance Administrator's motion for prompt payment of fees and for increase in compensation rate of compliance staff 4119 is entered and continued. The parties are directed to file a joint report outlining the areas of agreement they have reached (and any remaining disputes) by no later than 3/25/15. The matter is set for a continued motion and status hearing on 4/01/15 at 8:30 a.m. At that time, the Court will resolve any disputes that remain with respect to the motion. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/04/2015)

03/04/2015

4128

STATUS Report INITIAL REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 03/04/2015)

03/05/2015 4129 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Sixteenth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/05/2015)

03/06/2015

4130

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #110 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/06/2015)

03/06/2015 4131 ORDER: Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/6/2015. Mailed notice (sxn, ) (Entered: 03/10/2015)

03/09/2015

4132

COOK COUNTY recorder of deeds' compliance administrator, Cardelle Spangler, agreed order for invoice #110: Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/9/2015. Mailed notice. (sxn, ) (Entered: 03/10/2015)

03/10/2015

4133

COOK COUNTY recorder of deeds' compliance administrator, Cardelle Spangler, agreed order for invoice #110: Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2015. Mailed notice. (sxn, ) (Entered: 03/11/2015)

03/17/2015 4134 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois by Joseph Michael Gagliardo (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/17/2015

4135

WITHDRAWING Harris, Katherine as counsel for Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan and substituting Brian Ignatius Hays as counsel of record (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/17/2015)

03/20/2015

4136

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #59 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 03/20/2015)

03/20/2015

4137

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #59 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/20/2015)

03/20/2015 4138 ORDER regarding other 4136 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/20/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/20/2015)

03/23/2015

4139

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 111 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/23/2015)

03/24/2015

4140

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #111. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015 4141 ORDER regarding other 4139 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/24/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/25/2015

4142

ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINSTRATORS REPORT ON HIS MOTION FOR PROMPT PAYMENT OF FEES AND FOR INCREASE IN COMPENSATION RATE OF COMPLIANCE STAFF (Report to Motion Document no. 4119) by Clifford Meacham (Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 03/25/2015)

03/25/2015

4143 RESPONSE by Unknown Cook County Assessor Status Report of Assessor's Office Regarding ACA's Motion (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 03/25/2015)

03/25/2015 4144 NOTICE by Cook County Assessor re Response 4143 (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 03/25/2015)

03/31/2015

4145

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 5/18/15 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/31/2015)

04/01/2015 4146 PETITION Noelle C. Brennan's Third Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 04/01/2015)

04/01/2015

4147

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, the Assessor Compliance Administrator's motion for prompt payment of fees and for increase in compensation rate of compliance staff 4119 is granted as follows: (1) the Court approves an hourly billing rate for the Assessor Compliance Administrator's ("ACA") staff members Saray Bermeo and Kimberly in the amount of $82.50 per hour, and (2) the SAO will respond to any invoices from the ACA by no later than seven days after receipt. The submissions of the ACA and the Assessor (doc. #'s 4142 and 4143 ) reflect that they have reached agreement on the other aspects of the process for handling invoices and payment. With the agreement of the ACA and the parties, the Court will hold periodic status hearings for a report on the progress of the Assessor's Office. The matter is set for a conference (in chambers) on 5/18/15 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/01/2015)

04/01/2015

4148 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Third Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/01/2015)

04/01/2015 4149 AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S THIRD PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the

Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/1/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/01/2015)

04/03/2015

4150

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 112 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/03/2015

4151

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #112. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/03/2015 4152 ORDER regarding other 4150 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/3/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/03/2015

4153 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Governor of Illinois (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/03/2015

4154

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4153 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/03/2015 4155 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Seventeenth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/03/2015

4156

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the governor of Illinois 4153 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/03/2015 4157 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees And Costs Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/3/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/03/2015

4158

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Seventeenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/03/2015 4159 ORDER regarding petition 4155 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/3/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/07/2015

4160

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 03/31/2015 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Rosemary Scarpelli, Rosemary_Scarpelli@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312)435-5815.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 4/28/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/8/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/6/2015. (Scarpelli, Rosemary) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

04/07/2015

4161

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #60 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

04/07/2015

4162

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #60 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

04/07/2015 4163 ORDER regarding other 4161 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/7/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/07/2015)

04/14/2015

4164

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE 61 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 04/14/2015)

04/14/2015 4165 OIIG Report Addressing Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/14/2015)

04/14/2015 4166 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG Report Addressing Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/14/2015)

04/16/2015

4167

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #61 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/16/2015)

04/16/2015 4168 ORDER regarding other 4164 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/16/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/16/2015)

04/20/2015

4169 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/20/2015)

04/20/2015

4170

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4169 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/20/2015)

04/20/2015 4171 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/20/2015)

04/20/2015

4172

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4171 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/20/2015)

04/20/2015

4173 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/20/2015)

04/20/2015

4174

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4173 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/20/2015)

04/21/2015

4175

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award attorney's fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 4169 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/22/2015)

04/21/2015

4176 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4169 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/21/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/22/2015)

04/21/2015

4177

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award of attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the County Assessor (doc. # 4171 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/22/2015)

04/21/2015 4178 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4171 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/21/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/22/2015)

04/21/2015

4179

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award of attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 4173 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/22/2015)

04/21/2015 4180 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4173 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/21/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/22/2015)

04/24/2015

4181

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #113 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

04/24/2015 4182 MOTION by counsel for Defendant Chicago City Council to withdraw as attorney (Ferguson, Tiffany) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

04/24/2015

4183

NOTICE of Motion by Tiffany Mary Ferguson for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 4182 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Ferguson, Tiffany) (Entered: 04/24/2015)

04/27/2015

4184

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #113. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/27/2015)

04/27/2015 4185 ORDER regarding other 4181 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/27/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/27/2015)

04/27/2015

4186

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion for leave to withdraw 4182 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Tiffany M. Ferguson is granted leave to withdraw as counsel of record for the City Council for the City of Chicago. The Clerk of the Court is requested to terminate the appearance of Ms. Ferguson as one of the attorneys for the Chicago City Council. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/27/2015)

04/29/2015

4187

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #62 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 04/29/2015)

04/29/2015

4188

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #62 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2015)

04/29/2015 4189 ORDER regarding other 4187 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2015)

05/04/2015

4190 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Chicago Park District (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

05/04/2015

4191

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4190 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/12/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

05/05/2015

4192

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Chicago Park District 4190 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We award to plaintiffs' counsel $21,798.40 in attorneys' fees and $1.40 in costs. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/05/2015)

05/05/2015 4193 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/5/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/05/2015)

05/05/2015

4194 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Eighteenth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/05/2015)

05/05/2015

4195

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Eighteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/05/2015)

05/05/2015 4196 ORDER regarding petition 4194 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/5/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/05/2015)

05/05/2015 4197 FOURTH REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR by Clifford Meacham (Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 05/05/2015)

05/06/2015 4198 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Justin W. Hanson (Hanson, Justin) (Incorrect PDF linked to entry - Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office on 5/6/2015) (as, ). (Entered: 05/06/2015)

05/06/2015 4199 NOTICE of Correction regarding 4198 . (as, ) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

05/08/2015

4200 MOTION by Court Monitor Cardelle SpanglerRecorder Compliance Administrators Motion to Set Reasonable Hourly Rate of Investigator/Monitor (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2015)

05/08/2015

4201

NOTICE by Cardelle Spangler re MOTION by Court Monitor Cardelle SpanglerRecorder Compliance Administrators Motion to Set Reasonable Hourly Rate of Investigator/Monitor 4200 (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2015)

05/08/2015

4202

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 2/6/15 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Kathy Fennell, Kathleen_Fennell@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 5/29/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/8/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/6/2015. (Fennell, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/08/2015)

05/12/2015

4203

NOTICE of Motion by Matthew David Pryor for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 4200 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/21/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

05/14/2015 4204 MOTION by Defendant Chicago Park Districtfor approval of Amended Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 05/14/2015)

05/14/2015

4205

NOTICE of Motion by Annette Michele McGarry for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 4204 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/19/2015 at 08:30 AM. (McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 05/14/2015)

05/14/2015 4206 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Scott A. Golden (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 05/14/2015)

05/15/2015

4207

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At the request of the parties, the in chambers status hearing for a report on the progress of the Assessor's office set for 5/18/15 at 10:30 a.m. is RESET to 5/18/15 at 4:00 p.m. All other orders as stated in the minute order dated 4/01/15 (doc. # 4147 ) remain unchanged. The in court

status hearing set for 5/18/15 at 9:30 a.m. remains unchanged (doc. # 4145 ). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/15/2015)

05/15/2015

4208

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion for approval of amended employment plan for the Chicago Park District 4204 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/15/2015)

05/15/2015 4209 AGREED ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/15/2015. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/15/2015)

05/18/2015 4210 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Assessor by Justin W. Hanson (Hanson, Justin) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015

4211

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status and motion hearings held. The parties report on the status of the case. For the reasons stated on the record, recorder compliance administrator's motion to set reasonable hourly rate of investigator/monitor 4200 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 7/20/15 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015

4212

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #114 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015 4213 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Fourth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015

4214

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #114. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015 4215 ORDER regarding other 4212 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/18/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015 4216 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Fourth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015

4217 AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S FOURTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the

Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/18/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/19/2015

4218

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #63 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 05/19/2015)

05/19/2015

4219

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #63 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2015)

05/19/2015 4220 ORDER regarding other 4218 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/19/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2015)

05/21/2015

4221

MOTION by Unknown Clifford Meacham to amend/correct order 4220 , other 4218 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order MOTION TO CORRECT INVOICE 63 ENTERED WRONG AMOUNT REFLECTED IN PETITON NO. 63 IS NOT CORRECT)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 05/21/2015)

05/27/2015

4222

MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for protective order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Agreed Protective Order)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 05/27/2015)

05/27/2015

4223

NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion for protective order 4222 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/2/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 05/27/2015)

05/27/2015

4224

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to enter agreed protective order 4222 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER, as modified by the Court at Paragraph 7. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/27/2015)

05/27/2015 4225 AGREED PROTECTIVE Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/27/2015. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/27/2015)

05/29/2015

4226

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #115 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/29/2015)

05/29/2015

4227

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #64 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 05/29/2015)

05/29/2015

4228

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #115. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/29/2015)

05/29/2015 4229 ORDER regarding other 4226 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/29/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/29/2015)

05/29/2015

4230

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #64 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/29/2015)

05/29/2015 4231 ORDER regarding other 4227 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/29/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/29/2015)

06/01/2015

4232 MOTION by Unknown Clifford Meacham to amend/correct other 4218 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 06/01/2015)

06/02/2015

4233

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion by Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator to correct invoice no. 63 (doc. # 4232 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We strike the order granting payment on invoice no. 63 (doc. # 4220 ), and enter a corrected order. The petition filed on 5/21/15 (doc. # 4221 ) is hereby stricken as moot. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/02/2015)

06/02/2015

4234

COOK COUNTY Assessor Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham, Amended Agreed Order for Invoice #63. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/2/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/02/2015)

06/03/2015 4235 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Governor of Illinois (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/03/2015)

06/03/2015

4236

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4235 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/11/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/03/2015)

06/03/2015

4237

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois 4235 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/03/2015)

06/03/2015 4238 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/3/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/03/2015)

06/05/2015

4239 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Nineteenth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/05/2015)

06/05/2015

4240

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Nineteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/05/2015)

06/05/2015 4241 ORDER regarding petition 4239 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/5/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/05/2015)

06/09/2015

4242

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #116 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

06/09/2015

4243

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #116. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

06/09/2015 4244 ORDER regarding other 4242 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/9/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

06/17/2015

4245

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #65 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

06/17/2015

4246

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #65 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

06/17/2015 4247 ORDER regarding other 4245 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/17/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

06/23/2015

4248

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE 66 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 06/23/2015)

06/23/2015

4249

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #66 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/23/2015)

06/23/2015 4250 ORDER regarding other 4248 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/23/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/23/2015)

06/24/2015

4251

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #117 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/24/2015)

06/24/2015

4252

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order as to Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of Invoice #117. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

06/24/2015 4253 ORDER regarding other 4251 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/24/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

07/02/2015 4254 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twentieth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/02/2015)

07/02/2015

4255

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Twentieth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/02/2015)

07/02/2015 4256 ORDER regarding petition 4254 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/2/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/02/2015)

07/06/2015 4257 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Fifth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 07/06/2015)

07/06/2015 4258 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Fifth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/06/2015)

07/06/2015 4259 AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C.

BRENNAN'S FIFTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/6/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/06/2015)

07/08/2015

4260

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE 118 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/08/2015)

07/08/2015

4261

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #118. (rbf, ) (Entered: 07/08/2015)

07/08/2015

4262

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #118 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/8/2015.(rbf, ) (Entered: 07/08/2015)

07/10/2015

4263

MOTION by Attorney Gabriel Bankier Plotkin to withdraw as attorney for Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, William Thomas Huyck, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan. No party information provided (Plotkin, Gabriel) (Entered: 07/10/2015)

07/10/2015

4264

NOTICE of Motion by Gabriel Bankier Plotkin for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney, 4263 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/16/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Plotkin, Gabriel) (Entered: 07/10/2015)

07/13/2015

4265

ORDER Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw attorney appearance (doc. #4263) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Clerk of the Court is requested to terminate the appearance of Gabriel Bankier Plotkin as one of the attorneys for plaintiffs. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/13/2015. Mailed notice. (sj, ) (Entered: 07/13/2015)

07/20/2015

4266

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 9/21/15 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/20/2015)

07/22/2015 4267 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended

Employment Plan, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 07/22/2015)

07/23/2015

4268

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan 4267 is granted. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/23/2015)

07/23/2015

4269 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/23/2015. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/23/2015)

07/27/2015

4270

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE 67 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 07/27/2015)

07/28/2015

4271

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR Compliance Administrator,Clifford L. Meacham, AGREED ORDER for Invoice #67 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/28/2015. (ma,) (Entered: 07/28/2015)

07/29/2015

4272

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #119 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/29/2015)

07/29/2015

4273

COOK COUNTY Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, AGREED ORDER for Invoice #119 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/29/2015. (ma,) (Main Document 4273 replaced on 12/15/2015) (jh, ). (Entered: 07/29/2015)

08/06/2015 4274 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twenty-first Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/06/2015)

08/06/2015

4275 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's Amended One Hundred and Twenty-first Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/06/2015)

08/06/2015

4276

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, Amended One Hundred and Twenty-First Petition for Payment 4275 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/06/2015)

08/06/2015 4277 ORDER regarding petition 4275 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/6/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/06/2015)

08/11/2015 4278 MOTION by Attorney Noelle C. Brennan to withdraw as attorney for Beth A. Davis. No party information provided (Brennan, Noelle) Modified on 8/11/2015 (ea, ). (Entered: 08/11/2015)

08/11/2015

4279

NOTICE of Motion by Noelle Christine Brennan for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 4278 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/19/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/11/2015)

08/12/2015

4282

ORDER: Motion for leave to withdraw appearance of Beth A. Davis (doc. # 4278 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Ms. Davis as counsel for the City of Chicago Monitor Noelle C. Brennan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/12/2015. Mailed notice(sr, ) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/13/2015

4280

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #68 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/13/2015

4281

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #120 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/13/2015

4283

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #68 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/13/2015 4284 ORDER regarding other 4280 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/13/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/13/2015

4285

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #120. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/13/2015 4286 ORDER regarding other 4281 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/13/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/14/2015

4287 MOTION by Attorney Brian D. McCarthy to withdraw as attorney for Chicago Park District. No party information provided (Pokorny, William) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

08/14/2015 4288 NOTICE of Motion by William R Pokorny for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 4287 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/20/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Pokorny, William) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

08/14/2015

4289

ORDER Defendant Chicago Park District's motion to withdraw attorney appearance (doc. # 4287 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Brian D. McCarthy as one of the counsel of record for the Chicago Park District. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/14/2015. Mailed notice. (sj, ) (Entered: 08/17/2015)

08/18/2015 4290 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard OIIG Report Addressing the Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

08/18/2015 4291 OIIG Report Addressing the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

08/20/2015 4292 STATUS Report SECOND REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/20/2015)

08/21/2015

4293

MOTION by Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds to amend/correct Recorder's Exempt List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

08/21/2015 4294 NOTICE of Motion by Lisa Marie Meador for presentment of motion to amend/correct, 4293 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/1/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

08/25/2015

4295 FIFTH REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR by Clifford Meacham (Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 08/25/2015)

08/26/2015 4296 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Sixth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/26/2015

4297 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Sixth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/26/2015

4298

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S SIXTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/26/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/27/2015

4299

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #69 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015

4300

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #70 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015 4301 MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to withdraw Rachel Tidwell-Neal as Attorney of Record (Tidwell-Neal, Rachel) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015

4302 NOTICE of Motion by Rachel Laird Tidwell-Neal for presentment of motion to withdraw 4301 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/2/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Tidwell-Neal, Rachel) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015

4303

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #69 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/27/2015 4304 ORDER regarding other 4299 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/27/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/27/2015

4305

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #70 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/27/2015 4306 ORDER regarding other 4300 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/27/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/28/2015

4307

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court, sua sponte, RESETS the TIME of the motion hearing regarding defendant's motion to amend Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Exempt List 4293 before the magistrate judge to 9/01/15 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/28/2015

4308

ORDER Motion to withdraw Rachel Tidwell-Neal as attorney of record (doc. # 4301 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Ms. Tidwell-Neal as one of the attorneys of record for the Governor of the State of Illinois. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/28/2015. Mailed notice. (sj, ) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

08/28/2015

4313

ORDER Motion to withdraw Rachel Tidwell-Neal as attorney of record (doc. # 4301 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Ms. Tidwell-Neal as one of the attorneys of record for the Governor of the State of Illinois. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/28/2015. Mailed notice. (sj, ) (Entered: 09/09/2015)

08/31/2015

4309

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 121 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

08/31/2015

4310

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #121. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

08/31/2015 4311 ORDER regarding other 4309 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/31/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

09/01/2015

4312

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Defendant's motion to amend Cook County Recorder of Deeds' exempt list 4293 is entered and continued. The matter is set for a continued motion hearing before the magistrate judge on 9/21/15 at 8:30 a.m. to be held in conjunction with the previously set status hearing on 7/20/15 4266 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/01/2015)

09/09/2015 4314 NOTICE of Correction regarding entry 4313 (sj, ) (Entered: 09/09/2015)

09/10/2015 4315 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twenty-second Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/10/2015

4316 MOTION by Attorney James C. Pullos to withdraw as attorney for Cook County. No party information provided (Pullos, James) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/10/2015

4317

NOTICE of Motion by James Charles Pullos for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 4316 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/15/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Pullos, James) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/10/2015

4318

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Twenty-Second Petition for Payment 4315 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/10/2015 4319 ORDER regarding petition 4315 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/10/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/10/2015

4320

ORDER Motion to withdraw as counsel (doc. # 4316 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Mr. James C. Pullos as one of the attorneys of record for Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/10/2015. Mailed notice. (sj, ) (Entered: 09/11/2015)

09/11/2015

4321

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 122 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/11/2015)

09/11/2015

4322

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #122. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/14/2015)

09/11/2015 4323 ORDER regarding other 4321 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/11/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/14/2015)

09/23/2015

4324

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #71 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 09/23/2015)

09/24/2015

4325

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 123 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/24/2015)

09/24/2015

4326

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S AMENDED PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #71 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 09/24/2015)

09/24/2015

4327

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In light of the Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham, filing an Amended Petition for Payment of Invoice #71 (doc. # 4326 ), the previously filed Petition for Payment of Invoice #71 (doc. # 4324 ) is hereby stricken. The Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Amended Petition for Payment of Invoice #71 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/24/2015)

09/24/2015 4328 ORDER regarding other 4326 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/24/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/24/2015)

09/24/2015

4329

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #123. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/24/2015)

09/24/2015 4330 ORDER regarding other 4325 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/24/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/24/2015)

09/25/2015 4331 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015 4332 Amended NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4331 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/1/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015 4333 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015

4334 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4333 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/1/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015 4335 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015

4336 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4335 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/1/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015

4337

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County 4331 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

09/25/2015 4338 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4331 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/25/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

09/25/2015

4339 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 4333 is granted; no

appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

09/25/2015

4340 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4333 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/25/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

09/25/2015

4341

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 4335 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

09/25/2015 4342 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4335 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/25/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

10/08/2015

4343

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #72 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/08/2015

4344

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #72 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/08/2015 4345 ORDER regarding other 4343 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/8/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/08/2015

4346

MOTION by Defendant Chicago Park District for order Setting a Hearing Date and for a Finding of Substantial Compliance and Dismissal of the Chicago Park District (Joint) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/08/2015

4347 NOTICE of Motion by Annette Michele McGarry for presentment of motion for order 4346 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/14/2015 at 02:30 PM. (McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/08/2015

MOTION by Defendant Chicago Park District to dismiss, MOTION by Defendant Chicago Park District (Omitted reliefs from motion 4346 ) (rp, ) (Entered: 12/22/2015)

10/12/2015

4348 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/12/2015)

10/12/2015

4349

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4348 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/20/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/12/2015)

10/13/2015

4350

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 4348 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/13/2015)

10/13/2015 4351 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/13/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/13/2015)

10/14/2015

4352

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 124 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/14/2015

4353

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #124. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/14/2015 4354 ORDER regarding other 4352 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/14/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/14/2015

4355

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Defendants' joint motion for setting a hearing date and for a finding of substantial compliance and dismissal of the Chicago Park District 4346 is granted as to the setting of a hearing date. ENTER ORDER. The portion of the motion with respect to a finding of substantial compliance and dismissal of the Chicago Park District will be addressed at the next status hearing. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 12/22/15 at 2:00 p.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/14/2015 4356 AGREED ORDER Setting A Hearing Date. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/14/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/14/2015 4357 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order Amending the Chicago Park District's Employment Plan. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/14/2015 4358 ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/14/2015. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/15/2015

4359 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twenty-third Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

10/15/2015

4360

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Twenty-Third Petition for Payment 4359 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

10/15/2015 4361 ORDER regarding petition 4359 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/15/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

10/19/2015

4362 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2015)

10/19/2015

4363

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4362 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/27/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2015)

10/19/2015 4364 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2015)

10/19/2015

4365

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4364 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/27/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2015)

10/20/2015

4366

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 4362 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2015)

10/20/2015

4367

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees And Costs With Respect To The Cook County Recorder of Deeds Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/20/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2015)

10/20/2015 4368 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 4364 ) is granted; no appearance on the

motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2015)

10/20/2015

4369 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs With Respect To Cook County Assessor Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/20/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2015)

10/22/2015

4370

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #73 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 10/22/2015)

10/22/2015

4371

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #73 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2015)

10/22/2015 4372 ORDER regarding other 4370 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/22/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2015)

10/26/2015 4373 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Seventh Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 10/26/2015)

10/26/2015

4374 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Seventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/26/2015)

10/26/2015

4375

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S SEVENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/26/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/26/2015)

10/30/2015

4376

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #125 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/30/2015)

10/30/2015

4377

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #74 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 10/30/2015)

10/30/2015

4378

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #125. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/30/2015)

10/30/2015 4379 ORDER regarding other 4376 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/30/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/30/2015)

10/30/2015

4380 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #74 is granted. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/30/2015)

10/30/2015 4381 ORDER regarding other 4377 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/30/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/30/2015)

10/30/2015

4383

NOTICE OF EMAIL NOTIFICATION FAILURE, for document # 4377 , 4379 , 4376 , 4378 , 4381 , 4380 sent to Attorney Marianne C. Holzhall returned as: unknown address error. Mailed to attorney Marianne C. Holzhall Letter re: bounce back email and a Notification of Change of Address form. Notices have been set to No. Counsel must email the Clerk's Office at Docketing_ILND@uscourts.gov when a Notification of Change of Address has been filed to ensure electronic notification is reset. (ea, ) (Entered: 11/02/2015)

10/30/2015

4384

NOTICE OF EMAIL NOTIFICATION FAILURE, for document # 4377 , 4379 , 4376 , 4383 , 4378 , 4381 , 4380 sent to Attorney Annette Michele McGarry returned as: unknown address error. Mailed to attorney Annette Michele McGarry Letter re: bounce back email and a Notification of Change of Address form. Notices have been set to No. Counsel must email the Clerk's Office at Docketing_ILND@uscourts.gov when a Notification of Change of Address has been filed to ensure electronic notification is reset. (ea, ) (Entered: 11/02/2015)

11/02/2015 4382 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Eighth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 11/02/2015)

11/02/2015 4385 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Eighth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/02/2015)

11/02/2015

4386

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S EIGHTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/2/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/02/2015)

11/05/2015

4387

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 126 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) Modified on 11/6/2015 (lk, ). (Entered: 11/05/2015)

11/05/2015

4388

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #126. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/05/2015 4389 ORDER regarding other 4387 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/5/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/06/2015

4390 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twenty-fourth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/06/2015

4391

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Twenty-Fourth Petition for Payment 4390 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/06/2015 4392 ORDER regarding petition 4390 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/6/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/09/2015

4393

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status conference held with respect to Recorder's Supplemental Relief Order. The matter is set for a status conference in court on 1/06/16 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/09/2015)

11/11/2015 4394 MOTION by Movant Eduardo Hower to reassign case UNDER LOCAL RULE 40.4 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Hower Complaint, 15CV6404)(Sleper, Heidi) (Entered: 11/11/2015)

11/11/2015

4395 NOTICE of Motion by Heidi Karr Sleper for presentment of motion to reassign case 4394 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/17/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Sleper, Heidi) (Entered: 11/11/2015)

11/12/2015

4396

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court, sua sponte, RESETS the motion hearing set for 11/17/15 regarding Movant Eduardo Hower's motion for reassignment under Local Rule 40.4 (doc. # 4394 ) before the magistrate judge to 11/18/15 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/12/2015)

11/13/2015 4397 MOTION by Attorney Lauretta Wolfson to withdraw as attorney for Clifford Meacham. (Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 11/13/2015)

11/13/2015 4398 NOTICE of Motion by Lauretta Jean Higgins Wolfson for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 4397 before Honorable

Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/18/2015 at 08:45 AM. (Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 11/13/2015)

11/13/2015

4399

ORDER: Motion to withdraw (doc. # 4397) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We grant leave for Lauretta Wolfson to withdraw as counsel for the Assessor Compliance Administrator. We further grant the Assessor Compliance Administrator leave to retain successor counsel. The Court thanks Ms. Wolfson for her dedicated public service in this case. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/13/2015. Mailed notice.(lk, ) (Entered: 11/16/2015)

11/16/2015

4400

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #75 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Higgins Wolfson, Lauretta) (Entered: 11/16/2015)

11/17/2015 4401 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #75 is granted. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/17/2015)

11/17/2015 4402 ORDER regarding other 4400 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/17/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/17/2015)

11/17/2015 4403 RESPONSE by Cook County Sheriffin Opposition to MOTION by Movant Eduardo Hower to reassign case UNDER LOCAL RULE 40.4 4394 (Gibbons, Helen) (Entered: 11/17/2015)

11/18/2015

4404

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, movant Eduardo Hower's motion for reassignment of Case No. 15 C 6404 under Local Rule 40.4 (doc. # 4394 ) is denied without prejudice. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/18/2015)

11/20/2015 4405 MOTION by Unknown Clifford Meacham to substitute attorney Notice and Motion for Substitution of Attorney (Carey, Michelle) (Entered: 11/20/2015)

11/20/2015

4406

ORDER: Motion for substitution (doc. # 4405 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Court grants leave for Michelle Carey to substitute as counsel for the Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator. The Court further grants leave for Michelle Carey to file her attorney appearance as soon as practicable. (Enter Order). Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/20/2015. Mailed notice.(lk, ) (Entered: 11/23/2015)

11/20/2015 4407 ORDER signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/20/2015. Mailed notice.(lk, ) (Entered: 11/23/2015)

11/23/2015 4408 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Clifford Meacham by Michelle L. Carey Appearance Form for Michelle Carey (Carey, Michelle) (Entered: 11/23/2015)

11/30/2015

4409

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 127 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

11/30/2015

4410

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #76 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Carey, Michelle) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

11/30/2015

4411

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #127. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

11/30/2015 4412 ORDER regarding other 4409 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/30/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

11/30/2015

4413 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #76 is granted. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

11/30/2015 4414 ORDER regarding other 4410 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/30/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

12/07/2015

4415 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs with Respect to the Governor of Illinois (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/07/2015)

12/07/2015

4416

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4415 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/14/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/07/2015)

12/07/2015

4417

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois 4415 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/08/2015)

12/07/2015

4418 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/7/2015.Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/08/2015)

12/10/2015 4419 OIIG Report Addressing the Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/10/2015)

12/10/2015 4420 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/10/2015)

12/10/2015 4421 LETTER from Urrah Smith dated 12/4/2015. (lk, ) (Entered: 12/14/2015)

12/15/2015 4422 NOTICE of Correction regarding 4273 . (jh, ) (Entered: 12/15/2015)

12/15/2015

4423 MEMORANDUM in Support of Agreed Motion for Entry of an Order of Substantial Compliance (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-2)(McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 12/15/2015)

12/15/2015 4424 AFFIDAVIT of Michael Simpkins regarding memorandum in support of motion 4423 for Entry of an Order of Substantial Compliance (McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 12/15/2015)

12/15/2015 4425 AFFIDAVIT of Michael Simpkins regarding Notice of Hearing (McGarry, Annette) (Entered: 12/15/2015)

12/16/2015 4426 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds to amend/correct Exempt List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exempt List, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 12/16/2015)

12/16/2015 4427 NOTICE of Motion by Lisa Marie Meador for presentment of motion to amend/correct 4426 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/23/2015 at 08:30 AM. (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 12/16/2015)

12/17/2015

4428

Amended NOTICE of Motion by Lisa Marie Meador for presentment of motion to amend/correct 4426 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/6/2016 at 09:30 AM. (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 12/17/2015)

12/18/2015 4429 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/18/2015)

12/18/2015

4430

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Twenty-Fifth Petition for Payment 4429 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/18/2015)

12/18/2015 4431 ORDER regarding petition 4429 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/18/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/18/2015)

12/18/2015 4432 RESPONSE by Court Monitor Cardelle Spangler to motion to amend/correct 4426 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/18/2015)

12/21/2015

4433

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 128 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

12/21/2015

4434

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #77 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Carey, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

12/21/2015

4435

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #128. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

12/21/2015 4436 ORDER regarding other 4433 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/21/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

12/21/2015

4437

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #77 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

12/21/2015 4438 ORDER regarding other 4434 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/21/2015. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

12/22/2015 4439 Entered in Error. (rm, )(Docket Text Modified by the Clerk's Office on 1/6/2016) (rm, ). (Entered: 12/23/2015)

12/22/2015

4450

ORDER: Hearing held on agreed motion for entry of an order of substantial compliance. The motion (doc. # 4346 ) is granted. The 1980 and 1984 consent judgments are terminated as to the Chicago Park District. The Chicago Park District is terminated as a party from those consent judgments. The parties shall submit to the proposed order box a draft order. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/22/2015. Mailed notice(rm, ) (Entered: 01/06/2016)

12/23/2015

4440 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter Order Finding Substantial Compliance and Dismissing The Chicago Park District. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 12/23/2015)

12/23/2015 4441 ORDER regarding other 4346 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/23/2015:Mailed notice(lp, ) (Entered: 12/23/2015)

01/04/2016

4442

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #129 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/04/2016)

01/04/2016

4443

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #78 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Carey, Michelle) (Entered: 01/04/2016)

01/04/2016

4445

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #129. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/04/2016 4446 ORDER regarding other 4442 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/4/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/04/2016

4447

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #78 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/04/2016 4448 ORDER regarding other 4443 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/4/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/05/2016 4444 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to motion to amend/correct 4426 Exempt List (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/05/2016)

01/06/2016 4449 NOTICE of Correction regarding 4439 . (rm, ) (Entered: 01/06/2016)

01/06/2016

4451

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: STATUS AND MOTION HEARING HELD. By 1/22/16, the Recorder shall serve an additional response to IIG 14-0408. By 1/27/16, the Recorder shall serve additional responses to Interim DOC Reports 15-001 through 15-004. By 2/16/16, the Recorder shall serve responses to Interim DOC Reports 15-005 through 15-009. With respect to the Recorder's motion to amend the exempt list (doc. # 4426 ), the RCA shall file her recommendation by 1/27/16; plaintiffs and the Recorder shall file any responses by 2/10/16. The matter is set for a further status hearing on 3/08/16 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/06/2016)

01/07/2016 4452 STATUS Report Third Report of the Special Master by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 01/07/2016)

01/13/2016

4453

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 130 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/13/2016)

01/13/2016

4456

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #130. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2016)

01/13/2016 4457 ORDER regarding other 4453 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/13/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
01/14/2016 4454 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 1-6-16 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Sandra M. Tennis, Sandra_Tennis@ilnd.uscourts.gov, 312-554-8244.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 2/4/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/15/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/13/2016. (Tennis, Sandra) (Entered: 01/14/2016)

01/14/2016

4455 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twenty-sixth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/14/2016)

01/15/2016

4458

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Twenty-Sixth Petition for Payment 4455 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/15/2016)

01/15/2016 4459 ORDER regarding petition 4455 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/15/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/15/2016)

01/20/2016

4460

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #79 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Carey, Michelle) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/20/2016

4461

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #79 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/20/2016 4462 ORDER regarding other 4460 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/20/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/25/2016

4463

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Defendant's motion to amend Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Exempt List (doc. # 4293 ) is terminated as moot, as it is a duplicate of defendant's motion to amend Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Exempt List that was filed on 12/16/15 (doc. # 4426 ). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/25/2016)

01/26/2016

4464

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At his request, Clifford L. Meacham will step down from his role as Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Assessor ("ACA") effective January 30, 2016. The Court and the parties are in debt to Mr. Meacham for his dedicated and invaluable public service both as ACA and as the Compliance Administrator for the Sheriff of Cook County. Mr. Meacham's efforts were instrumental in bringing the Sheriff's Office into substantial compliance, and have enabled the Assessor's Office to make progress toward that goal. The Court is pleased to appoint as the new ACA Susan G. Feibus, from the law firm of Nixon Peabody. We are grateful to Ms. Feibus for her decision to devote her substantial experience and talents to this important public service matter. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/26/2016)

01/27/2016

4465

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 131 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

01/27/2016

4466

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #80 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Carey, Michelle) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

01/27/2016

4467

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #131. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

01/27/2016 4468 ORDER regarding other 4465 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/27/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

01/27/2016

4469

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #80 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

01/27/2016 4470 ORDER regarding other 4466 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/27/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

01/28/2016

4471

Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Statement Concerning the Recorder's Motion to Amend the Exempt List STATEMENT by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/28/2016)

01/28/2016 4472 MOTION by Court Monitor Cardelle Spangler for extension of time (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/28/2016)

01/28/2016

4473

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Recorder of Deed's motion for extension of time (doc. # 4472 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We accept the filing of the Compliance Administrator's Statement (doc. # 4471 ). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/28/2016)

01/29/2016

4474

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 9-1-15 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/TranscriptOrder-Form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 2/19/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/28/2016. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 01/29/2016)

02/01/2016

4475 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Chicago Park District (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/01/2016 4476 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4475 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/11/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/01/2016 4477 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/01/2016

4478 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4477 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/11/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/01/2016 4479 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Ninth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 02/01/2016)

02/02/2016

4480

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 4477 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/02/2016

4481 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/2/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/02/2016 4482 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Ninth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/02/2016

4483

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S NINTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/2/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/02/2016

4484

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Chicago Park District 4475 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/02/2016

4485 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/2/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/05/2016

4486

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Independent Voters of IllinoisIndependent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman by Rebecca L Dircks (Dircks, Rebecca) (Entered: 02/05/2016)

02/08/2016 4487 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds for extension of time to file response/reply (Agreed) (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2016)

02/08/2016

4488

NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Edward Nowinski for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 4487 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/11/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2016)

02/09/2016 4489 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twenty-seventh Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/09/2016

4490

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deeds agreed motion for extension of time 4487 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Court gives leave for each of the parties to file their responsive pleadings by no later than 2/19/16. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/09/2016

4491

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 132 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/09/2016

4492

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Twenty-Seventh Petition for Payment 4489 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/09/2016 4493 ORDER regarding petition 4489 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/9/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/09/2016

4494

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #132. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/09/2016 4495 ORDER regarding other 4491 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/9/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

02/11/2016

4496 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

02/11/2016 4497 MOTION by Susan G. Feibus to substitute attorney for the Assessor Compliance Administrator (Feibus, Susan) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

02/11/2016

4498 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4496 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/18/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

02/11/2016 4499 NOTICE of Motion by Susan G. Feibus for presentment of motion to substitute attorney 4497 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/19/2016 at 09:00 AM. (Feibus, Susan) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

02/12/2016

4500

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois 4496 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

02/12/2016

4501

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #81 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Carey, Michelle) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

02/12/2016

4502 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4496 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/12/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

02/12/2016

4503

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #81 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

02/12/2016 4504 ORDER regarding other 4501 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/12/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

02/12/2016 4505 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Tenth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 02/12/2016)

02/12/2016

4506 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Tenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/16/2016)

02/12/2016

4507

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/12/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/16/2016)

02/19/2016

4508

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status hearing with respect to Assessor case held and continued to 3/23/16 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/19/2016)

02/22/2016 4509 ORDER: Motion for substitution of counsel (doc. # 4497) is granted. Laura B. Bacon is given leave to file her appearance as counsel to the Assessor Compliance Administrator ("ACA"). We ask the Clerk of the

Court to terminate the appearance of Michelle Carey as counsel to the ACA, with thanks for her service in that important role. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/22/2016. Mailed notice(sxw, ) (Entered: 02/22/2016)

02/22/2016 4510 ATTORNEY Appearance for Court Monitor Susan G. Feibus by Laura Beth Bacon (Assessor Compliance Administrator) (Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 02/22/2016)

02/23/2016

4511

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #82 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016

4512

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 133 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016

4513

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #82 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016 4514 ORDER regarding other 4511 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/23/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016

4515

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #133. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016 4516 ORDER regarding other 4512 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/23/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016

4517 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for leave to file a brief in excess of 15 pages (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Response to RCA's Recommendation)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016 4518 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for leave to file 4517 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/2/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016

4519 REPLY by Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds in Support of Motion to Amend the Exempt List (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/23/2016 4520 NOTICE by Cook County Recorder of Deeds re reply 4519 in Support of Motion to Amend the Exempt List (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 02/23/2016)

02/25/2016 4521 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/25/2016)

02/25/2016

4522

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4521 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/3/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/25/2016)

02/26/2016

4523

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the County Assessor 4521 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/26/2016)

02/26/2016

4524

ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4521 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/26/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Modified by Clerk's Office on 3/30/2016) (sxw, ). (Entered: 02/26/2016)

03/01/2016

4525

AMENDED ORDER awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County Assessor. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/1/2016.Mailed notice (meg, ) (Entered: 03/01/2016)

03/01/2016

4526

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a brief in excess of 15 pages (doc. # 4517 ) set for 03/02/16 is RESET to 03/09/16 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (meg, ) (Entered: 03/01/2016)

03/04/2016

4527

RESPONSE by Court Monitor Cardelle Spangler to reply 4519 RECORDER COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S RESPONSE TO RECORDER'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND EXEMPT LIST (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/04/2016)

03/08/2016

4528

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Magistrate Judge status hearing held with respect to the Recorder. By agreement, the motion hearing set for 03/09/16 on plaintiff's motion for leave to file in excess of 15 pages (doc. #[ 4517]) is continued to 3/16/2016 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (meg, ) (Entered: 03/08/2016)

03/11/2016

4529

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 134 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/11/2016)

03/14/2016

4530

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #134. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/14/2016 4531 ORDER regarding other 4529 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/14/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/14/2016 4532 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status hearing held and continued to 6/16/16 at 2:30 p.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/15/2016 4533 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twenty-eighth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/15/2016)

03/15/2016

4534

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Twenty-eighth Petition for Payment 4533 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/15/2016)

03/15/2016 4535 ORDER regarding petition 4533 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/15/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/15/2016)

03/16/2016

4536

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status and motion hearings held with respect to the Recorder. The parties report on the status of their discussions. The matter is set for a continued motion hearing regarding plaintiff's motion for leave to file in excess of 15 pages (doc. # 4517 ) before the magistrate judge on 3/23/16 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/16/2016)

03/17/2016

4537

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #83 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/17/2016

4538

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #83 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/17/2016 4539 ORDER regarding other 4537 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/17/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/17/2016)

03/24/2016

4541 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in chambers held and continued to 4/26/16 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/25/2016)

03/25/2016

4540

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The motion hearing regarding plaintiff's motion for leave to file in excess of 15 pages (doc. # 4517 ) set for 3/23/16 before the magistrate judge is RESET to 4/08/16 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/25/2016)

03/30/2016 4542 NOTICE of Correction regarding 4524 . (sxw, ) (Entered: 03/30/2016)

04/01/2016

4543

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #135 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/01/2016)

04/01/2016

4544

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #135. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/01/2016 4545 ORDER regarding other 4543 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/1/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/04/2016 4546 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/04/2016

4547

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4546 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/14/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/04/2016

4548

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 4546 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/04/2016

4549

ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees And Costs With Respect To The Cook County Recorder of Deeds 4546 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/4/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2016)

04/07/2016

4550

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order (attached). In light of the agreed order, the recorder's motion to amend the exempt list (doc. # 4426 ) and plaintiff's motion for leave to file in excess of 15 pages (doc. # 4517 ) are terminated. The motion hearing set for 4/08/16 is hereby stricken. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/07/2016)

04/07/2016 4551 AGREED ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/7/2016. (Exhibits) Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/07/2016)

04/08/2016 4552 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Twenty-ninth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/08/2016)

04/08/2016

4553

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 136 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/08/2016)

04/08/2016

4554

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Petition for Payment 4552 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/08/2016)

04/08/2016 4555 ORDER regarding petition 4552 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/8/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/08/2016)

04/08/2016

4556

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #136. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/08/2016)

04/08/2016 4557 ORDER regarding other 4553 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/8/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/08/2016)

04/12/2016

4558 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

04/12/2016

4559

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4558 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/19/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

04/12/2016 4560 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 4558 ) is granted; no appearance on the

motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

04/12/2016

4561 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4558 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/12/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2016)

04/13/2016 4562 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard OIIG Report Addressing the Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/13/2016)

04/13/2016 4563 OIIG Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard Addressing the Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/13/2016)

04/14/2016 4564 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/14/2016)

04/14/2016

4565

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4564 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/21/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/14/2016)

04/15/2016

4566 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016

4567

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4566 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/21/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016

4568

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the County Assessor 4564 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016

4569 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4564 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/15/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016

4570

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #84 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016

4571

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 4566 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016 4572 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4566 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/15/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016

4573

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #84 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016 4574 ORDER regarding other 4570 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/15/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

04/15/2016 4576 DIRECTOR of Compliance's Report addressing the Cook County Assessor's Office (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing). (kp, ) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

04/18/2016 4575 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Eleventh Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

04/18/2016 4577 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Eleventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

04/18/2016

4578

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S ELEVENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/18/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

04/22/2016 4579 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/22/2016)

04/22/2016

4580

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4579 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/28/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/22/2016)

04/22/2016

4581 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 4579 ) is granted;

no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/22/2016)

04/22/2016

4582 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/22/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/22/2016)

04/29/2016 4583 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to Resolve Status of Group Four, Five and Six Positions from the November 9, 2010 Court Order [AGREED] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/29/2016)

04/29/2016

4584

AGREED NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 4583 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/5/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/29/2016)

04/29/2016

4585

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion by plaintiff to resolve status of Group Four, Five and Six Positions from 11/09/10 Court Order (doc. # 4583 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2016)

04/29/2016

4586

AGREED ORDER to Resolve Status of Group Four, Five and Six Positions from the November 9, 2010 Court Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2016)

05/04/2016

4587

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 137 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/04/2016)

05/04/2016

4588

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #137. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/04/2016)

05/04/2016 4589 ORDER regarding other 4587 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/4/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/04/2016)

05/11/2016

4590

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 138 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016 4591 COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #85

by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016

4592

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #138. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016 4593 ORDER regarding other 4590 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/11/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016

4594

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #85 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016 4595 ORDER regarding other 4591 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/11/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016 4596 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirtieth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016

4597

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Thirtieth Petition for Payment 4596 . Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/11/2016 4598 ORDER regarding petition 4596 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/11/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

05/26/2016

4599

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #139 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/26/2016 4600 Eleventh Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for Cook County by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/26/2016

4601

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #139. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/26/2016 4602 ORDER regarding other 4599 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/26/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

06/01/2016 4603 Twelfth Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/01/2016)

06/06/2016

4604

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers conference held in the Recorder matter and continued for an in-court status hearing on 8/02/16 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/06/2016)

06/09/2016

4605 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirty-First Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

4606

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Thirty-First Petition for Payment ( 4605 ). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016 4607 ORDER regarding petition 4605 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/9/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/14/2016

4608

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 140 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/14/2016

4609

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #86 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/14/2016

4610

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #140. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/14/2016 4611 ORDER regarding other 4608 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/14/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/14/2016

4612

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #86 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/14/2016 4613 ORDER regarding other 4609 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/14/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2016)

06/16/2016

4614

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. As stated on the record, the parties are to submit a proposed employment plan by no later than 7/18/16. If there are any areas of disagreement that the parties would like the Court to consider, the parties are to submit a report prior to the status hearing. As further stated on the record, the parties are to further submit their proposed protective order to the judge's proposed order box as soon as practicable. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 7/22/16 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/16/2016)

06/20/2016 4615 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in chambers held and continued to 8/08/16 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2016)

06/24/2016 4616 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twelfth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016 4617 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Twelfth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/24/2016

4618

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWELFTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/24/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

06/29/2016

4619

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 141 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

06/29/2016

4620

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #141. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

06/29/2016 4621 ORDER regarding other 4619 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/29/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

07/08/2016 4622 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Protective Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/08/2016)

07/08/2016 4623 PROTECTIVE Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/8/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/08/2016)

07/11/2016

4624

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At the request of the parties, the status hearing set for 7/22/16 before the magistrate judge is RESET to 7/21/16 at 2:00 p.m. All other deadlines and orders as stated in the minute order dated 6/16/16 (doc. # 4614 ) remain unchanged. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/11/2016)

07/12/2016 4625 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirty-Second Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/12/2016)

07/13/2016

4626

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Thirty-Second Petition for Payment ( 4625 ). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/13/2016)

07/13/2016 4627 ORDER regarding petition 4625 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/13/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/13/2016)

07/14/2016

4628

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 142 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/14/2016)

07/14/2016

4629

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #142. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/14/2016)

07/14/2016 4630 ORDER regarding other 4628 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/14/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/14/2016)

07/20/2016 4631 STATUS Report Fourth Report of the Special Master by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/20/2016)

07/20/2016

4632

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #143 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2016)

07/21/2016

4633

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #143. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/21/2016)

07/21/2016 4634 ORDER regarding other 4632 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/21/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/21/2016)

07/21/2016

4635

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the employment plan and that they are in the process of finalizing their exhibits. As stated on the record, the parties are to submit their proposed agreed employment plan along with all of the exhibits by no later than 7/29/16. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 8/26/16 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/21/2016)

07/22/2016

4636

MOTION by Defendant Edmund Michalowski for leave to file Appearance on behalf of Edmund Michalowski (Attachments: # 1 Attorney Appearance for Dana L. Kurtz, # 2 Attorney Appearance for Heidi Karr Sleper)(Kurtz, Dana) (Entered: 07/22/2016)

07/22/2016

4637 NOTICE of Motion by Dana L. Kurtz for presentment of motion for leave to file 4636 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/27/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Kurtz, Dana) (Entered: 07/22/2016)

07/25/2016 4638 Amended NOTICE of Motion by Dana L. Kurtz for presentment of motion for leave to file 4636 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/16/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Kurtz, Dana) (Entered: 07/25/2016)

07/28/2016 4639 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds for leave to appear as Cedric Giles Chief Deputy of the Cook Cty Recorder of Deeds (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 07/28/2016)

07/28/2016 4640 NOTICE of Motion by Michael Joseph Hayes, Jr for presentment of motion for leave to appear 4639 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/3/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 07/28/2016)

07/28/2016

4641

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #87 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 07/28/2016)

07/28/2016

4642

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #87 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/28/2016)

07/28/2016 4643 ORDER regarding other 4641 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/28/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 07/28/2016)

07/29/2016

4644

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for rule to show cause why certain Senior Staff in the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Office should not be held in Civil Contempt and for related relief (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/29/2016)

07/29/2016 4645 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for rule to show cause 4644 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/16/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/29/2016)

08/02/2016 4646 TWELFTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/02/2016)

08/02/2016

4647

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. As stated on the record, the parties are to meet and confer to resolve any outstanding issues. By 8/12/16, the parties shall file a document indicating that they have reached agreement on the remaining issue concerning the "do not hire policy"; if agreement has not been reached, on that date the parties shall file a joint statement indicating each side's proposed resolution of the disagreement as well as the RCA's recommendation. Defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file appearance on behalf of Edmund Michalowski (doc. # 4636 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Ms. Dana L. Kurtz is given leave to file her appearance as counsel for Edmund Michalowski. Chief Deputy of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' motion for leave to file appearance on behalf of Cedric Giles (doc. # 4639 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Attorneys Burton S. Odelson and Michael J. Hayes, Jr. of Odelson & Sterk, Ltd. are given leave to file their appearance as counsel for Cedric Giles. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 9/19/16 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/02/2016)

08/04/2016 4648 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Burton S. Odelson Cedric Giles (Odelson, Burton) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/04/2016

4649 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Michael Joseph Hayes, Jr Cedric Giles (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/05/2016 4650 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order on motion for order, terminate hearings 2716 , order 2717 Cook County Employment Plan (Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/05/2016 4651 Cook County Assessor's Office's Employment Plan by Cook County Assessor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit II)(Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/05/2016 4652 NOTICE by Cook County Assessor re other 4651 (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/08/2016

4653

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 4650 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We amend the order to reflect the current list of Direct Appointment Positions for the Public Defender's Office as set forth in Exhibit 1 to the motion. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016

4654 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status meeting in chambers held and continued to 9/12/16 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016 4655 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirty-Third Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016

4656

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Thirty-Third Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016

4657

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Actively Recruited Position List of Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Notice of Filing)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016 4658 ORDER regarding petition 4655 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) Modified on 8/8/2016 (jj, ). (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016 4659 NOTICE of Correction regarding order 4658 . (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016

4660

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 144 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016

4661

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER. Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 4657 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We amend the Cook County Actively Recruited Position List -- Exhibit J of the Employment Plan. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016 4662 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2016. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016

4663

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #144. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016 4664 ORDER regarding other 4660 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/09/2016

4665

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order Approving Amendments to the Office of the Cook County Public Defender's Employment Plan (Attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2016)

08/09/2016

4666

AGREED ORDER Approving Amendments to the Office of the Cook County Public Defender's Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/9/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2016)

08/10/2016

4667

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: On 8/05/16, the Cook County Assessor's Office filed an Employment Plan (doc. # 4651 ), which reflected the agreement of the parties and the Assessor Compliance Administrator. We hereby enter this order approving the Employment Plan. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/10/2016)

08/12/2016 4668 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/12/2016)

08/12/2016 4669 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4668 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/25/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/12/2016)

08/12/2016

4670

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 4668 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/12/2016)

08/12/2016 4671 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County 4668 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/12/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/12/2016)

08/14/2016 4672 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Edmund Michalowski by Dana L. Kurtz (Kurtz, Dana) (Entered: 08/14/2016)

08/14/2016 4673 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Edmund Michalowski by Heidi Karr Sleper (Sleper, Heidi) (Entered: 08/14/2016)

08/15/2016 4674 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/15/2016 4675 OIIG Report Addressing the Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/15/2016

4676

MOTION by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of IllinoisIndependent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael Sullivan to expand the Special Master's responsibilities and for related relief (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/15/2016

4677

NOTICE of Motion by Edward W. Feldman for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief, 4676 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/25/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/15/2016

4678

THIRTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DOC 12th Month Report)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/15/2016 4679 REPORT by Sharon M. Gross, Director of Compliance Addressing the Cook County Assessor's Office. (jjr, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/16/2016: # 1 Notice of Filing) (jjr, ). (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/16/2016

4680

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court, sua sponte, RESETS the TIME of the motion hearing regarding plaintiff's motion to expand the Special Master's responsibilities and for related relief (doc. # 4676 ) before the magistrate judge to 8/25/16 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/16/2016 4681 Proposed Order (Corrected) by Michael L Shakman (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/16/2016

4682

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court sets the following briefing schedule regarding plaintiffs' motion for issuance of a rule to show cause why certain Senior Staff in the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Office should not be held in Civil Contempt and for related relief (doc. # 4644 ): responses are due by 9/13/16, and plaintiff's reply is due by 9/27/16. We will set a hearing date on the motion as may be needed after the briefing has been completed. Plaintiffs' oral motion to initiate discovery pending ruling on the current motion is taken under advisement. As stated on the record and

by no later than 8/30/16, the Cook County Recorder Compliance Administrator Ms. Cardelle Spangler is given leave to file a supplemental report providing any further explanation and/or elaboration that she may wish to offer on various items in her twelfth report (doc. # 4646 ) that were alluded to but not specifically identified. The status hearing with the magistrate judge set for 9/19/16 at 9:00 a.m. (doc. # 4647 ) remains unchanged. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/17/2016

4683

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #88 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

4684

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #88 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016 4685 ORDER regarding other 4683 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/17/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/19/2016

4686

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order Approving an Amendment of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/19/2016

4687

AGREED ORDER Approving an Amendment of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/19/2016. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/22/2016

4688

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement, we set the following briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion to expand the Special Master's responsibilities and for related relief (doc. # 4676 ): defendants' response to the motion is due by 9/19/16 and plaintiffs' reply is due by 10/10/16. No appearance on the motion on 8/25/16 is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/23/2016

4689 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Governor of Illinois (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/23/2016)

08/23/2016 4690 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4689 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/31/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/23/2016)

08/23/2016 4691 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Governor of Illinois (Amended) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/23/2016)

08/23/2016

4692

AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4691 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/31/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/23/2016)

08/23/2016

4693

NOTICE OF EMAIL NOTIFICATION FAILURE for document sent to counsel, returned as Spam. The Clerk mailed to counsel letter advising counsel to contact their email administrator or check personal settings in their email account for spam filtering of uscourts.gov domain. Electronic notices will be turned to "NO" until the Clerk's office has been advised that this matter has been corrected. Letter mailed to Kay L. Dawson with document 4692 , 4691 , 4689 , 4690 . (mr, ) (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/23/2016

4694

NOTICE OF EMAIL NOTIFICATION FAILURE for document sent to counsel, returned as Spam. The Clerk mailed to counsel letter advising counsel to contact their email administrator or check personal settings in their email account for spam filtering of uscourts.gov domain. Electronic notices will be turned to "NO" until the Clerk's office has been advised that this matter has been corrected. Letter mailed to Edward W. Feldman with document 4692 , 4691 , 4689 , 4690 . (mr, ) (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/24/2016

4695

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 4691 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The motion docketed as Entry # 4689 is terminated as moot. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/24/2016 4696 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/24/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/24/2016)

08/25/2016

4697

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #145 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/25/2016

4698

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #145. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/25/2016 4699 ORDER regarding other 4697 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/25/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016

4700 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016

4701

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4700 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/1/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016 4702 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016

4703

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4702 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/1/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016

4704

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The matter is set for a further status hearing before the magistrate judge on 9/26/16 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016

4705

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 4700 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016 4706 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4700 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/26/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016

4707

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 4702 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016

4708 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4702 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/26/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/29/2016

4709

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 07-21-2016 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/TranscriptOrder-Form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 9/19/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/28/2016. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 08/29/2016)

08/29/2016

4710

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 06-16-2016 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/TranscriptOrder-Form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 9/19/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/28/2016. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 08/29/2016)

08/30/2016

4711 SPECIAL REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

09/07/2016

4712

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At the request of the parties, the status hearing set for 9/26/16 before the magistrate judge (doc. # 4704 ) is RESET to 9/30/16 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/07/2016)

09/08/2016

4713

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #146 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/08/2016)

09/08/2016 4714 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle

Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #146. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2016)

09/08/2016 4715 ORDER regarding other 4713 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/8/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2016)

09/09/2016 4716 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirty-Fourth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/09/2016)

09/09/2016

4717

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Thirty-Fourth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/09/2016)

09/09/2016 4718 ORDER regarding petition 4716 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/9/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/09/2016)

09/09/2016

4719

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At the request of the parties, the status hearing set for 9/12/16 before the magistrate judge (doc. # 4654 ) is RESET to 9/21/16 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/09/2016)

09/13/2016

4720

RESPONSE by Cook County Recorder of Deedsin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for rule to show cause why certain Senior Staff in the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Office should not be held in Civil Contempt and for related relief 4644 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 09/13/2016)

09/13/2016 4721 NOTICE by Cook County Recorder of Deeds re response in opposition to motion, 4720 (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 09/13/2016)

09/13/2016

4722

RESPONSE by Cedric Giles to MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for rule to show cause why certain Senior Staff in the Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Office should not be held in Civil Contempt and for related relief 4644 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Cedric Giles' Response)(Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2016)

09/13/2016 4723 NOTICE by Cedric Giles re response to motion, 4722 for issuance of a rule to show cause (Hayes, Michael) (Entered: 09/13/2016)

09/13/2016 4724 RESPONSE by Defendant Edmund Michalowski to Plaintiff's Motion for Rule to Show Cause (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Emails, # 2

Exhibits 2 - Policy Manual Excerpt)(Kurtz, Dana) (Entered: 09/13/2016)

09/19/2016

4725

RESPONSE by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinoisin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Darryn Jones, Connie Gramarossa, Richard Gramarossa, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Ann King, Dorene Kuffer, Paul M Lurie, Thomas Norris, Michael L Shakman, Stuart Majerczyk, Michael 4676 (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/19/2016

4726

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. Enter Agreed Order Allowing Limited Disclosure of OIIG Investigative Files. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 11/10/16 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/19/2016 4727 AGREED ORDER Allowing Limited Disclosure of OIIG Investigative Files. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/19/2016. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/21/2016

4728

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #89 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

09/21/2016

4729

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #89 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

09/21/2016 4730 ORDER regarding other 4728 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/21/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

09/21/2016

4754

AGREED ORDER for invoice #89, Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/21/2016. Mailed notice. (eg,) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

09/27/2016 4731 REPLY by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to motion for rule to show cause 4644 Directed to Two Senior Members of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

09/27/2016 4732 MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan to substitute attorney Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Appointed Counsel (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

09/27/2016

4733

NOTICE of Motion by Noelle Christine Brennan for presentment of motion to substitute attorney 4732 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/4/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

09/27/2016

4734

ORDER: Special Master's motion to withdraw and substitute appointed counsel (doc. # 4732 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Thomas K. McQueen, whom we thank for his service. Kristi L. Nelson is given leave to file her appearance as appointed counsel for the Special Master. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/27/2016. Mailed notice. (eg,) (Entered: 09/28/2016)

09/28/2016 4735 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Noelle C Brennan by Kristi Lynn Nelson (Nelson, Kristi) (Entered: 09/28/2016)

09/29/2016

4736

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #147 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

09/29/2016

4738

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #147. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/30/2016)

09/29/2016 4739 ORDER regarding other 4736 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/29/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 09/30/2016)

09/30/2016

4737

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 08-16-2016 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/TranscriptOrder-Form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 10/21/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/31/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/29/2016. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 09/30/2016)

09/30/2016 4740 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is

set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 11/07/16 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/30/2016)

09/30/2016 4741 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirteenth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 09/30/2016)

10/04/2016 4742 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Thirteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2016)

10/04/2016

4743

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S THIRTEENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/4/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2016)

10/05/2016

4744

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #90 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 10/05/2016)

10/05/2016

4745

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #90 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2016)

10/05/2016 4746 ORDER regarding other 4744 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/5/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2016)

10/10/2016

4747 REPLY by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to motion for miscellaneous relief, 4676 in Support of Motion to Expand Special Master's Responsibilities (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/10/2016)

10/11/2016 4748 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

10/11/2016

4749

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Thirty-Fifth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/11/2016 4750 ORDER regarding petition 4748 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/11/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/12/2016 4751 Sixth Report of the Assessor Compliance Administrator by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Candidate Selections, # 2

Exhibit B - Hiring Violations, # 3 Exhibit C - Non-Hiring Violations)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/12/2016

4752

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on August 26, 2016 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy L. Bistany, FCRR - 312.435.7626 nancy_bistany@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 11/2/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/14/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/10/2017. (Bistany, Nancy) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/12/2016

4753

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 148 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/13/2016

4755

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #148. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/13/2016 4756 ORDER regarding other 4753 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/13/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/14/2016 4757 THIRTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

10/17/2016

4758

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference held in chambers. The matter is set for a status conference in open court on 11/28/16 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/19/2016

4759

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on September 19, 2016, before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Laura LaCien, 312-408-5032, laura_lacien@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 11/9/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/21/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/17/2017. (Lacien, Laura) (Entered: 10/19/2016)

10/19/2016

4760

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in chambers held and continued to 12/14/16 at 1:00 p.m. Special Master's oral motion to enforce subpoena on Office of the Executive Inspector General ("OEIG") is granted over objection by the OEIG. The Special Master shall deliver to the Court's Proposed Order Box a proposed draft confidentiality order to govern the production of documents by the OEIG. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2016)

10/24/2016 4761 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/24/2016)

10/24/2016 4762 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4761 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/24/2016)

10/25/2016

4763

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 4761 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/25/2016)

10/25/2016

4764 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/25/2016)

10/26/2016

4765

MOTION by Attorney Rebecca Dircks to withdraw as attorney for Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman. No party information provided (Dircks, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/26/2016 4766 NOTICE of Motion by Rebecca L Dircks for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 4765 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Dircks, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/27/2016

4767

ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to withdraw as counsel (doc. # 4765 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Court respectfully requests the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Rebecca L. Dircks as one of the attorneys of record for plaintiff. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/27/2016. Mailed notice. (eg,) (Entered: 10/27/2016)

10/27/2016

4768

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 149 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/27/2016)

10/27/2016 4769 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs with Respect to the Governor of Illinois (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/27/2016)

10/27/2016 4770 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4769 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/27/2016)

10/28/2016

4771

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 4769 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/28/2016 4772 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/28/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/28/2016

4773

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #149. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/28/2016 4774 ORDER regarding other 4768 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/28/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

11/02/2016 4775 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

11/02/2016

4776 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4775 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/10/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

11/02/2016 4777 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

11/02/2016 4778 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4777 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/10/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

11/02/2016

4779

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 4775 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/03/2016)

11/02/2016

4780 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4775 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/2/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/03/2016)

11/02/2016

4781

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 4777 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/03/2016)

11/02/2016 4782 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4777 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/2/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 11/03/2016)

11/07/2016

4783

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 12/16/16 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/07/2016)

11/10/2016 4784 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0752-12556401. (Lanahan, John) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/10/2016

4785

MOTION by Plaintiff Noreen C Lanahan to intervene , MOTION by Plaintiff Noreen C Lanahan to vacate clerk's judgment (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Vacatur, # 2 Post SRO Complaint, # 3 Edwin Benn Arbitration Decision 91616, # 4 OIIG Post SRO Report 5815, # 5 OIIG Deb Cohen ROI 111414, # 6 OIIG Deb Cohen Memo with attached payroll records obtained by Cohen on 1114 from ROI subject but withheld until 10 days after OIIG findings)(Lanahan, John) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/10/2016 4807 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing regarding the Record of Deeds held and continued to 12/19/16 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/09/2016)

11/11/2016

4786

NOTICE of Motion by John Timothy Lanahan for presentment of motion to intervene, motion to vacate, motion for relief,,, 4785 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/17/2016 at 08:30 AM. (Lanahan, John) (Entered: 11/11/2016)

11/14/2016

4787 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/14/2016

4788

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 150 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/15/2016

4789

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEED'S COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #150 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/15/2016. (See Order for Details) Mailed notice.(lxs, ) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016 4790 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/15/2016. (See Order For Details) Mailed notice.(lxs, ) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/17/2016

4791

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #91 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 11/17/2016)

11/17/2016

4792

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #91 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/17/2016.Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

11/17/2016

4793

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene [4785-1] is withdrawn. Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award [4785-2] shall be briefed as follows: response due by 1/31/2017; reply brief is due by 3/2/2017. The Court will issue a written ruling. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

11/18/2016 4794 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

11/21/2016

4795

ENTERED AGREED ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/21/2016: Motion by Defendant Cook County to amend Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 4794) is granted. Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 11/21/2016)

11/22/2016 4796 FOURTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/22/2016)

11/28/2016

4797

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's motion to expand the Special Master's responsibilities and for related relief(doc. # 4676) is granted. By 12/19/16, the parties shall submit to the Court's Proposed Order Box an order expanding the Special Master's authority and responsibilities consistent with the Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

11/28/2016 4798 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/28/2016. Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

11/28/2016

4799

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Status hearing held. Parties reported on the status of the case and progress made regarding the Fourteenth Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator of Cook County 4796 . Case set for further status on 1/9/2017 at 8:30 a.m.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

12/01/2016 4800 NOTICE by Kristi Lynn Nelson of Change of Address (Nelson, Kristi) (Entered: 12/01/2016)

12/05/2016

4801

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 151 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/05/2016

4802

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #151. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/05/2016 4803 ORDER regarding other 4801 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/5/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/08/2016 4804 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Fourteenth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 12/08/2016)

12/08/2016 4805 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Fourteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/08/2016)

12/08/2016

4806

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S FOURTEENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/8/2016. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/08/2016)

12/09/2016

4808

ORDER: Motion for leave to appear pro hac vice (doc # 4784 ) is granted. We ask the Clerk of the Court to enter the appearance of John Timothy Lanahan as one of the attorneys for Noreen Lanahan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/9/2016. Mailed notice. (eg,) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

12/13/2016

4809

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #92 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

4810

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 152 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

4811 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirty-Seventh Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016 4812 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #92 is granted. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016 4813 ORDER regarding other 4809 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/13/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

4814

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #152. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016 4815 ORDER regarding other 4810 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/13/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

4816

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Thirty-Seventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016 4817 ORDER regarding petition 4811 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/13/2016. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/15/2016

4818 FOURTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 4819 REPORT by the Director of compliance addressing the cook county assessor's office. (eg,) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/15/2016 4820 NOTICE by Cook County Assessor of filing re 4819 . (eg,) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016

4821

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 2/10/17 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016

4822

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in chambers held and continued to 1/30/17 at 8:30 a.m. The deadline for the parties to file the proposed order required by our 11/28/16 order (doc. # 4799 ) is extended to 1/23/17. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/19/2016 4823 STATUS Report by Rachel S. Marrello (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Marrello, Rachel) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016

4824

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. Counsel, Cardelle Spangler, from the RCA appears by telephone conference. Counsel for the Recorder of Deeds, Karen Yarbrough, is unable to appear. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 2/03/17 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/20/2016

4825

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The minute order dated 12/19/16 (doc. # 4824 ) is amended to reflect that the Recorder of Deeds, Karen Yarbrough, was unable to appear. In all other respects, the order remains unchanged. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

12/22/2016 4826 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 3-8-16 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Sandra M. Tennis, Sandra_Tennis@ilnd.uscourts.gov, 312-554-8244.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 1/12/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/23/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/22/2017. (Tennis, Sandra) (Entered: 12/22/2016)

12/22/2016 4827 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 8-2-16 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Sandra M. Tennis, Sandra_Tennis@ilnd.uscourts.gov, 312-554-8244.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 1/12/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/23/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/22/2017. (Tennis, Sandra) (Entered: 12/22/2016)

12/30/2016

4828

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 153 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/30/2016)

12/30/2016

4829

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #153. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/30/2016)

12/30/2016 4830 ORDER regarding other 4828 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/30/2016. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/30/2016)

12/30/2016 4831 LETTER from Zachary Ferguson dated 12/30/2016. (eg,) (Entered: 01/03/2017)

12/30/2016 4832 PRO SE Appearance by Movant Zachary Ferguson. (eg,) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

12/30/2016

4833

MOTION by Defendants to reopen case no. 69CV2145, 73CV661, 80CV1590, to squash and/or vacate U.S. Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier June 19,2014 Order to remove City of Chicago, for temporary, preliminary relief, to quash or vacate my property sold, and to remove consent decree 69C2145,73C661,80C1590 Jurisdiction from federal court, and motion for the Chief Judge of Federal Court to appoint an "Article III" Judge over consent decree: 69cv2l45, 73cv661, 80cv1590. (eg, ) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

12/30/2016

4834

APPLICATION for enforcement and to hold Chicago Park District, City of Chicago, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, etc. and those defendants causing, aiding and/or abetting, in contempt for violation of federal court orders, consent decrees 73CV661, 80CV1590, and/or SHAKMAN DECREE 69CV2145, etc.; (eg,) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

12/30/2016 4835 NOTICE of filing by applicant Zachary J. Ferguson. (eg,) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

12/30/2016 4836 NOTICE of filing by applicant Zachary J. Ferguson. (eg,) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/06/2017

4837

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Actively Recruited Position List of Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017 4838 FIFTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017

4839

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Defendant's agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 4837 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Order (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/06/2017

4840 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/6/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/09/2017 4841 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is

set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 3/03/17 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/10/2017

4842

Seventh Report of the Assessor Compliance Administrator by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - ACA email, # 2 Exhibit B Cook County Bi-Weekly Report, # 3 Exhibit C - Personnel Action Form, # 4 Exhibit D - Chart of Hiring Violations, # 5 Exhibit E Tracking Position Descriptions, # 6 Exhibit F- Chart of Non-Hiring Violations)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 01/10/2017)

01/11/2017 4843 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/11/2017

4844

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER. Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 4843 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/11/2017 4845 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/11/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/12/2017 4846 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirty-Eighth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/12/2017

4847

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 154 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/12/2017

4848

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #154. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/12/2017 4849 ORDER regarding other 4847 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/12/2017. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/12/2017

4880

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Entries 4833 , 4834 are stricken from the docket pursuant to the Executive Committee Order. Signed by the Executive Committee on 1/12/2017. (See order for further details). Mailed Notice. (lcw, ) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

01/13/2017

4850

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Thirty-Eighth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/13/2017 4851 ORDER regarding petition 4846 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/13/2017. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/18/2017

4852 MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for protective order Agreed Protective Order Governing Information and Documents Produced by OEIG (Nelson, Kristi) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

01/18/2017

4853

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court gives the Assessor Compliance Administrator leave to withdraw from the docket the Seventh Report (doc. # 4842 ), and to file an amended Seventh Report in its place. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

01/18/2017

4854

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion for entry of agreed protective order governing information and documents produced by the OEIG (doc. # 4852 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

01/18/2017

4855

AGREED PROTECTIVE Order Governing Information and Documents Produced by OEIG Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/18/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

01/18/2017

4856

Seventh Report (Amended) of the Assessor Compliance Administrator by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - ACA email, # 2 Exhibit B - Cook County Activity Report, # 3 Exhibit C - Personnel Action Form, # 4 Exhibit D - Hiring violations, # 5 Exhibit E Position Description Tracking, # 6 Exhibit F - Non-hiring violations)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

01/20/2017

4857 STATUS Report Joint Status Report by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/23/2017

4858

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #93 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/23/2017 4859 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #93 is granted. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/23/2017 4860 ORDER regarding other 4858 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/23/2017. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/24/2017

4861

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: We have reviewed the joint status report in lieu of a proposed order (doc. # 4857 ), in which the parties ask for additional time to further consider a plan to assess Rutan-exempt positions under the jurisdiction of the Governor that would be an alternative method to achieve the results intended by this Court's 11/28/16 Memorandum Opinion and Order (doc. # 4798 ). We grant that request, and hereby continue the date for submission of an order implementing the 11/28/16 ruling. The matter is set for a status hearing in chambers on 2/27/17 at 8:30 a.m. for report on the parties' consideration of that alternative method. The status hearing in chambers set for 1/30/17 is stricken. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/24/2017

4862

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At the Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's request, the order entered on 1/24/17 (doc. # 4860 ) is amended to clarify that the payment on the petition for invoice #93 is for the period 12/01/1612/31/16. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/30/2017

4863

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 155 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 4864 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Public Defender Direct Hire List (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017

4865

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #155. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 4866 ORDER regarding other 4863 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/30/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017

4867

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Defendant Cook County's agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 4864 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017 4868 AGREED ORDER Approving Amendments to the Office of the Cook County Public Defender's Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable

Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/30/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017

4869

MOTION by Plaintiff Noreen C Lanahan for rule to show cause why the Independent Inspector General and Certain Senior OIIG Staff Should not be Held in Civil Contempt and Related Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff's Post-SRO Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Email Seeking Explanation from CCHHS HR Chief for UPD, # 3 Exhibit OIIG Post-SRO Complaint Findings, # 4 Exhibit OIIG Contradictory Memoranda)(Lanahan, John) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/30/2017

4870

NOTICE of Motion by John Timothy Lanahan for presentment of motion for rule to show cause, 4869 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/7/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Lanahan, John) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

01/31/2017 4871 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 notice of motion (Brennan, Daniel) (Modified by Clerk's Office). (eg,). (Entered: 01/31/2017)

01/31/2017

4872

RESPONSE by Cook Countyin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Noreen C Lanahan to intervene MOTION by Plaintiff Noreen C Lanahan to vacate clerk's judgment 4785 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Golden, Scott) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

01/31/2017 4873 NOTICE by Cook County re response in opposition to motion, 4872 (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

01/31/2017 4874 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Patrick Malone Blanchard by Robert Thomas Shannon (Shannon, Robert) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

01/31/2017 4875 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Patrick Malone Blanchard by Virginia Brette Bensinger (Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

01/31/2017 4876 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Patrick Malone Blanchard by Gretchen Harris Sperry (Sperry, Gretchen) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

02/03/2017

4877

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court, sua sponte, RESETS the motion hearing regarding plaintiff's motion for issuance of a rule to show cause why the independent inspector general and certain senior staff members should not be held in civil contempt and related relief (doc. # 4869 ) set for 2/07/17 before the magistrate judge to 2/08/17 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

02/03/2017

4878

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 4/24/17 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

02/07/2017 4879 MISCELLANEOUS CASE by Noreen C Lanahan Appearance Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 47, receipt number 0752-12833187. (Stack, Martin) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/08/2017

4881

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiff's motion for issuance of a rule to show cause (doc. # 4869 ) is stricken without prejudice. As further stated on the record, if Ms. Lanahan wishes to pursue the motion, she must first seek leave to intervene. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017 4882 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondents Deborah Cohen, Andrew Jester by Robert Thomas Shannon (Shannon, Robert) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017

4883 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondents Deborah Cohen, Andrew Jester by Virginia Brette Bensinger (Bensinger, Virginia) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017 4884 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondents Deborah Cohen, Andrew Jester by Gretchen Harris Sperry (Sperry, Gretchen) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/10/2017

4885

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 2/10/2017. Status hearing set for 4/11/2017 at 10:30 A.M.Mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Minute Entry) (smm) (Entered: 02/10/2017)

02/14/2017 4886 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with respect to Cook County (unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/14/2017)

02/14/2017 4887 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4886 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/22/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/14/2017)

02/15/2017

4888

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 4886 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/15/2017 4889 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/15/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/15/2017 4890 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Governor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/15/2017

4891

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4890 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/22/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/15/2017

4892

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 4890 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/15/2017 4893 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/15/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/16/2017 4894 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Thirty-Ninth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/16/2017

4895

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Thirty-Ninth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/16/2017 4896 ORDER regarding petition 4894 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/16/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/17/2017

4897

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 156 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/17/2017)

02/17/2017

4898

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #156. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2017)

02/17/2017 4899 ORDER regarding other 4897 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/17/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2017)

02/17/2017

4900

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Recorder's Director of Compliance, Thomas McMahon, will leave that position for other employment at the close of business on 2/24/17. We thank Mr. McMahon for his dedicated and valuable service to the Recorder and in furtherance of the goal of substantial compliance under the consent decree. Pending the hiring of a new Director of Compliance by the Recorder, the Court appoints the Recorder Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, to serve as Interim Director of Compliance upon Mr. McMahon's departure. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/17/2017)

02/20/2017

4901

RESPONSE by Noreen C Lanahanin Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Noreen C Lanahan to intervene MOTION by Plaintiff Noreen C Lanahan to vacate clerk's judgment 4785 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Post-SRO Complaint Exhibit Excerpt demonstrating temporal proximity (4 days) b/w Plaintiff's HR Complaint and Retaliation.)(Lanahan, John) (Entered: 02/20/2017)

02/20/2017 4902 NOTICE by Noreen C Lanahan re response in support of motion, 4901 (Lanahan, John) (Entered: 02/20/2017)

02/22/2017

4903

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #94 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 02/22/2017)

02/22/2017

4904

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #94 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2017)

02/22/2017 4905 ORDER regarding other 4903 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/22/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2017)

02/22/2017 4906 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Fifteenth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 02/22/2017)

02/22/2017

4907 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Fifteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2017)

02/22/2017 4908 AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S FIFTEENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by

the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/22/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2017)

02/23/2017

4909

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 2/3/2017 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: ALEXANDRA ROTH, alexandra_roth@ilnd.uscourts.gov (312) 4085038.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 3/16/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/27/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2017. (Roth, Alexandra) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017 4910 MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for leave to file Fifth Report of the Special Master (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017 4911 NOTICE of Motion by Noelle Christine Brennan for presentment of motion for leave to file 4910 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/27/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017

4912

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Agreed Motion to Appoint Arbitrators for Cook County (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Notice of Filing)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017

4913

MOTION by Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds to amend/correct (Agreed Motion Appointing Arbitrators for Cook County Recorder of Deeds) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Golden, Scott) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017 4914 NOTICE of Motion by Scott A. Golden for presentment of motion to amend/correct 4913 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/2/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/24/2017

4915

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motions appointing arbitrators for Cook County (doc. # 4912 ) and the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 4913 ) are granted; no appearance on the motions is required. Enter Orders (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

02/24/2017 4916 AGREED ORDER APPOINTING ARBITRATORS FOR COOK COUNTY. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/24/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

02/24/2017

4917

AGREED ORDER APPOINTING ARBITRATORS FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/24/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

02/24/2017

4918 MOTION by Attorney Lisa M. Meador to withdraw as attorney for Cook County Assessor, Cook County Recorder of Deeds. No party information provided (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

02/24/2017 4919 NOTICE of Motion by Lisa Marie Meador for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 4918 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/1/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Meador, Lisa) (Entered: 02/24/2017)

02/24/2017

5577

Cook County Defendants' MEMORANDUM in response to Order of February 5, 1993 (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.) (bg, ) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

02/27/2017

4920

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion to withdraw appearance (doc. # 4918 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Lisa M. Meador as counsel of record. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/27/2017)

02/27/2017

4921

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference held in chambers. Motion for leave to file Fifth Report of the Special Master (doc. # 4910 ) is taken under advisement; any party who wishes to respond in writing to the motion shall do so by 3/13/17. The matter is set for a further status hearing in chambers on 5/01/17 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/27/2017)

03/01/2017

4922

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 CCHHS Employment plan (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Text of Proposed Order, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 03/01/2017)

03/02/2017

4923

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Corrected Motion to Approve CCHHS Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/02/2017 4924 SIXTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/03/2017

4925

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. For the reasons stated on the record, corrected agreed motion for the approval of the CCHHS Employment Plan (doc. # 4923 ) is granted. In light of the corrected motion (doc. # 4923 ) that was granted, the previously filed agreed motion for interim approval of the CCHHS direct appointment process (doc. # 4922 ) is terminated. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 4/18/17 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/03/2017

4926 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF THE CCHHS EMPLOYMENT PLAN. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/03/2017

4927

AGREED ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF THE CCHHS EMPLOYMENT PLAN. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/3/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/09/2017

4928

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Noreen Lanahan's motion to vacate arbitration award (doc. # 4785 ) is denied. We affirm the decision of the arbitrator. Mailed notice (ber, ) (Entered: 03/09/2017)

03/09/2017

4929 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/9/2017. Mailed notice (ber, ) (Entered: 03/09/2017)

03/10/2017

4930

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 157 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017 4931 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 02-08-2017 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/Transcript-

Order-Form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 3/31/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/10/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/8/2017. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/13/2017

4932 STATEMENT by Michael L Shakman Regarding Proposed Redactions in Fifth Report of the Special Master (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/13/2017

4933

RESPONSE by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinoisin Opposition to MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan for leave to file Fifth Report of the Special Master 4910 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/13/2017

4934

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #157. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/13/2017 4935 ORDER regarding other 4930 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/13/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/14/2017

4936

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #95 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017

4937

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 158 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017

4938 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fortieth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017 4939 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of

Invoice #95 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017 4940 ORDER regarding other 4936 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/14/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017

4941

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #158. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017 4942 ORDER regarding other 4937 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/14/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017

4943

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fortieth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017 4944 ORDER regarding petition 4938 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/14/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/14/2017

4945

NOTICE OF EMAIL NOTIFICATION FAILURE, for document # 4943 , 4937 , 4940 , 4944 , 4936 , 4939 , 4938 , 4941 , 4942 sent to Attorney Charles James Holley returned as: Unknown Address Error. The Clerk telephoned and advised counsel to immediately update the profile information in CM/ECF with a valid email address pursuant to General Order 14-0024. Letter mailed to Charles James Holley with docket and a Notification of Change of Address form. (ek, ) (Entered: 03/16/2017)

03/17/2017 4946 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/17/2017

4947 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4946 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/23/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/17/2017 4948 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/17/2017

4949 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 4948 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/23/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/17/2017

4950

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Special Master has filed a motion for leave to file a fifth report under seal, with a redacted version to be placed on the public docket (doc. # 4910 ). We have received responses of the parties to the motion (doc. #'s 4932 , 4933 ). We set the matter for hearing on 3/23/17 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/17/2017

4951

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 4946 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/17/2017

4952 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4946 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/17/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/17/2017

4953

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 4948 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/17/2017 4954 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 4948 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/17/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/23/2017

4955

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Counsel for defendant does not appear. For the reasons stated on the record, the special master's motion for leave to file a fifth report under seal, with a redacted version to be placed on the public docket (doc. # 4910 ) is entered and continued. If the parties wish to file any further submissions in light of the Court's comments, they may do so by no later than 3/31/17. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

04/04/2017 4956 MOTION by Plaintiff Noreen C Lanahan to intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Intervenor Motion for Miscellaneous Relief)(Lanahan, John) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/04/2017

4957 NOTICE of Motion by John Timothy Lanahan for presentment of motion to intervene 4956 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/11/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Lanahan, John) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/06/2017 4958 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE #159 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

04/07/2017

4959

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court, sua sponte, RESETS the motion hearing set for 4/11/17 regarding plaintiff Noreen Lanham's motion for leave to intervene (doc. # 4956 ) before the magistrate judge to 4/12/17 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017

4960

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #159. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/07/2017 4961 ORDER regarding other 4958 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/7/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/11/2017

4962

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 5/15/17 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/12/2017

4963

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. By agreement, the Court sets the following briefing schedule regarding Noreen Lanahan's motion for leave to intervene (doc. # 4956 ): Noreen Lanahan's amendment to the pleading to clarify the basis for the relief that is being sought is to be filed by 4/19/17; any responses are to be filed by 5/10/17; and Noreen Lanahan's reply is to be filed by 5/31/17. The Court will not set a further status hearing at this time. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

04/12/2017 4964 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement, the status hearing scheduled for 4/18/17 is RESET to 4/24/17 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

04/12/2017

4965

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Motion for leave to file fifth report of the Special Master (doc. # 4910 ) is granted. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

04/12/2017

4966 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/12/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2017)

04/13/2017 4967 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE #160 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/13/2017

4968

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #160. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/13/2017 4969 ORDER regarding other 4967 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/13/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/14/2017

4970

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #96 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 04/14/2017)

04/14/2017

4971

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #96 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/14/2017)

04/14/2017 4972 ORDER regarding other 4970 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/14/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/14/2017)

04/14/2017 4973 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Forty-First Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/14/2017)

04/14/2017 4974 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF IIG Report Addressing the Recorder of Deeds (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/14/2017)

04/14/2017 4975 IIG Report Addressing the Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/14/2017)

04/17/2017

4976

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Forty-First Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017 4977 ORDER regarding petition 4973 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/17/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017 4979 DIRECTOR of Compliance's Report Addressing the Cook County Assessor's Office. ("NOTICE OF FILING"). (ks, ) Modified on 4/21/2017 (ks, ). (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017 4978 MOTION by Intervenor Noreen C Lanahanpursuant to FRCP 57, FRCP 60 and Court's inherent power of equity (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Lanahan, John) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017

4980 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to vacate arbitration award (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Golden, Scott) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017 4981 NOTICE of Motion by Scott A. Golden for presentment of motion to vacate 4980 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/25/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/19/2017

4982

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County has filed a motion to vacate arbitration award (doc. # 4980 ), which it has noticed for presentment on 4/25/17. No appearance on the motion is required. We set the following briefing schedule: Mr. Wicks' response to the motion is due by 5/16/17, and Cook County's reply is due by 6/13/17. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/19/2017)

04/21/2017

4983

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Actively Recruited Position List of Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

04/21/2017 4984 SEVENTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

04/21/2017 4985 FIFTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/21/2017)

04/24/2017

4986

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Magistrate Judge Status hearing on the record held on 4/24/2017 and continued to7/7/2017 at 8:30 A.M. (in the case of Cook County). Magistrate Judge Status hearing on the record held on 4/24/17 and continued to 6/5/2017 at 10:00 A.M. (in the case of the Recorder). Mailed notice (smm) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

04/24/2017

4987

Unopposed Motion to amend the Cook County Actively Recruited Position List 4983 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/24/2017. Mailed notice(smm) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

04/24/2017

4988

STATUS Report Fifth Report of the Special Master by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Executive Summary, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

04/24/2017 4989 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re status report 4988 Fifth Report of the Special Master (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

04/24/2017

4990

SEALED DOCUMENT by Unknown Noelle C Brennan Fifth Report of the Special Master (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Executive Summary, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

04/24/2017 4991 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re sealed document 4990 Fifth Report of the Special Master (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

04/24/2017 4992 ATTORNEY Appearance for Petitioner John Wicks by John Thomas Moran, Jr (Moran, John) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

04/25/2017 4993 MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to clarify (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 04/25/2017)

04/25/2017 4994 NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion to clarify 4993 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/1/2017 at 09:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 04/25/2017)

04/25/2017 4995 ATTORNEY Appearance for Petitioner John Wicks by Ivan M. Rittenberg (Rittenberg, Ivan) (Entered: 04/25/2017)

04/26/2017

4996

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #161 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/26/2017)

04/26/2017

4997

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #161. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/26/2017)

04/26/2017 4998 ORDER regarding other 4996 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/26/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/26/2017)

05/01/2017 4999 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Sixteenth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 05/01/2017)

05/01/2017

5000

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference and motion hearings held in chambers. Briefing schedule set on Governor's motion for clarification: Teamsters are given leave to file a response by 5/22/17; Governor's reply and any memorandum by plaintiffs is due by 6/05/17. If the Special Master wishes to file a memorandum, she shall do so by 6/12/17. The matter is set for a

further status conference in chambers on 8/07/17 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/01/2017)

05/01/2017 5003 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order (attached). Mailed notice. (Entered: 05/02/2017)

05/01/2017 5004 AGREED ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/1/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/02/2017)

05/02/2017

5001 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Sixteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/02/2017)

05/02/2017

5002

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S SIXTEENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/2/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/02/2017)

05/03/2017 5005 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Assessor by Scott A. Golden (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 05/03/2017)

05/05/2017

5006 MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan to amend/correct Fifth Report of the Special Master (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 05/05/2017)

05/05/2017 5007 NOTICE of Motion by Leah M. Farmer for presentment of motion to amend/correct 5006 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/11/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 05/05/2017)

05/05/2017

5008

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion for leave to file corrected Fifth Report of the Special Master (doc. # 5006 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Special Master shall file the item attached to the motion as a standalone docketed entry. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/05/2017)

05/08/2017

5009 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Forty-Second Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/08/2017

5010

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Forty-Second Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/08/2017 5011 ORDER regarding petition 5009 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/08/2017 5012 STATUS Report Corrected Fifth Report of the Special Master by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/08/2017 5013 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re status report 5012 Corrected Fifth Report of the Special Master (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/08/2017 5014 SEALED DOCUMENT by Unknown Noelle C Brennan Corrected Fifth Report of the Special Master (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/08/2017

5015 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re sealed document 5014 Corrected Fifth Report of the Special Master (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/10/2017 5016 RESPONSE by Court Monitor Mary Robinson to motion for miscellaneous relief 4978 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

05/10/2017 5017 RESPONSE by Michael L Shakman to MOTION by Intervenor Noreen C Lanahanpursuant to FRCP 57, FRCP 60 and Court's inherent power of equity 4978 (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

05/10/2017

5018

RESPONSE by John Wicksin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Cook County to vacate arbitration award 4980 and motion to confirm award of attorneys' fees and costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Errata F, # 7 Exhibit Transcript 6-16-2016 AM, # 8 Exhibit Transcript 6-16-2016 PM, # 9 Exhibit Transcript 6-17-16, # 10 Certificate of Service)(Moran, John) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

05/10/2017

5019

RESPONSE by Patrick Malone Blanchard, Cook Countyin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Noreen C Lanahan to intervene 4956 , MOTION by Intervenor Noreen C Lanahanpursuant to FRCP 57, FRCP 60 and Court's inherent power of equity 4978 Joint Motion in Opposition to Motion to Intervene (Shannon, Robert) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

05/11/2017

5020

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #162 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/11/2017

5021 MOTION by Attorney Thomas E. Nowinski to withdraw as attorney for Cook County Recorder of Deeds. No party information provided (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/11/2017

5022

NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Edward Nowinski for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 5021 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/16/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/11/2017 5023 MOTION by Attorney Thomas E. Nowinski to withdraw as attorney for Cook County Assessor. No party information provided (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/11/2017

5024

NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Edward Nowinski for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 5023 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/16/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Nowinski, Thomas) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/11/2017

5025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #162. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/11/2017 5026 ORDER regarding text entry 5025 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/11/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/11/2017

5027

ORDER: Motions for leave to withdraw (doc. #'s 5021 and 5023) are granted; no appearance on the motions is required. We ask the Clerk of Court to terminate the appearance of Thomas E. Nowinski as one of the attorneys for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds and the Cook County Assessor. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/11/2017. Mailed notice(ks, ) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017

5028 ATTORNEY Appearance for Movants Proviso Township Democratic Organization, Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough by Janet H. Gilbert (Gilbert, Janet) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017 5029 MOTION by Movants Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough, Proviso Township Democratic Organization to quash Subpoenas (Gilbert, Janet) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017

5030

MEMORANDUM by Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough, Proviso Township Democratic Organization in support of motion to quash 5029 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Subpoena Issued to Proviso, # 2 Exhibit 2-Subpoena Issued to Citizens, # 3 Exhibit 3-Anderson v. Hale, # 4 Exhibit 4-In re Heartland Institute, # 5 Exhibit 5-Notice of Subpoena to Citizens, # 6 Exhibit 6-Notice of Subpoena to Proviso)(Gilbert, Janet) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017 5031 NOTICE of Motion by Janet H. Gilbert for presentment of motion to quash 5029 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Gilbert, Janet) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017 5032 ATTORNEY Appearance for Movants Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough, Proviso Township Democratic Organization by Chloe G. Pedersen (Pedersen, Chloe) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017 5033 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Assessor by Patricia Maria Fallon (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/12/2017 5034 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Patricia Maria Fallon (Fallon, Patricia) (Entered: 05/12/2017)

05/15/2017

5035

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 7/17/17 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/15/2017)

05/16/2017 5036 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to motion to vacate 4980 Arbitration Award (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/16/2017)

05/19/2017

5037

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 163 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017

5038

Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus' Petition For Payment of Invoice No. 97 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017

5039

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #163. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017 5040 ORDER regarding other 5037 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/19/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017 5041 ATTORNEY Appearance for Movants Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough, Proviso Township Democratic Organization by Joshua Andrew Kurtzman (Kurtzman, Joshua) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017 5042 ATTORNEY Appearance for Movants Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough, Proviso Township Democratic Organization by Patricia Brown Holmes (Holmes, Patricia) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017

5043

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #97 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/19/2017 5044 ORDER regarding other 5038 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/19/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/19/2017)

05/22/2017 5045 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs (unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/22/2017

5046 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5045 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/1/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/22/2017 5047 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/22/2017

5048 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5047 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/1/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/22/2017 5049 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/22/2017

5050 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5049 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/1/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/22/2017 5051 RESPONSE by Teamsters Local 916 to MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to clarify 4993 (Craven, Donald) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/23/2017 5052 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs (Amended) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/23/2017

5053

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 5047 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/23/2017 5054 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5047 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/23/2017

5055

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 5049 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/23/2017 5056 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5049 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/23/2017

5057

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:ENTER AMENDED ORDER. Plaintiffs' amended unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 5052 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The previously filed motion (doc. # 5045 ) is terminated as the subsequently filed amended motion (doc. #5052) was granted. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/23/2017 5058 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5052 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/24/2017 5059 Eighth Report of the Assessor Compliance Administrator by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Hiring Violations, # 2 Exhibit B - Non-Hiring Violations)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/24/2017

5060

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, motion to quash certain subpoenas issued to the Proviso Township Democratic Organization and Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough (doc. # 5029 ) is entered and continued. As stated on the record, the parties have agreed to have a meet and confer for the purpose of resolving the motion. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on the motion, the briefing schedule is set as follows: plaintiffs' response is to be filed by 6/07/17, and the non-party's reply is to be filed by 6/19/17. If the Recorder wishes to file a memorandum, she may do so by 6/19/17, but may not raise issues that have not already been raised in the motion. The Court will not set a further hearing on the motion at this time. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/27/2017 5061 REPLY by Noreen C Lanahan to response in opposition to motion, 5019 (Lanahan, John) (Entered: 05/27/2017)

06/02/2017 5062 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Seventeenth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 06/02/2017)

06/02/2017

5063 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Seventeenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/02/2017)

06/02/2017

5064

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S SEVENTEENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/2/2017. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 06/02/2017)

06/05/2017 5065 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Magistrate Judge status hearing held on 6/5/17 and continued to 8/4/17 at 10:00 a. m. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 06/05/2017)

06/05/2017 5066 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Michael L Shakman by Julia Kathryn Schwartz (Schwartz, Julia) (Entered: 06/05/2017)

06/05/2017 5067 RESPONSE by Michael L Shakman to MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to clarify 4993 (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 06/05/2017)

06/06/2017

5068

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At the joint request of plaintiffs and the non-party subpoena respondents, the briefing schedule on the motion to quash 5029 is extended as follows: if agreement cannot be reached to resolve the dispute, plaintiffs' response is due by 06/13/17 and the non parties' reply is due by 06/26/17. Mailed notice (mma, ) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017 5069 STATUS Report Sixth Report of the Special Master by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017 5070 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re status report 5069 (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017

5071 MOTION by Defendant Cook County for extension of time to file response/reply as to Response 5036 , response in opposition to motion, 5018 (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/06/2017

5072

NOTICE of Motion by Scott A. Golden for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply, motion for relief, 5071 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/20/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

06/07/2017

5073

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion for extension of time 5071 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Cook County shall file its reply in support of the motion to vacate the arbitration award 4980 by 06/27/17. Mailed notice (mma, ) (Entered: 06/07/2017)

06/07/2017

5074

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 164 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/07/2017)

06/08/2017

5075

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Record of Deeds Compliance Administrator's petition for payment of Invoice # 164 5074 is granted, no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice (mma, ) (Entered: 06/08/2017)

06/08/2017

5076

Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus' Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 98 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Agreed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 06/08/2017)

06/08/2017

5077

AGREED ORDER for Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator. Cardelle Spagnler for Invoice #164: Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/8/2017. Mailed notice (mma, ) (Entered: 06/08/2017)

06/09/2017

5078

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator unopposed petition for payment (doc. # 5076 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/09/2017 5079 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Forty-Third Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/09/2017

5080

AGREED ORDER: COOK COUNTRY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS,FOR INVOICE #98. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/9/2017. MAILED notice(ks, ) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/09/2017

5081

MOTION by Attorney Joseph M. Gagliardo to withdraw as attorney for Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois. No party information provided (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/09/2017

5082

(BRUCE RAUNER) NOTICE of Motion by Joseph Michael Gagliardo for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 5081 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/21/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

06/12/2017

5083

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Forty-Third Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017 5084 ORDER regarding petition 5079 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/12/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/12/2017

5085

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Bruce Rauner's motion for leave for attorney Joseph M. Gagliardo to withdraw his appearance (doc. # 5081 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate Mr. Gagliardo's appearance. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/12/2017)

06/14/2017

5086

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At the joint request of the parties, the deadline set on 6/06/17 (doc. # 5068 ) for plaintiff to respond to the motion to quash (doc. # 5029 ) is stricken. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 6/20/17 at 8:30 a.m. for a report on the parties' efforts to resolve their dispute. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/15/2017 5087 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Assessor by Kevin William Frey (Frey, Kevin) (Entered: 06/15/2017)

06/15/2017 5088 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Kevin William Frey (Frey, Kevin) (Entered: 06/15/2017)

06/20/2017

5089

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. Mr Matthew Pryor is unable to appear. The parties report on the status of their ongoing efforts to resolve any issues concerning the motion to quash (doc. # 5029 ). For the reasons stated on the record, based on the agreements reached between plaintiffs and the subpoena respondents, the motion to quash (doc. # 5029 ) is denied as moot. Enter Agreed Protective Order. As further stated on the record, neither the denial of the motion to quash nor the entry of the agreed protective order addresses any disputes concerning compliance by the Recorder or any other entity with subpoenas or other requests for information that have been served by the Inspector General; nor does our order today limit or modify the authority of the Inspector General under the SRO. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/20/2017 5090 AGREED PROTECTIVE Order Governing Third-Party Discovery. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/20/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

06/27/2017 5091 REPLY by Defendant Cook County to Response 5036 , response in opposition to motion, 5018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Golden, Scott) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/27/2017 5092 NOTICE by Cook County re reply 5091 (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/27/2017

5093

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 165 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/27/2017

5094 REPLY by Defendant Cook County to Response 5036 , response in opposition to motion, 5018 (Corrected) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Golden, Scott) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/27/2017 5095 NOTICE by Cook County re reply 5094 (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/28/2017

5096

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #165. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/28/2017 5097 ORDER regarding text entry 5096 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/28/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/28/2017

5098 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/28/2017 5099 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5098 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/6/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/28/2017 5100 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Eighteenth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

06/29/2017

5101

Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus' Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 99 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bacon, Laura) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/29/2017

5102

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 5098 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/29/2017 5103 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/29/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/29/2017 5104 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Eighteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/29/2017

5105

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S EIGHTEENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/29/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/29/2017

5106

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #99 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/29/2017

5107

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #99. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/29/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/29/2017)

06/30/2017

5108

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 06-05-2017 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/TranscriptOrder-Form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 7/21/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/31/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/28/2017. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

07/06/2017 5109 STATUS Report Eighteenth Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for Cook County by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

07/07/2017

5110

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 9/22/17 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/07/2017

5111 MOTION by Attorney Justin William Hanson to withdraw as attorney for Cook County Assessor. No party information provided (Hanson, Justin) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/07/2017 5112 NOTICE of Motion by Justin William Hanson for presentment of before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/27/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hanson, Justin) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/07/2017

5113

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 03-23-2017 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/TranscriptOrder-Form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 7/28/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/7/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/5/2017. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/07/2017

5114

ORDER: Motion to withdraw counsel 5111 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Justin W. Hanson as one of the attorneys for the Cook County Assessor's Office. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/7/2017. Mailed notice (mma, ) (Entered: 07/10/2017)

07/11/2017

5115 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Forty-Fourth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/11/2017)

07/11/2017

5116

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Forty-Fourth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/11/2017 5117 ORDER regarding petition 5115 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/11/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/13/2017

5118

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 6/20/17 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Kathleen_Fennell@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 8/3/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/14/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/11/2017. (Fennell, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

5119

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 166 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017

5120

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #166. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/13/2017 5121 ORDER regarding other 5119 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/13/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/17/2017

5122

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. Susan Feibus from the Compliance Administrator further reports that her counsel Laura Bacon will be withdrawing as counsel (in light of her maternity leave) and that Elisa Wesche will be substituting as counsel of record. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 9/25/17 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017 5123 MOTION by Court Monitor Susan G. Feibus to substitute attorney (Feibus, Susan) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/17/2017 5124 NOTICE of Motion by Susan G. Feibus for presentment of motion to substitute attorney 5123 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/20/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Feibus, Susan) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

07/18/2017 5125 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion Assessor Compliance Administrator ("ACA") for substitution of

counsel (doc. # 5123 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We give leave for Laura B. Bacon to withdraw her appearance as counsel for the ACA, with thanks for her work on the case. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate her appearance. We give leave for Elisa C. Wesche to file her appearance as counsel for the ACA. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2017)

07/18/2017

5126 ATTORNEY Appearance for Court Monitor Susan G. Feibus by Elisa C Wesche (Assessor Compliance Administrator) (Wesche, Elisa) (Entered: 07/18/2017)

07/19/2017

5127

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #167 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/19/2017)

07/19/2017

5128

AMENDED COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 167 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/19/2017)

07/19/2017

5129

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Amended Petition for Payment of Invoice #167. The petition filed on 7/19/17 (doc. # 5127 ) is hereby stricken as moot, in light of the amended petition (doc. # 5128 ) that was filed and granted. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/20/2017)

07/19/2017 5130 ORDER regarding other 5128 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/19/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/20/2017)

07/26/2017

5131

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The motion to clarify (doc. # 4993 ) is granted. By 9/25/17, the parties and the Special Master shall file a joint report outlining the procedure that has been developed in light of the guidance provided in the Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)

07/26/2017

5132 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/26/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)

07/27/2017

5133

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At the request of the parties, the status hearing set for 8/04/17 before the magistrate judge is RESET to 8/14/17 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/27/2017)

07/31/2017 5134 STATUS Report INITIAL REPORT FOR EXPANDED DUTIES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

08/01/2017

5135

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #168 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/01/2017

5136

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #168. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

08/01/2017 5137 ORDER regarding other 5135 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/1/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

08/07/2017 5138 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference in chambers held and continued to 9/28/17 at 5:00 p.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/08/2017 5139 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's First Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 08/08/2017)

08/09/2017

5140

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for First Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/09/2017 5141 ORDER regarding petition 5139 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/9/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/11/2017 5142 MOTION by Court Monitor Susan G. Feibus to substitute attorney (Feibus, Susan) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/11/2017 5143 NOTICE of Motion by Susan G. Feibus for presentment of motion to substitute attorney 5142 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/16/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Feibus, Susan) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/11/2017

5144

ORDER: Motion by the Assessor Compliance Administrator ("ACA") for substitution of counsel 5142 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Elisa C. Wesche as counsel for the ACA, and we give leave tor Kathleen Holper Champagne to file her appearance as counsel for the ACA. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/11/2017. Mailed notice (mma, ) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/14/2017

5145

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 10/06/17 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

08/14/2017 5146 ATTORNEY Appearance for Court Monitor Susan G. Feibus by Kathleen Holper Champagne (Assessor Compliance Administrator) (Champagne, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

08/15/2017 5147 IIG Report Addressing the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

08/15/2017 5148 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

08/15/2017 5149 REPORT by Sharon M. Goss, Director of Compliance Addressing the Cook County Assessor's Office :Notice (mma, ) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

08/21/2017

5150

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #100 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Champagne, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/21/2017

5152

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #100 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/21/2017

5153

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #100 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/22/2017 5151 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Forty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/22/2017

5154

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Forty-Fifth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/22/2017 5155 ORDER regarding petition 5151 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/22/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

08/25/2017 5156 MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for protective order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit proposed agreed order)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/25/2017

5157

NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion for protective order 5156 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/29/2017 at 09:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

08/28/2017

5158

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to enter agreed protective order (doc. # 5156 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF UNREDACTED VERSION OF FIFTH REPORT TO TEAMSTERS COUNSEL. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/28/2017

5159

AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF UN-REDACTED VERSION OF FIFTH REPORT TO TEAMSTERS COUNSEL Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/28/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

08/29/2017

5160 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs With Respect to the Governor of Illinois [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 5161 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5160 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/6/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 5162 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 5163 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5162 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/6/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017

5164 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs with Respect to the Cook County Assessor [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 5165 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5164 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/6/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 5166 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs With Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 5167 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5166 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/6/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017

5168

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 5160 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 5169 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/29/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017

5170

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER AMENDED ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 5162 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 5171 AMENDED ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5162 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/29/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017

5172

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 5164 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 5173 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5164 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/29/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017

5174

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 5166 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/29/2017 5175 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5166 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/29/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

09/05/2017

5176

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on August 14, 2017, before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Laura LaCien, 312-408-5032, laura_lacien@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 9/26/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/6/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/2017. (Lacien, Laura) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/05/2017

5177

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 7/17/17 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Kathleen_Fennell@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 9/26/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/6/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/2017. (Fennell, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/06/2017

5178

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #169 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017

5179

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 170 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017

5180

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #169. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017 5181 ORDER regarding other 5178 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/6/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017

5182

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #170. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/06/2017 5183 ORDER regarding other 5179 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/6/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/08/2017 5184 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Forty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

5185

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #101 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Champagne, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

5186

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Forty-Sixth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017 5187 ORDER regarding petition 5184 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/8/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

5188

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #101 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

5189

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #101 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/8/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/15/2017 5190 DOCUMENT REMOVED PURSUANT TO ORDER (Dkt No. 5205) dated 9/25/17. Modified on 12/4/2017 (gcy, ). (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/15/2017

5191

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement, with the Recorder's Director of Compliance on maternity leave, the Court appoints the Recorder Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, to serve as Interim Director of Compliance upon the Director of Compliance's return from leave. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/15/2017

5192

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement, with the Recorder's Director of Compliance, Alexis Serio, on maternity leave, the Court appoints the Recorder Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, to serve as Interim Director of Compliance pending Ms. Serio's return from leave. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

09/18/2017 5193 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Second Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

09/18/2017

5194

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Second Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

09/18/2017 5195 ORDER regarding petition 5193 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/18/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

09/18/2017

5196

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Actively Recruited Position List of Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit to Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

09/18/2017

5197

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County actively recruited position list (doc. # 5196 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER AMENDING COOK COUNTY EMPLOYMENT PLAN. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

09/18/2017

5198 AGREED ORDER AMENDING COOK COUNTY EMPLOYMENT PLAN Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/18/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

09/20/2017 5199 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Nineteenth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/20/2017

5200 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Nineteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/20/2017

5201

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S NINETEENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/21/2017 5202 STATUS Report NINETEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/21/2017)

09/22/2017

5203

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 11/17/17 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/22/2017

5204 STATUS Report NINTH REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR by Susan G. Feibus (Champagne, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/25/2017

5205

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. As stated on the record the parties are to have a meet and confer regarding the adoption of an electronic application system. By no later than 10/25/17, the parties are to file a joint status report outlining: (1) the areas of agreement that the parties have reached, (2) whether there are any areas of disagreement, and (3) the parties' respective positions on any areas of disagreement that might exist. For the reasons stated on the record, the Assessor Compliance Administrator's unopposed oral motion for leave to file an Amended Ninth Report of the Assessor Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 5204 ) that supplants the report filed on 9/15/17 (doc. # 5190 ) is granted. The Clerk of the Court is hereby requested to remove the report filed on 9/15/17 (doc. # 5190 ) from the record. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 11/28/17 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/25/2017

5206

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 171 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/25/2017

5207

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #171. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

09/25/2017 5208 ORDER regarding other 5206 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/25/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

09/26/2017 5209 MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for protective order regarding disclosure of un-redacted OEIG report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

proposed agreed protective order)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

09/26/2017

5210

NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion for protective order, 5209 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/28/2017 at 05:00 PM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

09/27/2017

5211

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement of the parties, the TIME of the status hearing before the magistrate judge is RESET to 10/06/17 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

09/28/2017 5214 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference in chambers held and continued to 11/17/17 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

09/29/2017

5212

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to enter agreed protective order relating to disclosure of unredacted OEIG report (doc. # 5209 ) is granted. ENTER AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

09/29/2017

5213

AGREED PROTECTIVE Order Regarding Disclosure of UnRedacted OEIG Report to Teamsters Counsel. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/29/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

10/04/2017

5215

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 172 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/04/2017)

10/05/2017 5216 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Forty-Seventh Petition For Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/05/2017

5217

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #172. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/05/2017 5218 ORDER regarding other 5215 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/5/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/05/2017 5219 COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE

#102 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Champagne, Kathleen) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/05/2017

5220

STATUS Report SIXTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/06/2017

5221

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Forty-Seventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/06/2017 5222 ORDER regarding petition 5216 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/6/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/06/2017

5223

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #102 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/06/2017

5224

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #102 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/6/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/06/2017

5225

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The parties further report that Mr. Joseph M. Gagliardo has been appointed as new counsel for the Recorder. The parties are further ordered to have a meet and confer for the purposes of resolving certain outstanding issues discussed on the record prior to the parties' in chambers meeting. The matter is set for an in chambers meeting with the magistrate judge on 11/03/17 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/09/2017 5226 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Joseph Michael Gagliardo (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 10/09/2017)

10/09/2017 5227 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Jeffrey S. Fowler (Fowler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/09/2017)

10/09/2017 5228 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Michael A. Kuczwara, Jr (Kuczwara, Michael) (Entered: 10/09/2017)

10/16/2017

5229

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 9/25/17 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 28397. Court Reporter Contact Information: Kathleen_Fennell@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 11/6/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/16/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/16/2018. (Fennell, Kathleen) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/16/2017

5230

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Ms. Lanahan's motion to intervene (doc. # 4956 ) and amended petition for miscellaneous relief (doc. # 4978 ) are denied. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/16/2017

5231 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/16/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/16/2017 5232 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twentieth Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/16/2017

5233 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Twentieth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/16/2017

5234

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTIETH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/16/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/17/2017 5235 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/17/2017

5236 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5235 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/7/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/17/2017 5237 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/17/2017 5238 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5237 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/7/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/17/2017 5239 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/17/2017

5240 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5239 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/7/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/17/2017)

10/18/2017

5241

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER AMENDED ORDER. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 5235 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017 5242 AMENDED ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5235 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017

5243

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 5237 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017

5244 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5237 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017

5245

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 5239 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017 5246 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5239 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017

5247

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement of the parties, the TIME of the status conference with the magistrate judge is RESET to 11/17/17 at 4:00 p.m. in Chambers (Room #1846). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017

5248

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 173 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/20/2017

5249

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #173. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/20/2017 5250 ORDER regarding other 5248 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/20/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

10/23/2017 5251 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Third Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 10/23/2017)

10/25/2017

5252

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Third Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/25/2017 5253 ORDER regarding petition 5251 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/25/2017 5254 STATUS Report (Joint) by Cook County Assessor (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/25/2017 5255 NOTICE by Cook County Assessor re status report 5254 (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/30/2017

5256 MOTION by Attorney Scott A. Golden to withdraw as attorney for Cook County Assessor. No party information provided (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 10/30/2017)

10/30/2017 5257 NOTICE of Motion by Scott A. Golden for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 5256 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/2/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Golden, Scott) (Entered: 10/30/2017)

10/31/2017

5258

ORDER: Motion to withdraw counsel (doc. # 5256 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Scott A. Golden as one of the attorneys of record for the Cook County Assessor's Office. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/31/2017. Mailed notice (ags, ) (Entered: 10/31/2017)

11/02/2017 5259 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Governor of Illinois (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/02/2017 5260 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5259 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2017 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/02/2017

5261

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 5259 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/02/2017

5262 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5259 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/2/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/02/2017)

11/03/2017

5263

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status meeting regarding Recorder of Deeds SRO held and continued for an in-chambers status meeting on 12/08/17 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

11/08/2017

5264

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Cook County's motion for an order vacating an arbitration decision (doc. # 4980 ) is denied. We confirm the arbitration award in favor of Mr. Wicks, including the award of attorneys' fees and deposition costs. We deny Mr. Wicks' request for additional attorneys' fees incurred in the briefing of the motion to vacate. We award Mr. Wicks interest on the arbitration award at the rate of six percent per annum, accruing from the date of the entry of the arbitrator's award on January 18, 2017. The proceedings on the motion to vacate (doc. # 4980 ) are concluded. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

11/08/2017 5265 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

11/09/2017

5275

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #103 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Champagne, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017 5276 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus',

Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #103 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/09/2017

5277

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS', AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #103. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/9/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/13/2017

5379

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The status hearing with respect to the Governor set for 11/17/17 at 4:00 p.m. is RESET to 12/04/17 at 9:00 a.m. in chambers. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/14/2017)

11/15/2017

5507

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 174 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/15/2017)

11/15/2017

5568

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #174. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

11/15/2017 5569 ORDER regarding other 5507 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/15/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

11/16/2017 5567 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Forty-Eighth Petition For Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

11/16/2017

5570 STATUS Report TWENTIETH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

11/16/2017

5571

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Forty-Eighth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

11/16/2017 5572 ORDER regarding petition 5567 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/16/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2017)

11/17/2017

5573

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 1/19/18 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/17/2017)

11/28/2017

5632

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 1/19/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

12/04/2017 5642 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in chambers held and continued to 2/05/18 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017

5643 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Order Creating a Review Process for Applications of Former Staff Assistant for Positions at IDOT. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/04/2017

5644

ORDER CREATING A REVIEW PROCESS FOR APPLICATIONS OF FORMER STAFF ASSISTANT FOR POSITIONS AT IDOT Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/4/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/04/2017)

12/05/2017

5645

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 175 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/06/2017

5646

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #175. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2017)

12/06/2017 5647 ORDER regarding other 5645 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/6/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2017)

12/08/2017

5648

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held in chambers. The matter is set for a further status hearing in open court on 2/09/18 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/08/2017)

12/12/2017

5682

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #104 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Champagne, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/12/2017)

12/12/2017

5683

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #104 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/12/2017)

12/12/2017 5684 ORDER regarding other 5682 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/12/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/12/2017)

12/14/2017

5685

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 176 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/14/2017

5686

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #176. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/14/2017 5687 ORDER regarding other 5685 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/14/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/14/2017 5688 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Assessor by Jeffrey S. Fowler (Fowler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/14/2017 5689 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Assessor by Michael A. Kuczwara, Jr (Kuczwara, Michael) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/14/2017 5690 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Assessor by Joseph Michael Gagliardo (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

12/15/2017 5691 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard OIIG Report December 15, 2017 (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/15/2017 5692 NOF OIIG Report December 15, 2017 by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/15/2017 5693 REPORT Addressing the Cook county Assessor's Office by Cook County (mma, ) (Entered: 12/19/2017)

12/20/2017 5694 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Forty-Ninth Petition For Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017

5695

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 177 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017 5696 STATUS Report Seventh Report of the Special Master by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017 5697 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan re status report 5696 (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017

5698

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Approval of the Amended Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan [Agreed] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A-G to Exhibit 1)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017

5699 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 5698 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/4/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017

5700

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Forty-Ninth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/20/2017 5701 ORDER regarding petition 5694 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/20/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/20/2017)

12/21/2017

5702

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #177. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

12/21/2017 5703 ORDER regarding other 5695 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/21/2017. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

12/21/2017

5704

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's agreed motion for approval of the amended Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan (doc. # 5698 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Approving The Amended Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

12/21/2017

5705

AGREED ORDER Approving the Amended Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/21/2017. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

01/03/2018 5706 MOTION by Court Monitor Susan G. Feibus to substitute attorney (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/04/2018 5707 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion for substitution of counsel (doc. # 5706 ) is granted. Matthew David Pryor is given leave to file his appearance as counsel of record for the

Assessor Compliance Administrator ("ACA"). We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the appearance of Kathleen Holper Champagne as counsel for the ACA. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018

5708

NOTICE of Motion by Matthew David Pryor for presentment of motion to substitute attorney 5706 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/9/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/04/2018 5709 ATTORNEY Appearance for Court Monitor Susan G. Feibus by Matthew David Pryor (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

01/05/2018

5710

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #105 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/05/2018

5711

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 178 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/05/2018

5712

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #105 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/05/2018 5713 ORDER regarding other 5710 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/05/2018

5714

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #178. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/05/2018 5715 ORDER regarding other 5711 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/08/2018 5716 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fiftieth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018

5717

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fiftieth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018 5718 ORDER regarding petition 5716 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/8/2018. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018

5719

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on November 28, 2017 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 29375. Court Reporter Contact Information: Blanca I. Lara, 219 South Dearborn, Room 2504, Chicago, Illinois 60604, blanca_lara@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 1/29/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/8/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/9/2018. (Lara, Blanca) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/09/2018

5720

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 11-10-16 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 29494. Court Reporter Contact Information: Sandra M. Mullin, Sandra_Mullin@ilnd.uscourts.gov, 312-554-8244.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 1/30/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/9/2018. (Mullin, Sandra) (Entered: 01/09/2018)

01/18/2018 5723 STATUS Report TWENTY-FIRST REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018

5725

STATUS Report TENTH REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR by Susan G. Feibus (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/19/2018

5726

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Status hearing with respect to the Cook County Supplemental Relief Order held and continued to 03/12/18 at 9:15 a.m.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

01/19/2018

5727

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Status hearing in chambers with respect to the Assessor Supplemental Relief Order held. The matter is set for a further in-court status hearing on 03/12/18 at 8:30 a.m. ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE OIIG. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

01/19/2018 5728 PROTECTIVE Order Governing Information and Documents Produced By The OIIG Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/19/2018. Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

01/29/2018

5729

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 179 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018

5730

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #179. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

01/29/2018 5731 ORDER regarding other 5729 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/29/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/29/2018)

02/01/2018

5733

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Exempt List, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/01/2018

5734

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 5733 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER AMENDING COOK COUNTY EMPLOYMENT PLAN. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/01/2018

5735 AGREED ORDER AMENDING COOK COUNTY EMPLOYMENT PLAN Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/1/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/02/2018 5736 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018

5737

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5736 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/13/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018 5738 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018

5739

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5738 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/13/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018

5740 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018

5741

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5740 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/13/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018 5742 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to IDOT (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018

5743

(Unopposed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5742 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/13/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018

5744

NOTICE OF EMAIL NOTIFICATION FAILURE, for document # 5740 , 5739 , 5741 , 5737 , 5738 , 5736 , 5743 , 5742 sent to Attorney Ted Shuya Petrovic Li returned as: Unknown Address Error. The Clerk telephoned Ted Shuya Petrovic Li, no contact made. Mailed to attorney Ted Shuya Petrovic Li a letter re: bounce back email and a Notification of Change of Address form. Notices have been set to No. Counsel must email the Clerk's Office at Docketing_ILND@uscourts.gov when a Notification of Change of Address has been filed to ensure electronic notification is reset. (ek, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

5745

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in chambers held and continued to 3/23/18 at 8:30 a.m. OEIG's oral objection to subpoena served by Special Master is overruled. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

5746

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER AMENDED ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 5736 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

5747

AMENDED ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

5748

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 5738 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

5749 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5738 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

5750

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 5740 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018 5751 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5740 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

5752

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 5742 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

5753 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/06/2018

5754

STATUS Report SEVENTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/06/2018)

02/06/2018

5755

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #180 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/06/2018)

02/07/2018

5756

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #180. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/07/2018)

02/07/2018 5757 ORDER regarding other 5755 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/7/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/07/2018)

02/08/2018

5758

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: At the request and by agreement of the parties, the status hearing set for 2/09/18 before the magistrate judge is RESET to 2/23/18 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/13/2018 5759 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fifty-first Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/13/2018)

02/13/2018

5761

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fifty-first Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/13/2018 5762 ORDER regarding petition 5759 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/13/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018

5760

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #106 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018

5763

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #106 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018 5764 ORDER regarding other 5760 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/14/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/15/2018 5765 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-First Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018 5766 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Fourth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018

5767

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Fourth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018 5768 ORDER regarding petition 5766 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/15/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/16/2018 5769 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Corrected TwentyFirst Petition for Payment (Farmer, Leah) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

02/16/2018

5770

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In light of the Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master Noelle C. Brennan filing a Corrected Twenty-First Petition for Payment (doc. # 5769 ), the previously filed Twenty-First Petition for Payment (doc. # 5765 ) is hereby stricken. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

02/16/2018

5771

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-FIRST PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/16/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/16/2018)

02/16/2018

5772

MAIL RETURNED, for document # 5744 sent to Ted Shuya Petrovic Li returned as undeliverable, return to sender. No new contact information received; therefore future mailings will not be sent until a new address is provided to the Clerk's Office using a Notification of Change of Address or Pro Se Appearance form (ek, ) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

02/23/2018

5773

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. Attorney Joe Gagliardo appears by telephone conference. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 4/27/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/23/2018)

02/26/2018

5774

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 181 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/26/2018)

02/27/2018 5775 AGREED ORDER for Invoice #181 regarding petition 5774 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/27/2018. Mailed notice (ags, ) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

03/07/2018

5776

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #182 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/07/2018)

03/07/2018

5777

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler2s, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #182. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/07/2018)

03/07/2018 5778 ORDER regarding other 5776 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/7/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/07/2018)

03/08/2018 5779 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fifty-second Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

03/09/2018 5780 ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/9/2018. Mailed notice(ep, ) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/09/2018 5781 STATUS Report TWENTY-SECOND REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/12/2018

5782

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 5/11/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018

5783

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 4/27/18 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/13/2018

5784

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #107 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018

5785

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #107 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/13/2018 5786 ORDER regarding other 5784 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/13/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/13/2018)

03/16/2018 5787 NOTICE of appeal by Victor M. Crown regarding orders (Exhibits) (ek, ) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/20/2018 5788 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 5787 . Notified counsel (ek, ) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/21/2018

5789

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #183 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018 5790 ACKNOWLEDGMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice of appeal 5787 ; USCA Case No. 18-1619. (mma, ) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018 5791 CIRCUIT Rule 3(b) Fee Notice (mma, ) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

03/21/2018

5792

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #183. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/22/2018)

03/21/2018 5793 ORDER regarding other 5789 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/21/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/22/2018)

03/23/2018 5794 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference in chambers held and continued to 5/21/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/26/2018

5795

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order on motion for order, terminate hearings 2716 Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

03/26/2018

5797 AGREED ORDER AMENDING COOK COUNTY EMPLOYMENT PLAN. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/26/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

03/27/2018

5796

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 5795 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER AMENDING COOK COUNTY EMPLOYMENT PLAN. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

04/03/2018 5798 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Second Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/03/2018

5799 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Fifth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/03/2018 5800 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Twenty-Second Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2018)

04/03/2018

5801

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-SECOND PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/3/2018. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2018)

04/03/2018

5802

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Fifth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2018)

04/03/2018 5803 ORDER regarding petition 5799 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/3/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2018)

04/11/2018

5804

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on February 23, 2018 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Blanca I. Lara, 219 South Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois, blanca_lara@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 5/2/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/14/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/10/2018. (Lara, Blanca) (Entered: 04/11/2018)

04/11/2018

5805

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on November 28, 2017 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Blanca I. Lara, 219 South Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois, blanca_lara@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the

Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 5/2/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/14/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/10/2018. (Lara, Blanca) (Entered: 04/11/2018)

04/12/2018

5806

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #184 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/12/2018)

04/12/2018

5807

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #108 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/12/2018)

04/13/2018 5808 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fifty-third Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/13/2018 5809 ORDER regarding petition 5806 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/13/2018. Mailed notice (cn) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/13/2018 5810 ORDER regarding petition 5807 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/13/2018. Mailed notice (cn) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/16/2018 5811 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard OIIG Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/16/2018 5812 OIIG Report Addressing ROD by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/16/2018 5813 DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE'S Report Addressing the Cook County Assessor's Office filed by Sharon M. Goss; Notice. (ek, ) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/20/2018 5814 ORDER regarding petition 5808 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/20/2018. Mailed notice (cn) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/23/2018

5815

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 185 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/23/2018

5816

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Cook County Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redlined Employment Plan, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit to Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/24/2018

5817

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #185. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

04/24/2018 5818 ORDER regarding other 5815 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/24/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

04/24/2018

5819

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Employment Plan (doc. # 5816 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

04/24/2018 5820 AGREED ORDER AMENDING COOK COUNTY EMPLOYMENT PLAN. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/24/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

04/25/2018

5821 STATUS Report TWENTY-THIRD REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/25/2018 5822 STATUS Report SECOND REPORT FOR EXPANDED DUTIES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/26/2018

5823 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Telephone conference held with counsel for plaintiffs and the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/27/2018

5824

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 6/04/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (jj, ) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

5825

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 6/01/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/30/2018 5826 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct notice of motion 2715 , order on motion for order, terminate hearings 2716 , order 2717 Actively Recruited Position List of Cook County

Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit To Agreed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

05/01/2018

5827

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to amend the Cook County actively recruited position list (doc. # 5826 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

05/01/2018

5828 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/1/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

05/02/2018

5829

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #109 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/02/2018

5830

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 186 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/02/2018

5831

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #109 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/02/2018 5832 ORDER regarding other 5829 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/2/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/02/2018

5833

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #186. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/02/2018 5834 ORDER regarding other 5830 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/2/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/03/2018 5835 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fifty-fourth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/03/2018

5836

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fifty-fourth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/03/2018 5837 ORDER regarding petition 5835 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/3/2018. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/03/2018)

05/07/2018

5838

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In view of the departure of the Sharon Goss, DOC for the Assessor's Office, by agreement of the parties we appoint ACA Susan G. Feibus to simultaneously serve as Interim DOC. Ms. Feibus shall serve in that additional role pending the hiring by the Assessor's Office of a new DOC. The Court thanks the former DOC, Sharon Goss, for her dedicated service to the Assessor's Office.Mailed notice (sxw, ) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

5839

ORDER dated 4/9/2018 from the 7th Circuit regarding notice of appeal 5787 ; Appellate case no. : 18-1619 ; Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that appellant Crown shall file, on or before April 23, 2018, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.App.P.42(b) will satisfy this requirement. Briefing shall be suspended pending further court order. (kp, ) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018

5840

ORDER dated 5/7/2018 from the 7th Circuit regarding notice of appeal 5787 ; Appellate case no. : 18-1619 ; The court, on its own motion, orders appellant Victor M. Crown, Jr. to show cause for his failure to respond to the courts order of April 9, 2018. Appellant Crown shall file his response on or before May 21, 2018. Appellant is advised that failure to respond may result in the dismissal of this appeal. The clerk is directed to attach a copy of the court's order of April 9, 2018, to appellant's copy of this order. (kp, ) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/10/2018

5841

MOTION by Unknown Cook County Assessor, Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to amend/correct Cook County Assessor's Exempt List (AGREED MOTION) (Fowler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/10/2018

5842

(AGREED MOTION) NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey S. Fowler for presentment of motion to amend/correct 5841 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/17/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Fowler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/10/2018 5843 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/10/2018 5844 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5843 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/17/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/10/2018 5845 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/10/2018

5846 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5845 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/17/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/10/2018 5847 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/10/2018

5848 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5847 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/17/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/10/2018)

05/10/2018

5849

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed Motion to Amend the Cook County Assessor's Exempt List (doc. # 5841 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/10/2018 5850 AGREED ORDER Amending the Cook County Assessor's Office Exempt List. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/10/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/10/2018

5851

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER AMENDED ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 5843 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/10/2018

5852

AMENDED ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/10/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/10/2018 5853 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 5845 ) is granted; no

appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/10/2018

5854 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5845 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/10/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/10/2018

5855

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 5847 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/10/2018 5856 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5847 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/10/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/11/2018

5857

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. By no later than noon on 6/15/18, the parties are to file a joint status report updating the Court on the employee position description schedule. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 6/18/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/11/2018)

05/17/2018 5858 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Preliminary Approval of a Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [Agreed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/17/2018

5859 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 5858 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/21/2018 5860 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in chambers held and continued to 6/19/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/22/2018 5861 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Third Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018 5862 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Sixth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/23/2018

5863

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Twenty-Third Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018

5864

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-THIRD PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018

5865

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Sixth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018 5866 ORDER regarding petition 5862 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/24/2018

5867

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's agreed motion for preliminary approval of a supplemental relief order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (doc. # 5858 ) is granted. The Court gives preliminary approval of the supplemental relief order. The parties are further instructed to submit their proposed preliminary approval order supplemental relief order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County to Judge Schenkier's proposed order box with the revisions as stated on the record. The matter is set for a final approval hearing before the magistrate judge on 8/09/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

05/24/2018

5868

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

05/24/2018

5869

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Notice of Hearing on Approval of Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County and Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

05/24/2018

5870

NOTICE OF HEARING on Approval of Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

05/24/2018 5871 SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF ORDER for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/24/2018. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2018)

05/29/2018

5872

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 187 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

05/30/2018

5873

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #187. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

05/30/2018 5874 ORDER regarding other 5872 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/30/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

05/31/2018 5875 STATUS Report TWENTY-FOURTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COOK COUNTY by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/31/2018)

06/01/2018

5876

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case and that they anticipate that, by the next status hearing, they will be filing a motion for a finding of substantial compliance with respect to the County. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 8/10/18 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

5877

MOTION by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman for limited withdrawal of appearance of Michael L. Shakman, Edward W. Feldman and Miller Shakman & Beem LLP (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

5878

NOTICE of Motion by Edward W. Feldman for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 5877 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/7/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

5879 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fifty-fifth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018 5880 COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS', PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #110 by Susan G. Feibus (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

5881

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion by Michael L. Shakman, Edward W. Feldman and Miller Shakman & Beem LLP for limited withdrawal of appearance (doc. # 5877 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Mr. Shakman, Mr. Feldman and Miller Shakman & Beem LLP are terminated as counsel

of record for plaintiffs in the proceedings concerning the Office of the Assessor of Cook County; they remain as counsel of record plaintiffs in connection with all other proceedings in this action. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

5882

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #110 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018 5883 ORDER regarding other 5880 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/1/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

5884

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE 188 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018

5885

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #188. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/01/2018 5886 ORDER regarding other 5884 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/1/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/01/2018)

06/04/2018

5887

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Recorder of Deeds. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 7/13/18 at 11:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

06/04/2018

5888

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fifty-fifth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

06/04/2018 5889 ORDER regarding petition 5879 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/4/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/04/2018)

06/13/2018

5890

MOTION by Unknown Cook County Assessor, Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to amend/correct The Cook County Assessor's Exempt List (AGREED MOTION) (Fowler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/13/2018 5891 (AGREED MOTION) NOTICE of Motion by Jeffrey S. Fowler for presentment of motion to amend/correct 5890 before Honorable

Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/20/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Fowler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/13/2018

5892

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed Motion to Amend the Cook County Assessor's Exempt List (doc. # 5890 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/13/2018

5893 AGREED ORDER Amending the Cook County Assessor's Office Exempt List. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/13/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

06/14/2018

5894

STATUS Report ELEVENTH REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR by Susan G. Feibus (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/14/2018)

06/18/2018

5895

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Assessor. The parties report on the status of the case. The parties are to file a joint status report on 7/13/18 concerning the status of updating job descriptions. The parties shall file an additional joint status report on that topic on 8/17/18, along with the parties' agenda of the next in-court meeting. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 8/20/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/18/2018)

06/19/2018

5896 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in chambers held (with respect to the Governor) and continued to 8/13/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2018)

06/25/2018

5897

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 189 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/25/2018

5898

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #189. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/25/2018 5899 ORDER regarding other 5897 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/25/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/29/2018 5900 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 190 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

06/29/2018

5901

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 111 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

06/29/2018

5902 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fifty-sixth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

07/02/2018

5903

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #190. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 5904 ORDER regarding other 5900 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/2/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018

5905

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #111 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 5906 ORDER regarding other 5901 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/2/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018

5907

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fifty-sixth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018 5908 ORDER regarding petition 5902 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/2/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018

5909

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 3/12/18 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 30688. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy LaBella, 312-435-6890, NLaBella.ilnd@gmail.com.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web

site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 7/23/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/2/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/1/2018. (Labella, Nancy) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/02/2018

5910

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 6/4/18 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 31182. Court Reporter Contact Information: Joseph Rickhoff, 312-435-5562, joseph_rickhoff@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 7/23/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/2/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/1/2018. (Rickhoff, Joseph) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/10/2018

5911

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 5/11/18 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 31193. Court Reporter Contact Information: Kathleen_Fennell@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 7/31/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/10/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/9/2018. (Fennell, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/13/2018

5912

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 6/18/2018 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 31220. Court Reporter Contact Information: ALEXANDRA ROTH, alexandra_roth@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312) 408-5038.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web

site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 8/3/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/13/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/11/2018. (Roth, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018 5913 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Seventh Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018 5914 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Fourth Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

5915

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Recorder of Deeds. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 9/07/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

5916

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Seventh Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018 5917 ORDER regarding petition 5913 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/13/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

5918

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Twenty-Fourth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

5919

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-FOURTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/13/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/18/2018 5920 STATUS Report Eighth Report of the Special Master by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/18/2018)

07/20/2018

5921

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 191 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/20/2018

5922

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #191. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/20/2018 5923 ORDER regarding other 5921 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/20/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/25/2018

5924

CERTIFIED copy of order dated 7/25/2018 from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding notice of appeal 5787 ; Appellate case no. : 181619. This cause, docketed on March 20, 2018, is Di missed for failure to timely pay the required docketing fee, pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). (ek, ) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

07/25/2018

5925 MANDATE of USCA dated 7/25/2018 regarding notice of appeal 5787 ;USCA No.18-1619 ; No record to be returned. (ek, ) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

08/03/2018

5926

ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Clifford Meacham by Margarita Kulys Hoffman Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

08/07/2018 5927 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fifty-seventh Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/07/2018)

08/08/2018

5928

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #112 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/08/2018

5929

CLIFFORD L. MEACHAM, CLERK OF COURT'S COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S FIRST PETITION FOR PAYMENT by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/08/2018

5930

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #112 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/08/2018 5931 ORDER regarding other 5928 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/08/2018 5932 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 192 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/08/2018

5933

NOTICE by Michael L Shakman of Proof of Publication of Notice of Hearing on Approval of the Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/09/2018

5934

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #192. Mailed notice (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/09/2018 5935 ORDER regarding other 5932 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/9/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/09/2018

5936

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Clerk Of Court's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, First Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/09/2018 5937 ORDER regarding other 5929 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/9/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/09/2018 5938 LETTER from Brenda A. Holliday dated 7/09/18. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/09/2018

5939

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fifty-seventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/09/2018 5940 ORDER regarding petition 5927 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/9/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/09/2018

5941

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Final approval hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The Court gives Final Approval of a Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. The parties are to submit their proposed order to the judge's proposed order box as soon as practicable. The Court has advised the parties that a letter was received from Ms. Brenda A Holliday (doc. # 5938 ) dated 7/09/18. As further stated on the record, plaintiff's counsel is to file all opt-out letters by no later than the close of business day on 8/10/18. The matter is set for a status hearing with the magistrate judge on 1/11/19 at 8:30 a.m. in Chambers, Room #1846. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/09/2018

5942

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct text entry 4926 , order 4927 Exhibits 5, 7 and 8 of the CCHHS Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Agreed Motion, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A to Agreed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/09/2018 5943 NOTICE by Michael L Shakman Declaration of Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing on Final Approval of the Supplemental Relief Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/10/2018 5944 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018

5945 SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF ORDER for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/10/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018

5946

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the CCHHS Employment Plan (doc. # 5942 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018 5947 AGREED ORDER Amending Exhibits 5, 7, and 8 of the CCHHS Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/10/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018

5948

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held with respect to the County. The parties report on the status of the case. As stated on the record and by no later than 8/31/18, the parties shall file a motion for finding of substantial compliance to terminate decree and procedure for class notice and final hearing. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/13/2018

5949

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in chambers held (with respect to the Governor). By 8/31/18, defendants (1) shall deliver to the Special Master drafts of Comprehensive Employment Plans for IDOT and the State of Illinois, and (2) shall complete the analysis of the remaining IDOT technical positions under review and deliver the results of that analysis to the Special Master. The matter is set for further in chambers status hearings on 9/13/18 at 2:00 p.m. and 10/15/18 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018 5950 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 2717 Employment Plan Exhibits B&J (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2

Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit To proposed order, # 5 Exhibit to proposed order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/13/2018

5952 AGREED ORDER Amending Cook County Employment Plan Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/13/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018

5951

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Defendant's unopposed motion to amend the Cook County Exempt List and Actively Recruited Position List (doc. # 5950 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Amending Cook County Employment Plan. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/14/2018 5953 NOTICE by Mark Grba Director of Compliance Report (Grba, Mark) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

08/16/2018 5954 OIIG ROD Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/16/2018 5955 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG ROD Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/20/2018

5956

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on July 13, 2018, before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 31500. Court Reporter Contact Information: Laura LaCien, 312-408-5032, laura_lacien@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 9/10/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/20/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/19/2018. (Lacien, Laura) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

5957

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 193 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 5958 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Assessor. The parties report on the status of the

case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 10/05/18 at 8:15 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

5959

by Clifford Meacham Clerk of Court's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L.Meacham's, Petition for Payment of Invoice #002 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018

5960

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #193. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/20/2018 5961 ORDER regarding other 5957 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/20/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/21/2018

5962

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Second Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/21/2018 5963 ORDER regarding other 5959 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018 5964 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018 5965 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5964 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/30/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018

5966 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Cook County Assessor [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018 5967 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5966 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/30/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018 5968 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018

5969 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 5968 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/30/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/22/2018

5970

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for awards of attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 5964 ), the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 5966 ), and the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 5968 ) are all granted; no appearance on those motions is required. ENTER ORDERS. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/22/2018

5971 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5964 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/22/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/22/2018 5972 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5966 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/22/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/22/2018

5973 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 5968 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/22/2018. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/30/2018

5974

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 194 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018

5975

by Clifford Meacham Clifford L. Meacham's, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Third Petition for Payment (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018

5976

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #194. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018 5977 ORDER regarding other 5974 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/30/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018 5978 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fifty-eighth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018

5979

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #113 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018

5980

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Third Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018 5981 ORDER regarding other 5975 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/30/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018

5982

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #113 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018 5983 ORDER regarding other 5979 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/30/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018

5984

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fifty-eighth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/30/2018 5985 ORDER regarding petition 5978 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/30/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

08/31/2018

5986

MOTION by Defendant Cook County for hearing re order 2717 For Finding of Substantial Compliance (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Cook County Employment Plan, # 4 Exhibit CCHHS Employment Plan, # 5 Exhibit OIIG Employment Plan, # 6 Exhibit Certification, # 7 Exhibit Certification, # 8 Supplement Memo in Support of Motion)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 08/31/2018)

08/31/2018 5987 COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S OPINION ON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT by Mary Robinson (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/31/2018)

08/31/2018

5988

STATUS Report EIGHTEENTH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/31/2018)

08/31/2018

MOTION by Defendant Cook County for miscellaneous relief and MOTION by Defendant Cook County to dismiss/terminate party. (Omitted Relief frommotion 5986 ) (td, ) (Entered: 10/31/2018)

09/04/2018 5989 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Joint motion for setting a hearing date for substantial compliance and

dismissal of the County of Cook (doc. # 5986 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER SETTING A HEARING DATE. The matter is set for a hearing on 10/31/18 at 10:00 a.m. to determine whether the Court should enter an order finding the County of Cook to be in Substantial Compliance with the Supplemental Relief Order and the 1994 Consent Decree, and dismissing the County of Cook from this case. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/04/2018 5990 AGREED ORDER SETTING A HEARING DATE. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/4/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1A). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/07/2018

5991

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Recorder of Deeds. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 10/12/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/07/2018

5992 STATUS Report THIRD REPORT FOR EXPANDED DUTIES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/12/2018 5993 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Assessor to amend/correct Cook County Assessor's Exempt List (AGREED MOTION) (Kuczwara, Michael) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

09/12/2018

5994

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Assessor exempt list (doc. # 5993 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

09/12/2018 5995 AGREED ORDER Amending the Cook County Assessor's Office Exempt List. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/12/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

09/13/2018 5996 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in chambers held and continued to 10/15/18 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

09/18/2018

5997

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 08-09-2018 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 31942. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/transcript-order-form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it

may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 10/9/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/19/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/17/2018. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 09/18/2018)

09/19/2018

5998

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #195 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 PDF AGREED ORDER)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/19/2018)

09/19/2018

5999

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S AMMENDED PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #195 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 PDF Agreed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/19/2018)

09/19/2018

6000

by Clifford Meacham Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #004 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 09/19/2018)

09/20/2018

6001

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Amended Petition for Payment of Invoice #195. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/20/2018 6002 ORDER regarding other 5999 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/20/2018

6003

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Fourth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/20/2018 6004 ORDER regarding other 6000 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/20/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/25/2018 6005 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/25/2018 6006 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Eighth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/25/2018

6007

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Twenty-Fifth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/25/2018

6008

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-FIFTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/25/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/25/2018

6009

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Eighth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/25/2018 6010 ORDER regarding petition 6006 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/25/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/27/2018

6011

MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for hearing to determine whether a candidate under review was appointed as a staff assistant in violation of the 1972 decree (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018 6012 NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion for hearing 6011 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/10/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

10/01/2018

6013

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers meeting held in connection with Assessor SRO. The incourt status hearing set for 10/05/18 remains unchanged. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/02/2018)

10/03/2018

6014

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #114 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/03/2018

6015

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #005 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/03/2018

6016

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #114 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/03/2018 6017 ORDER regarding other 6014 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/3/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

6018

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Fifth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018 6019 ORDER regarding other 6015 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/4/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

6020

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 08-20-2018 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 32049. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/transcript-order-form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 10/25/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/5/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/2/2019. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

6021 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs with Respect to the Governor of Illinois (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018 6022 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6021 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/11/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

6023

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 6021 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/04/2018

6024 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/4/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/05/2018 6025 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE #196 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018

6026

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Assessor. Counsel for Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Matthew David Pryor, appears by telephone conference. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 11/02/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018 6027 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Fifty-ninth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018

6028 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs with Respect to IDOT (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018 6029 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6028 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/11/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018

6030

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #196. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018 6031 ORDER regarding other 6025 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018

6032

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Fifty-ninth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018 6033 ORDER regarding petition 6027 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018

6034

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to IDOT (doc. # 6028 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/05/2018

6035 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/10/2018

6036

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Counsel for Ms. Christine Trucano-Hale did not appear. The Court sets the following briefing schedule regarding IDOT's motion requesting a hearing to determine whether the candidate under review was appointed as a staff assistant in violation of the 1972 decree (doc. # 6011 ): IDOT's response is to be filed by 10/24/18; and Ms. Christine Trucano-Hale's reply is to be filed by 11/07/18. The matter is set for status hearing and argument on the motion before the magistrate judge on 11/21/18 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel for the State shall provide Ms. Trucano-Hale with a copy of today's order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/10/2018)

10/10/2018

6037

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement of the parties, the TIME of the in chambers status hearing with the magistrate judge with respect to the Governor is RESET to 10/15/18 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/10/2018)

10/11/2018

6038

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on September 7, 2018 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Status. Order Number: 32076. Court Reporter Contact Information: Blanca I. Lara, 219 South Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60604, blanca_lara@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312) 435-5895. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 11/1/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/13/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/9/2019. (Lara, Blanca) (Entered: 10/11/2018)

10/12/2018

6039

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Recorder of Deeds. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for status hearing before the magistrate judge on the following dates: 10/26/18 at 8:30 a.m., 11/08/18 at 11:00 a.m., and 11/26/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018 6040 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018 6041 Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6040 before Honorable

Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018

6042 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018

6043

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6042 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018

6044

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for award of attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 6040 ) and Cook County (doc. # 6042 ) are both granted; no appearance on those motions is required. ENTER ORDERS. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018 6045 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6040 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/12/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018

6046 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6042 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/12/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/15/2018 6047 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/15/2018

6048

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6047 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/15/2018

6049

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing regarding Governor's Office/IDOT held in chambers; counsel for the Teamsters participated in a portion of the status hearing. The matter is set for a further in chambers status hearing on 11/20/18 at 10:00 a.m. By agreement, the in-court hearing on IDOT's motion requesting a hearing to determine whether the candidate under review was appointed as a staff assistant in violation of the 1972 Decree (doc. # 6011 ) is RESET to 11/28/18 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/15/2018 6050 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award attorneys' fees and costs with respect to

the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 6047 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/15/2018 6051 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6047 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/15/2018. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/15/2018)

10/18/2018

6052

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #197 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

10/18/2018

6053

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #197. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

10/18/2018 6054 ORDER regarding other 6052 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/18/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

10/18/2018

6055

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #006 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

10/19/2018

6056

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier:Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Sixth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018 6057 ORDER regarding other 6055 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/19/2018. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/23/2018

6058

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10/12/18 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Status hearing. Order Number: 32476. Court Reporter Contact Information: Laura Renke, OfficialTranscript@gmail.com, 312.435.6053.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 11/13/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/23/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/22/2019. (Renke, Laura) (Entered: 10/23/2018)

10/24/2018

6059

RESPONSE by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to Special Master's Determination that Candidate Under Review was Appointed as a Staff Assistant in Violation of 1972 Decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Special Master report re Trucano-Hale, # 2 Exhibit Special Master supplemental report re Trucano-Hale)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/24/2018 6060 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/24/2018

6061 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6060 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/1/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/24/2018

6062

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (doc. # 6060 ) is granted; no appearance on those motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/24/2018 6063 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6060 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/24/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/24/2018)

10/26/2018 6064 DECLARATION of Brian I. Hays of Proof of Publication of Notice of Hearing (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

10/26/2018

6065

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Recorder of Deeds. The parties report on the status of the case. The status hearing set for 11/08/18 at 11:00 a.m. before the magistrate judge remains unchanged. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

10/29/2018 6066 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/29/2018

6067 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Ninth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/29/2018 6068 MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 4927 CCHHS Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/29/2018

6069

MOTION by Defendant Cook County to amend/correct order 4927 Employment Plan - to correct error in text of agreed order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Amended to correct error)(Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

10/30/2018

6070

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Twenty-Sixth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

10/30/2018

6071

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-SIXTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/30/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

10/30/2018

6072

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Ninth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

10/30/2018 6073 ORDER regarding petition 6067 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/30/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

10/30/2018

6074

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed corrected motion to amend the CCHHS Employment Plan (doc. # 6069 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AMENDED AGREED ORDER AMENDING SECTIONS V & IX OF THE CCHHS EMPLOYMENT PLAN. In light of the corrected motion, the previously filed motion docketed as document # 6068 is terminated. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

10/30/2018

6075

AMENDED AGREED ORDER AMENDING SECTIONS V & IX OF THE CCHHS EMPLOYMENT PLAN. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/30/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

10/30/2018 6076 NOTICE by Cook County Publication to County Employees (Brennan, Daniel) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

10/31/2018 6077 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held with respect to the parties' joint motion for setting a hearing date for substantial compliance and dismissal of the County of

Cook (doc. # 5986 ). For the reasons stated on the record, the motion is granted; the Court enters a finding of substantial compliance and supplemental relief order, and dismisses the County of Cook. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to terminate the County of Cook as a defendant. ENTER AGREED FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND DISMISSING THE COUNTY OF COOK. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/31/2018)

10/31/2018

6078

AGREED ORDER FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND DISMISSING THE COUNTY OF COOK. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/31/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 10/31/2018)

10/31/2018

6079

STATUS Report TWELFTH REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR by Susan G. Feibus (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/31/2018)

11/01/2018

6080

MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for hearing to determine whether candidate under review was appointed as a staff assistant in violation of the decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit notice)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

11/01/2018 6081 NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion for hearing, 6080 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/6/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

11/02/2018

6082

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Assessor. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 11/26/18 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/02/2018)

11/05/2018

6083

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDERS scheduling briefing and hearings on motions regarding Christine Trucano-Hale (doc. # 6011 ) and Kainon Murnan (doc. # 6080 ). Both motions are set for oral argument before the magistrate judge on 12/17/18 at 9:00 a.m. No appearance on the motion regarding Mr. Murnan is required on 11/06/18. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/05/2018 6084 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/05/2018 6085 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/5/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/07/2018 6086 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Sixtieth Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018

6087

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Sixtieth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018 6088 ORDER regarding petition 6086 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/7/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018

6089

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #007 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018

6090

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Seventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/07/2018 6091 ORDER regarding other 6089 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/7/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/08/2018

6092

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Recorder of Deeds. The parties report on the status of the case. The status hearing set for 11/26/18 at 8:30 a.m. before the magistrate judge remains unchanged. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/08/2018

6093

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #198 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/08/2018

6094

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #115 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/08/2018

6095

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #198. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/08/2018 6096 ORDER regarding other 6093 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/08/2018

6097

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #115 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/08/2018 6098 ORDER regarding other 6094 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/8/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/08/2018 6099 Initial Report of the Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County by Clifford Meacham (Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

11/13/2018

6100 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois by Christopher Ryan Fletcher (Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 11/13/2018)

11/13/2018

6101

RESPONSE by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to Special Master's Determination that Candidate Under Review was Appointed as a Staff Assistant in Violation of 1972 Decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Special Master report re Kainon Murnan, # 2 Exhibit Special Master supplemental report re Kainon Murnan)(Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 11/13/2018)

11/15/2018 6102 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/15/2018)

11/15/2018

6103

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6102 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/21/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/15/2018)

11/16/2018

6104

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award attorneys' fees and costs with respect to Cook County (doc. # 6102 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/16/2018

6105 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6102 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/16/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/16/2018

6106

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In light of the Court's order dated 11/05/18 (doc. # 6083 ) setting the matter for a motion hearing on 12/17/18 at 9:00 a.m., the status and motion hearing set for 11/21/18 at 9:30 a.m. (doc. # 6036 ) is hereby stricken. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

11/20/2018

6107

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #008 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/20/2018

6108

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Eighth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/20/2018 6109 ORDER regarding other 6107 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/20/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/20/2018

6111

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status held in Governor case. Further in chambers status hearings are set for 12/13/18 at 11:00 a.m. and 12/20/18 at 3:00 p.m. Schedules set in case management orders regarding IDOT motions for hearing regarding Murnan (doc. # 6084 ) and Trucano-Hale (doc. # 6085 ) are reset as follows: responses to the motions by Murnan and Trucano-Hale are due by 12/11/18; and responses by plaintiffs are due by 12/21/18; and the matter set for oral argument on 1/22/19 at 10:00 a.m. The previously set oral argument hearing for 12/17/18 at 9:00 a.m. (doc. # 6083 ) is hereby stricken. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2018)

11/21/2018

6110

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 199 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/21/2018)

11/21/2018

6112

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #199. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2018)

11/21/2018 6113 ORDER regarding other 6110 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/21/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2018)

11/26/2018

6114

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Recorder of Deeds. Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, appears by telephone conference. The parties report on the status of the case. The

matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 1/07/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

11/26/2018

6115

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Assessor. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 1/14/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (jj, ) (Entered: 11/26/2018)

12/02/2018

6116

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10--05-2018 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 32415. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/transcript-order-form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 12/24/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/2/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/4/2019. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 12/02/2018)

12/03/2018 6117 NOTICE by All Parties CCAO DOC Report (Grba, Mark) (Entered: 12/03/2018)

12/04/2018

6118

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In view of the departure of Mark E. Grba, DOC for the Assessor's Office, we appoint ACA Susan G. Feibus to simultaneously serve as Interim DOC immediately upon Mr. Grba's departure. Ms. Feibus shall serve in that additional role pending the hiring by the Assessor's Office of a new DOC. The Court thanks the outgoing DOC for his service to the Assessor's Office. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/04/2018 6119 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie to amend/correct the Cook County Assessor's Exempt List (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/04/2018

6120

(Agreed) NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct 6119 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/13/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/06/2018

6121

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's agreed motion to amend/correct to amend the Cook County Assessor's exempt list (doc. # 6119 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER (attached). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/06/2018 6122 AGREED ORDER Amending the Cook County Assessor's Office Exempt List. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/6/2018. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/07/2018

6123

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 200 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/07/2018)

12/10/2018

6124

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #200. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/10/2018 6125 ORDER regarding other 6123 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/10/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/11/2018

6126

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #009 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/11/2018

6127

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Ninth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/11/2018 6128 ORDER regarding other 6126 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/11/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/11/2018

6129

RESPONSE by Christine Trucano-Halein Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for hearing to determine whether candidate under review was appointed as a staff assistant in violation of the decree 6080 (Draper, Carl) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/11/2018

6130

RESPONSE by Kainon Murnanin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for hearing to determine whether candidate under review was appointed as a staff assistant in violation of the decree 6080 (Draper, Carl) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/12/2018

6131

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 11/26/18 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Volume 2. Order Number: 32951. Court Reporter Contact Information: Joseph Rickhoff, 312-435-5562, joseph_rickhoff@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the

Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 1/2/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/14/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/12/2019. (Rickhoff, Joseph) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/12/2018

6132

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 11/26/18 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Volume 1. Order Number: 32950. Court Reporter Contact Information: Joseph Rickhoff, 312-435-5562, joseph_rickhoff@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 1/2/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/14/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/12/2019. (Rickhoff, Joseph) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/13/2018 6133 OIIG Report Addressing ROD by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/13/2018 6134 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG ROD Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/13/2018

6135

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in Governor's matter held in chambers. In addition to the in chambers status hearing previously set for 12/20/18 (which remains unchanged), we set an additional in chambers status hearing for 1/22/19 at 11:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

12/18/2018

6136

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #201 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order PDF Agreed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/18/2018

6137

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #201. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/18/2018 6138 ORDER regarding other 6136 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/18/2018. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/18/2018)

12/19/2018

6139

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on November 8, 2018, before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 32840. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy L. Bistany nancy_bistany@ilnd.uscourts.gov - 312.435.7626.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 1/9/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/22/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/19/2019. (Bistany, Nancy) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/19/2018

6140 PETITION Compliance Administrator Mary Robinson's One Hundred and Sixty-first Petition for Payment (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/19/2018 6141 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Kainon Murnan by Carl R Draper (Draper, Carl) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/19/2018 6142 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Christine Trucano-Hale by Carl R Draper (Draper, Carl) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/19/2018

6143

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Compliance Administrator, Mary Robinson's, One Hundred and Sixty First Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/19/2018 6144 ORDER regarding petition 6140 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/19/2018. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

12/20/2018

6145

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held in chambers in Governor case. The matter is set for a status hearing in open court on 1/07/19 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/21/2018

6146

RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to motion for hearing 6011 re Christine Trucano-Hale's Request for Review of IDOT's Decision in Connection With Her Application for A New Job (Schwartz, Julia) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/21/2018

6147

RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to motion for hearing, 6080 re Kainon Murnan's Request for Review of IDOT's Decision in Connection With His Application for a New Job (Schwartz, Julia) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

12/24/2018 6148 STATUS Report Nineteenth Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/24/2018)

12/26/2018

6149

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #116 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/26/2018)

12/27/2018 6150 ORDER regarding petition 6149 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/27/2018. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 12/27/2018)

01/02/2019

6151

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #010 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 01/02/2019)

01/03/2019 6152 ORDER regarding petition 6151 Signed by the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman on 1/3/2019. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 01/03/2019)

01/04/2019

6153

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Court hereby strikes the docket entry entered on 1/3/2019 (doc. # 6152 ). The docket is revised to reflect that the Order regarding petition 6151 is Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/3/2019. The ORDER stands. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019

6154

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Approval of the Employment Plan for Exempt Positions and the General Principles and Commitments Applicable to Hiring [AGREED] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019

6155 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6154 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/7/2019 at 09:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/07/2019

6156

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Recorder of Deeds. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 2/04/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/07/2019

6157

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status and motion hearings held as to the Governor. The parties report on the status of the case. Plaintiff's agreed motion for Approval of the Employment Plan for Exempt Positions and the General Principles and Commitments Applicable to Hiring (doc. # 6154 ) is granted. Enter Agreed Order Approving the Governor's Employment Plan for Exempt Positions and the General Principles and Commitments Applicable to Hiring. The in-chambers status hearing before the magistrate judge set for 1/22/19 at 11:00 a.m. remains unchanged. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/07/2019

6158

AGREED ORDER Approving the Governor's Employment Plan for Exempt Positions and the General Principles and Commitments Applicable to Hiring. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/7/2019. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/07/2019

6159

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #011 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 01/07/2019)

01/08/2019

6160

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Eleventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/08/2019)

01/08/2019 6161 ORDER regarding other 6159 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/8/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/08/2019)

01/10/2019

6162

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #117 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/10/2019

6163

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #117 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/10/2019 6164 ORDER regarding other 6162 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/10/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/11/2019 6165 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status hearing in Clerk of Court case held and continued to 3/11/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/11/2019)

01/14/2019

6166

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 202 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

01/14/2019

6167

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #202. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

01/14/2019 6168 ORDER regarding other 6166 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/14/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

01/14/2019

6169

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Assessor. The parties report on the status of the case. As stated on the record, the Assessor's office is to provide a list of critical items that their office wishes to revise in their employee handbook and provide it to plaintiff's counsel by no later than 1/31/19. By no later than the following week, the parties are to have a meet and confer to discuss the revisions to these items. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 2/25/19 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

01/17/2019

6170

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 203 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/17/2019

6171

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #203. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/17/2019 6172 ORDER regarding other 6170 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/17/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/17/2019

6173

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman Agreed Motion for Approval of the Amended Cook County Assessor's Office's Employment Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Assessor's Office Employment Plan)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/17/2019

6174 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6173 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/29/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/18/2019 6175 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for Approval of the Amended Cook County Assessor's

Office's Employment Plan (doc. # 6173 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/18/2019

6176

AGREED ORDER Approving of the Amended Cook County Assessor's Office's Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/18/2019. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/18/2019

6177 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to approve consent judgment List of Exempt Positions in Agencies Under the Governor (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/18/2019

6178

Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to approve consent judgment 6177 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/29/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/22/2019

6179

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' Agreed Motion for Approval of the List of Exempt Positions in Agencies Under the Jurisdiction of the Governor (doc. # 6177 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Agreed Order Approving List of Exempt Positions Under the Jurisdiction of the Governor. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019

6180

AGREED ORDER Approving List of Exempt Positions Under the Jurisdiction of the Governor. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/22/2019. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019

6181

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, IDOT's motion requesting a hearing to determine whether the candidate Christine Trucano-Hale under review was appointed as a staff assistant in violation of the 1972 decree (doc. # 6011 ) and IDOT's motion requesting a hearing to determine whether the candidate Kainon Murnan under review was appointed as a staff assistant in violation of the 1972 decree (doc. # 6080 ) are granted. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court concludes that there is a prima facie case that both candidates Christine Trucano-Hale and Kainon Murnan were appointed in violation of the 1972 Consent Decree; that neither Ms. Trucano-Hale nor Mr. Murnan has rebutted that prima facie case; and that as a result, under the Court's December 4, 2017 order, IDOT is not required to consider the job experience they obtained as a result of being hired into Staff Assistant positions in scoring the applications for the positions of Services and Development Technician (sought by

Ms. Trucano-Hale) or Implementation Support Supervisor (sought by Mr. Murnan). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019

6182 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing in Governor's case held in chambers and continued to 4/05/19 at 8:30 a.m. in chambers. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/22/2019

6183

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #012 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

01/23/2019

6184

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Twelfth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/23/2019 6185 ORDER regarding other 6183 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/23/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/28/2019 6186 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Seventh Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

6187 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Tenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

6188

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Twenty-Seventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019 6189 ORDER regarding petition 6186 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/28/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019

6190

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Tenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

01/28/2019 6191 ORDER regarding petition 6187 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/28/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 01/28/2019)

02/05/2019 6192 MOTION by Petitioner John Wicks for rule to show cause on behalf of various petitioners (Moran, John) (Entered: 02/05/2019)

02/05/2019 6193 NOTICE of Motion by John Thomas Moran, Jr for presentment of motion for rule to show cause 6192 before Honorable Sidney I.

Schenkier on 2/13/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Moran, John) (Entered: 02/05/2019)

02/06/2019

6194

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The status hearing as to the Recorder of Deeds set for 2/04/19 before the magistrate judge is RESET to 2/11/19 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/06/2019)

02/07/2019

6195

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 204 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/07/2019)

02/08/2019

6196

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on January 7, 2019 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 33327. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy L. Bistany https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/transcript-order-form.aspx.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 3/1/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/11/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2019. (Bistany, Nancy) Modified on 2/8/2019 (rp, ). (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019

6197

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #013 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019

6198

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #204. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019 6199 ORDER regarding other 6195 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/8/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019

6200

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Thirteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019 6201 ORDER regarding other 6197 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/8/2019. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019

6202 Second Report of the Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County by Clifford Meacham (Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019 6203 NOTICE of Correction regarding 6196 (rp, ) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019

6204

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Telephone conference held with lawyers representing plaintiffs and respondents on plaintiffs' motion for issuance of a rule to show cause (doc. # 4644 ). Based on the discussion during the conference and with the agreement of the plaintiffs and the respondents, the motion is terminated in light of the departure of the respondents from employment at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/11/2019

6205

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Recorder of Deeds. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 4/05/19 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/11/2019)

02/11/2019

6206

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 1/14/19 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 33393. Court Reporter Contact Information: Kathleen_Fennell@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 3/4/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/14/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/13/2019. (Fennell, Kathleen) (Entered: 02/11/2019)

02/12/2019 6207 PRO SE Appearance by Unknown Victor M. Crown. (Exhibits) (ek, ) (Entered: 02/12/2019)

02/12/2019 6208 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to compel the JTDC to Comply with the SRO (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/12/2019)

02/12/2019 6209 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to compel 6208 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/13/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/12/2019)

02/13/2019

6210

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff reports that Ernesto R. Palomo will shortly be filing an appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs. Christopher R. Fletcher's oral motion for leave to file his appearance on behalf of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County is granted. The parties report that Counsel for Petitioner John Moran is unable to appear due to an illness. At the request of the parties, petitioner John Wicks' motion to compel Timothy Evans, Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, as the statutorialy denominated administrator of the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center ("JTDC"), Leonard Dixon, both individually and as superintendent of the JTDC, and Cook County, Illinois, a body politic of Illinois, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25(d), to comply with the Shakman Decree's SRO or show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court (doc. # 6192 ) and plaintiffs' motion to compel the JTDC to Comply with the SRO (doc. # 6208 ) are entered and continued. The Court sets the following briefing schedule on the motions: the petitioner's response is to be filed by 3/15/19; and plaintiffs' single reply is to be filed by 4/05/19. The Court will rule in writing on the motion or will notify the parties if we wish to hear oral argument. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/13/2019)

02/13/2019

6211

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Independent Voters of IllinoisIndependent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman by Ernesto R Palomo (Palomo, Ernesto) (Entered: 02/13/2019)

02/14/2019

6212

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #118 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/15/2019

6213

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #118 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/15/2019 6214 ORDER regarding other 6212 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/15/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/19/2019

6215

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 205 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/19/2019 6216 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle

Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #205. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/19/2019 6217 ORDER regarding other 6215 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/19/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/22/2019

6218

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #014 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 02/22/2019)

02/25/2019

6219

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Fourteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/25/2019 6220 ORDER regarding other 6218 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/25/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/25/2019

6221

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement of the parties, the status hearing set for 2/25/19 as to the Assessor is RESET to 3/11/19 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/26/2019 6222 STATUS Report Ninth Report of the Special Master by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/26/2019)

02/27/2019 6223 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Timothy C. Evans by Christopher Ryan Fletcher (Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 02/27/2019)

02/28/2019 6224 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Eighth Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/28/2019)

02/28/2019 6225 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Eleventh Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/28/2019)

02/28/2019

6226

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Twenty-Eighth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

02/28/2019 6227 ORDER regarding petition 6224 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/28/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

02/28/2019 6228 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Eleventh

Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

02/28/2019 6229 ORDER regarding petition 6225 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/28/2019. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019 6230 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Timothy C. Evans by Jason Aaron Kanter (Kanter, Jason) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019 6231 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to IDOT (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019

6232

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6231 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/7/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019

6233 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019

6234

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6233 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/7/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019 6235 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019

6236

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6235 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/7/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019 6237 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019

6238

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6237 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/7/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/04/2019 6239 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to

IDOT (doc. # 6231 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019

6240 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6231 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/4/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019

6241

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (doc. # 6233 ) is granted; no appearance on those motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019 6242 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6233 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/4/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019

6243

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 6235 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019 6244 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6235 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/4/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019

6245

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor (doc. #6237) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019 6246 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6237 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/4/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/06/2019

6247

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #015 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/06/2019

6248

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 206 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/06/2019

6249

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Fifteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/06/2019 6250 ORDER regarding other 6247 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/6/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/06/2019

6251

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Agreed Order for Petition for Payment of Invoice #206. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/06/2019 6252 ORDER regarding other 6248 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/6/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/08/2019

6253

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #119 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

03/11/2019

6254

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #119 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019 6255 ORDER regarding other 6253 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/11/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019

6256

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference held in chambers as to the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The matter is set for a further status hearing in chambers on 5/13/19 at 8:30 a.m. The Court has accepted the resignation of Compliance Administrator Clifford L. Meacham, with thanks for his work in this case and in the other Shakman matters on which he has performed outstanding public service. We appoint Susan G. Feibus as the Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019

6257

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Assessor. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 4/29/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/14/2019 6258 ATTORNEY Appearance for Court Monitor Susan G. Feibus by Margarita Kulys Hoffman (Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/14/2019 6259 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Leonard Dixon, Juvenile Treatment and Detention Center by Christopher Ryan Fletcher (Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/14/2019

6260

MOTION by Defendants Leonard Dixon, Timothy C. Evans, Juvenile Treatment and Detention Center for extension of time to Respond to Movants' Requests for Relief Under Rule 25(d) (Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/14/2019

6261 NOTICE of Motion by Christopher Ryan Fletcher for presentment of extension of time 6260 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/28/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/15/2019

6262

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to movants' requests for relief under Rule 25(d) (doc. # 6260 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The briefing schedule on the motions for relief (doc. #'s 6192 and 6208 ) is amended as follows: the response to the motions is due by 3/22/19, and any reply is due by 4/12/19. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019

6263 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Leonard Dixon, Juvenile Treatment and Detention Center by Jason Aaron Kanter (Kanter, Jason) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/20/2019 6264 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

03/20/2019

6265

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6264 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/3/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

03/21/2019

6266

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (Doc. # 6264 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 03/21/2019)

03/21/2019

6267 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees and costs 6264 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/21/2019. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 03/21/2019)

03/22/2019 6268 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 207 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/22/2019

6269

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #207 (Doc. # 6268 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/22/2019 6270 ORDER regarding petition 6268 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/22/2019. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/22/2019

6271

MOTION by Defendants Leonard Dixon, Timothy C. Evans, Juvenile Treatment and Detention Center for extension of time to Respond to Movants' Requests for Relief Under Rule 25(d) (Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/22/2019

6272 NOTICE of Motion by Christopher Ryan Fletcher for presentment of extension of time 6271 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/28/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/22/2019 6273 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Michael L Shakman by Michael McGivney (McGivney, Michael) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

03/25/2019

6274

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Final motion for extension of time to respond to movants' requests for relief under Rule 25(d) (doc. # 6271 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The briefing schedule on the motions for relief (doc. #s 6192 , 6208 ) is amended as follows: the response to the motions is due by 3/29/19, and any reply is due by 4/19/19. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 03/25/2019)

03/25/2019

6275

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 02-11-2019 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 33668. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/transcript-order-form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 4/15/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/24/2019. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

03/27/2019

6276

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10/31/2018 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 34095. Court Reporter Contact Information: Gayle A. McGuigan, CSR, RMR, CRR, Gayle_McGuigan@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312) 435-6047.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 4/17/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/29/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/25/2019. (McGuigan, Gale) (Entered: 03/27/2019)

03/28/2019

6277

MOTION by Defendants Leonard Dixon, Timothy C. Evans, Juvenile Treatment and Detention Center to stay the Briefing Schedule on Movants' Requests for Relief Under FRCP 25(d) (Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 03/28/2019)

03/28/2019 6278 NOTICE of Motion by Christopher Ryan Fletcher for presentment of motion to stay 6277 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/4/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 03/28/2019)

04/01/2019

6279

Petition of Clifford L. Meacham, Former Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, for Payment of Invoice #016 by Clifford Meacham (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/01/2019

6280

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The status hearing in chambers with the Illinois Department of Transportation set for 04/05/19 is RESET to 04/12/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/01/2019

6281

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Clifford L. Meacham's, Sixteenth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

04/01/2019 6282 ORDER regarding other 6279 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/1/2019. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

04/04/2019 6283 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, defendants' motion to stay briefing schedule (doc. # 6277 ) is granted. The Court stays the

briefing schedule on movants' requests for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) until 6/04/19. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 5/09/19 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2019)

04/05/2019

6284

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Recorder of Deeds. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 5/20/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/05/2019)

04/10/2019

6285

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 208 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/10/2019)

04/11/2019

6286

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #208 (Doc. # 6285 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/11/2019 6287 ORDER regarding other 6285 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/11/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/11/2019

6288

MOTION by Unknown Noelle C Brennan to amend/correct EXEMPT LIST TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS AT THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/11/2019

6289 NOTICE of Motion by Noelle Christine Brennan for presentment of motion to amend/correct 6288 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/12/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/11/2019 6290 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Kathleen Cunniff Ori (Ori, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/11/2019

6291

MOTION by Defendant Cook County, Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds to reassign case based on relatedness pursuant to L.R. 40.4 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Motion to Dismiss)(Ori, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/11/2019

6292 NOTICE of Motion by Kathleen Cunniff Ori for presentment of motion to reassign case 6291 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/23/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Ori, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/12/2019 6293 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion to amend exempt list to include additional positions at the Illinois

Department of Transportation (Doc. # 6288 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

04/12/2019

6294

ORDER to Amend the List of Exempt Positions Under the Jurisdiction of the Governor. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/12/2019. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

04/12/2019

6295

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #120 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

04/12/2019

6296

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #120 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

04/12/2019 6297 ORDER regarding other 6295 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/12/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

04/12/2019

6298

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status conference regarding the Governor's case held and continued to 6/17/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

04/15/2019 6299 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG ROD Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/15/2019 6300 OIIG ROD Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

04/17/2019

6301

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 1 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 04/17/2019)

04/18/2019

6302

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', First Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

04/18/2019 6303 ORDER regarding other 6301 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/18/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

04/23/2019

6304

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Defendants Cook County and Cook County Recorder of Deeds' motion to reassign case based on relatedness pursuant to L.R. 40.4 6291 is granted.Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 04/23/2019)

04/23/2019

6305

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 209 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/23/2019)

04/24/2019 6306 STATUS Report FOURTH REPORT FOR EXPANDED DUTIES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

04/24/2019

6307

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #209 (Doc. # 6305 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

04/24/2019 6308 ORDER regarding other 6305 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/24/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

04/29/2019

6309

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held as to the Assessor. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the Magistrate Judge on 6/17/19 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 04/29/2019)

05/02/2019

6310

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 4/5/19 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 34310. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy LaBella, 312-435-6890, NLaBella.ilnd@gmail.com.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 5/23/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/3/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/31/2019. (Labella, Nancy) (Entered: 05/02/2019)

05/07/2019 6311 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 210 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/07/2019)

05/07/2019

6312 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie Agreed Motion for Approval of the Amended Cook County Assessor's Office's Employment Plan (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/07/2019)

05/08/2019 6313 ORDER regarding other 6311 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/8/2019. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 05/08/2019)

05/08/2019

6318

AGREED ORDER APPROVING THE AMENDED COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE'S EMPLOYMENT PLAN (Exhibits) Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on May 8, 2019. Mailed notice (ph, ) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

05/09/2019

6314

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Parties Agreed Motion For Approval Of The Amended Cook County Assessor's Office's Employment Plan 6312 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

05/09/2019

6315

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 2 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

05/09/2019

6316

MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for hearing to determine whether candidate was appointed as staff assistant in violation of decree (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

05/09/2019 6317 NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion for hearing 6316 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/18/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

05/09/2019

6319 STATUS Report First Report of Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County by Susan G. Feibus (Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

05/09/2019

6320

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held on 5/9/19. The deadline for the Office of the Chief Judge, the JTDC and Leonard Dixon to respond to pending motions (doc. ## 6192 , 6208 ) is 6/24/19. Plaintiff's deadline to respond is 7/22/19. Status hearing is set for 6/11/19 at 9:00 a.m. Parties are encouraged to continue with meaningful settlement discussions. Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

05/09/2019

6321

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #121 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

05/09/2019

6322

AGREED ORDER granting THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 2 6315 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/9/2019:Mailed notice(lp, ) Modified on 5/10/2019 (lp, ). (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/10/2019

6323

AGREED ORDER APPROVING COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' INVOICE #121 6321 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/10/2019: Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/10/2019

6324

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The minute entry dated 5/9/19, docket entry 6322 is amended as follows: AGREED ORDER APPROVING THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 2 6315 .Mailed notice (lp, ) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/13/2019

6325

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status conference as to the Clerk of the Circuit Court held and continued to 7/08/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/13/2019)

05/13/2019

6326

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: We appoint Susan G. Feibus to serve as the Interim Director of Compliance ("DOC") for the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Ms. Feibus shall serve in that capacity pending further order of the Court. Ms. Feibus's role as Interim DOC shall be in addition to her existing role as Compliance Administrator under the Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/13/2019)

05/13/2019

6327

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement, we set the following briefing schedule on IDOT's motion requesting a hearing (doc. # 6316 ): IDOT's memorandum is due by 5/14/19; the Teamsters' memorandum is due by 5/29/19; and plaintiffs' memorandum is due by 6/12/19. The hearing on the motion set for 6/18/19 at 8:30 a.m. is RESET to 6/18/19 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/13/2019)

05/14/2019 6328 RESPONSE by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to motion for hearing 6316

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Special Master's Memo, # 2 Exhibit Special Master's Supplemental Memo)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 05/14/2019)

05/14/2019 6329 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Protective Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/14/2019)

05/14/2019 6330 PROTECTIVE Order. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/14/2019. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/14/2019)

05/20/2019

6331

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of the case. The matter is set for a status hearing before the magistrate judge on 7/08/19 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/20/2019

6332

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on April 29, 2019 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 34639. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy L. Bistany nancy_bistany@ilnd.uscourts.gov - 312.435.7626.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 6/10/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/20/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/19/2019. (Bistany, Nancy) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/21/2019 6333 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to IDOT (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
05/21/2019 6334 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/21/2019)

05/21/2019

6335

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6334 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/30/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/21/2019)

05/21/2019

6336 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/21/2019)

05/21/2019

6337

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6336 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/30/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/21/2019)

05/22/2019

6338

REVISED/CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on April 29, 2019, before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 34639. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy L. Bistany - nancy_bistany@ilnd.uscourts.gov - 312.435.7626.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 6/12/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/24/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/20/2019. (Bistany, Nancy) (Entered: 05/22/2019)

05/22/2019

6339

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motions to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to IDOT (doc. # 6333 ), the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 6334 ), and the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 6336 ) are granted; no appearance on the motions is required. ENTER ORDERS. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/22/2019)

05/22/2019 6340 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6333 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/22/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/22/2019)

05/22/2019

6341 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6334 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/22/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) Modified on 5/30/2019 (jj, ). (Entered: 05/22/2019)

05/22/2019 6342 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6336 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/22/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/22/2019)

05/22/2019

6343 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/22/2019)

05/22/2019 6344 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6343 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/30/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/22/2019)

05/23/2019

6345

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (doc. # 6343 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/23/2019 6346 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6343 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/23/2019

6347

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 211 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/23/2019

6348

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #211 (Doc. # 6347 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/23/2019 6349 ORDER regarding other 6347 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/23/2019. Mailed notice.(jj, ) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/29/2019

6350

RESPONSE by Maria Cartagenain Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for hearing to determine whether candidate was appointed as staff assistant in violation of decree 6316 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Draper, Carl) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

05/29/2019

6351

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 212 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/29/2019)

05/30/2019

6352

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #212 (Doc. # 6351 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019 6353 ORDER regarding other 6351 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/30/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019 6354 NOTICE of Correction regarding order 6341 . (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019

6355

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #122 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019

6356

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 3 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019

6357

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #122 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019 6358 ORDER regarding other 6355 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/30/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019

6359

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 3. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019 6360 ORDER regarding other 6356 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/30/2019. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/31/2019 6361 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Ninth Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

05/31/2019 6362 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twelfth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

05/31/2019

6363

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Twenty-Ninth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

05/31/2019 6364 ORDER regarding petition 6361 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/31/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

05/31/2019 6365 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Twelfth

Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

05/31/2019 6366 ORDER regarding petition 6362 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 5/31/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/04/2019)

06/11/2019

6367

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report they are in the process of reaching a settlement on the issues raised in the pending motions to compel the JTDC to comply with the SRO [6192, 6208]. By agreement, the briefing schedule previously set for the motions is suspended. We set the matter for a status hearing on 07/30/19 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/11/2019)

06/12/2019

6368

RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to Response, 6328 , motion for hearing 6316 , response in opposition to motion, 6350 to Maria Cartagena's Request for Review of IDOT's Decision Concerning Her Job Evaluation (Schwartz, Julia) (Entered: 06/12/2019)

06/13/2019

6369

STATUS Report THIRTEENTH REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR by Susan G. Feibus (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/13/2019)

06/17/2019

6370

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference in chambers held and continued for a further in chambers conference on 08/19/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/17/2019)

06/17/2019

6371

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In court status hearing as to the Assessor held and continued for a further in court status hearing on 08/19/19 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/17/2019)

06/18/2019

6372 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct the Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/18/2019

6373

[Agreed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to amend/correct 6372 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/27/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/18/2019 6374 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 213 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/18/2019

6375

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held regarding IDOT's motion requesting a hearing (doc. # 6316 ). For the reasons stated on the record, the Court adopts the Special Master's determination that Ms. Cartagena's prior experience obtained through her Staff Assistant position shall not be taken into consideration on her application for Support Service Technician with IDOT. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/18/2019 6376 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Approval of the Amended List of Exempt Positions in Agencies Under the Jurisdiction of the Governor (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/18/2019

6377

Agreed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6376 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/27/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/18/2019

6378

AMENDED COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 213 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/19/2019

6379

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: An amended petition having been filed, Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #213 6374 is stricken. ENTER ORDER granting Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, amended petition for payment of invoice #213 6378 . Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

06/19/2019 6380 ORDER regarding petition 6378 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/19/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

06/19/2019

6381

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the supplemental relief order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (doc. # 6372 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

06/19/2019 6382 AMENDED Supplemental Relief Order for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/19/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

06/19/2019

6383

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion for approval of the amended list of exempt positions in agencies under the jurisdiction of the Governor (doc. # 6376 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

06/19/2019 6384 AGREED ORDER Approving List of Exempt Positions Under the Jurisdiction of the Governor. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/19/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

06/19/2019 6385 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Declaratory Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

06/19/2019

6386 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6385 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/27/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

06/27/2019

6387

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 214 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

06/27/2019

6388

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER granting Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #214 6387 . Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

06/27/2019 6389 ORDER regarding petition 6387 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/27/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

06/27/2019

6390

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Attorney Nicole Chaney's oral motion for leave to file her appearance for non-party Teamsters Local 700 ("the union") is granted for the limited purpose of proceedings in connection with plaintiff's motion for declaratory relief 6385 . The union's response is due 07/18/19; plaintiff's reply due 08/01/19. The Circuit Court Clerk is given leave to file a reply by 08/01/19. The Court will rule in writing. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

06/27/2019

6391

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #123 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

06/27/2019 6392 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS'

PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 4 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

06/27/2019

6393

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #123 6391 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

06/27/2019 6394 ORDER regarding petition 6391 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/27/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

06/27/2019

6395

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 4 6392 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

06/27/2019 6396 ORDER regarding petition 6392 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 6/27/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

07/08/2019

6397

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status hearing as to the Clerk of the Circuit Court held and continued for a further in chambers status hearing on 08/26/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/08/2019)

07/08/2019

6398

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In court status hearing as to the Recorder of Deeds held and continued for a further in court status hearing on 08/26/19 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/08/2019)

07/11/2019

6399

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 05-20-2019 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 34812. Court Reporter Contact Information: Pamela S. Warren http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/transcript-order-form.aspx. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 8/1/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/12/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/9/2019. (Warren, Pamela) (Entered: 07/11/2019)

07/15/2019 6400 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirtieth Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/15/2019)

07/15/2019 6401 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/15/2019)

07/16/2019

6402

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirteenth Petition for Payment 6400 . Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/16/2019 6403 ORDER regarding petition 6400 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/16/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/16/2019

6404

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Thirteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/16/2019 6405 ORDER regarding petition 6401 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/16/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/16/2019 6406 NOTICE by Michael L. Shakman of Change of Address Change of Firm Name (Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/16/2019 6407 NOTICE by Edward W. Feldman of Change of Address Change of Firm Name (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/16/2019 6408 NOTICE by Julia Kathryn Schwartz of Change of Address Change of Firm Name (Schwartz, Julia) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/16/2019

6409

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Approval of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Interim Employment Plan [Agreed] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/16/2019 6410 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6409 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/25/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/16/2019

6411 ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Teamsters Local 700 by Nicole Lynn Chaney (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing & Certificate of Service)(Chaney, Nicole) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

07/17/2019

6412

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion for approval of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's interim employment plan (doc. # 6409 ) is granted; no appearance is required on the motion. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/17/2019)

07/17/2019

6413

AGREED ORDER Approving the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Interim Employment Plan signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/17/2019. Mailed notice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(dal, ) (Entered: 07/17/2019)

07/17/2019 6414 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with respect to the Governor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/17/2019)

07/17/2019

6415

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6414 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/25/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/17/2019)

07/18/2019

6416

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (Doc. # 6414 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/18/2019)

07/18/2019

6417 ORDER Awarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/18/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/18/2019)

07/19/2019

6418

RESPONSE by Teamsters Local 700in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Declaratory Relief 6385 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Chaney, Nicole) (Entered: 07/19/2019)

07/19/2019 6419 NOTICE by Teamsters Local 700 re response in opposition to motion, 6418 (Chaney, Nicole) (Entered: 07/19/2019)

07/23/2019

6420

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 215 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/23/2019)

07/24/2019

6421

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #215 (Doc. # 6420 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/24/2019)

07/24/2019 6422 ORDER regarding petition (doc. # 6420 ) signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 7/24/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/24/2019)

07/29/2019

6423

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 6/11/19 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 35261. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy LaBella, nlabella.ilnd@gmail.com, (312) 435-6890. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 8/19/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/29/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/28/2019. (Labella, Nancy) (Entered: 07/29/2019)

07/30/2019

6424

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of finalizing their settlement on the issues raised in the pending motions to compel the JTDC to comply with the SRO (doc. #s 6192 ,[ 6208]). For the reasons stated on the record, movants' motion to compel the JTDC to comply with the SRO (doc. #s 6192 ) is withdrawn without prejudice. The matter is set for a status hearing on 09/17/19 at 9:00 a.m. The briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion to compel (doc. # 6208) remains stayed. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 07/30/2019)

08/01/2019

6425 REPLY by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to motion for miscellaneous relief 6385 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/01/2019)

08/05/2019

6426

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 6/17/19 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 35088. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy LaBella, nlabella.ilnd@gmail.com, (312) 435-6890. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 8/26/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/5/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/4/2019. (Labella, Nancy) (Entered: 08/05/2019)

08/07/2019 6427 COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE

#124 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

6428

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 5 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

6429

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #124 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019 6430 ORDER regarding petition 6427 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/7/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

6431

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 5. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019 6432 ORDER regarding petition 6428 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/7/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

6433

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 216 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

6434

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER ORDER granting Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #216. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019 6435 ORDER regarding petition 6433 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/7/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019 6436 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to IDOT [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

6437

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6436 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/15/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019 6438 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

6439

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6438 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/15/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

6440 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/07/2019

6441

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6440 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/15/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

08/08/2019 6442 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Amended and Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/08/2019)

08/08/2019

6443

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: An amended motion having been filed, the motion for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 6440 ) is stricken. Unopposed motions to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to IDOT (doc. # 6436 ), the Cook County Assessor (doc. # 6438 ), and the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Amended) (doc. # 6442 ) are granted; no appearance on the motions is required. ENTER ORDERS. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/08/2019)

08/08/2019 6444 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6436 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/08/2019)

08/08/2019 6445 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6438 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/08/2019)

08/08/2019

6446 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6442 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/8/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/08/2019)

08/09/2019 6447 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Fourteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/09/2019

6448

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Fourteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/09/2019 6449 ORDER regarding petition 6447 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/9/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/12/2019

6450

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 7/8/19 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 35295. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy LaBella, 312-435-6890, NLaBella.ilnd@gmail.com.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 9/3/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/12/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/12/2019. (Labella, Nancy) (Entered: 08/12/2019)

08/12/2019 6451 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-First Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/12/2019)

08/12/2019

6452

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Thirty-First Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/12/2019)

08/12/2019 6453 ORDER regarding petition 6451 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/12/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/12/2019)

08/15/2019

6454

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. We grant plaintiff's motion for declaratory relief (doc. # 6385 ). Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/15/2019

6455 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/15/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/15/2019 6456 OIIG Report Addressing Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/15/2019 6457 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/16/2019 6458 STATUS Report Tenth Report of the Special Master by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/16/2019)

08/19/2019

6459

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status hearing as to IDOT and the Governor held and continued to 10/04/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/19/2019)

08/19/2019

6460

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In court status hearing as to the Assessor held and continued for a further in court status hearing on 10/07/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/19/2019)

08/21/2019

6461

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 217 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

08/21/2019

6462

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #217 (Doc. # 6461 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

08/21/2019 6463 ORDER regarding petition 6461 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/21/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

08/22/2019

6464 STATUS Report Second Report of Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County by Susan G. Feibus (Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 08/22/2019)

08/23/2019 6465 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/23/2019)

08/23/2019

6466

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6465 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/29/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/23/2019)

08/26/2019

6467 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 6465 ) is granted; no

appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/26/2019

6468 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6465 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/26/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/26/2019 6469 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference in chambers held and continued to 10/04/19 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/26/2019

6470

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In court status hearing as to the Recorder of Deeds held and continued for a further in court status hearing on 10/04/19 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

08/28/2019

6471

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 218 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019

6472 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Approval of the Amended List of Exempt Positions for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [Agreed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019

6473

[Agreed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6472 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/5/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019

6474 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019

6475

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6474 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/5/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019

6476

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #218 (Doc. # 6471 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019 6477 ORDER regarding other 6471 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/28/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019

6478

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion for approval of the amended list of exempt positions for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (doc. # 6472 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019

6479

AGREED ORDER Approving List of Exempt Positions for the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/28/2019. Mailed notice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (dal, ) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019

6480

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (doc. # 6474 ) is granted; no appearance is on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/28/2019 6481 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6474 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/28/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 08/28/2019)

08/29/2019

6482

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #125 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

08/29/2019

6483

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 6 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

08/29/2019

6484

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #125 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/29/2019. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

08/29/2019

6485

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS', AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 6 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 8/29/2019: Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

09/06/2019

6486

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Supplemental Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

09/06/2019 6487 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6486 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/10/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

09/06/2019

6488

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 7-30-19 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 35568. Court Reporter Contact Information: Sandra M. Mullin, Sandra_Mullin@ilnd.uscourts.gov, 312-554-8244.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 9/27/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/7/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/5/2019. (Mullin, Sandra) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

09/09/2019

6489 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The hearing on the motion noticed for presentment on 09/10/19 is RESET to 09/11/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

09/10/2019 6490 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Clerk by Adam Robert Vaught (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 09/10/2019)

09/11/2019 6491 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Clerk by Mona E Lawton (Lawton, Mona) (Entered: 09/11/2019)

09/11/2019

6492

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held and continued to 10/31/19 at 9:00 a.m. as to plaintiff's motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6486 ). The Cook County Clerk will file her response by 10/11/19. The parties are directed to discuss the issue of discovery with respect to the Clerk's rotation policy for supervisors and the solicitation of political donations. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/11/2019)

09/13/2019

6493

NOTICE of appeal by Teamsters Local 700 regarding orders 6455 , 6454 Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0752-16236640. Receipt number: n (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Chaney, Nicole) (Entered: 09/13/2019)

09/16/2019 6494 NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record regarding notice of appeal 6493 . (bg, ) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

09/16/2019 6495 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 6493 . Notified counsel. (bg, ) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

09/16/2019

6496 ACKNOWLEDGMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice of appeal 6493 ; USCA Case No. 19-2772. (bg, ) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

09/17/2019

6497

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the status of finalizing their settlement on the issues raised in the plaintiffs' pending motion to compel. By agreement, we dismiss the motion to compel the JTDC to comply with the SRO (doc. # 6208 ) without prejudice. The matter is set for a status hearing on 10/29/19 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/17/2019)

09/17/2019

6498

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 219 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/17/2019)

09/17/2019

6499

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #219 (Doc. # 6498 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/17/2019)

09/17/2019 6500 ORDER regarding petition 6498 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/17/2019. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/17/2019)

09/20/2019

6501 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan Filing of Technical Definition and List of Technical Titles (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/20/2019)

09/23/2019

6502

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 08/19/2019 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 35869. Court Reporter Contact Information: Rosemary Scarpelli, Rosemary_Scarpelli@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312)435-5885,on behalf of Pamela Warren.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 10/15/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/24/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/23/2019. (Scarpelli, Rosemary) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

09/23/2019

6503

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 08/26/2019 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 35873. Court Reporter Contact Information: Rosemary Scarpelli, Rosemary_Scarpelli@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312)435-5885, on behalf of Pamela Warren.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 10/15/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/24/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/23/2019. (Scarpelli, Rosemary) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

09/24/2019

6504

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 09/11/19 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 36127. Court Reporter Contact Information: Patrick Mullen, (312) 435-5565, patrick_mullen@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 10/15/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/23/2019. (Mullen, Patrick) (Entered: 09/24/2019)

09/25/2019

6505 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Fifteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/25/2019)

09/26/2019 6506 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Second Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

6507

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 220 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

6508

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 7 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

6509

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 126 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

6510

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Fifteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

6511 ORDER regarding petition (doc. # 6505 ). Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/26/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

6512

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Thirty-Second Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019 6513 ORDER regarding petition (doc. # 6506 ) Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/26/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

6514

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #220 is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019 6515 ORDER regarding petition (doc. # 6507 ). Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/26/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

6516

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Agreed Order granting Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 7. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019 6517 ORDER regarding petition (doc. # 6508 ). Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/26/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

6518

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Unopposed Petition for Payment of Invoice #126 is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

6519 ORDER regarding petition (doc. # 6509 ). Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 9/26/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

10/03/2019

6520

STATUS Report FOURTEENTH REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR by Susan G. Feibus (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/03/2019)

10/03/2019

6521

MOTION by Respondent Teamsters Local 700 to supplement the Record on Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing of Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal and Transcript, # 2 Exhibit Transcript Order 9/26/19, # 3 Exhibit Transcript Transmission 9/30/19, # 4 Exhibit Transcript of Proceedings 6/27/19)(Chaney, Nicole) (Entered: 10/03/2019)

10/03/2019

6522

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings dated 6/27/2019 by Teamsters Local 700 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Chaney, Nicole) Docket Text modified by Clerk's Office on 10/4/2019 (lma, ). (Entered: 10/03/2019)

10/03/2019

6523

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Approval of the Amended Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan [Agreed] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Amended Employment Plan)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/03/2019)

10/03/2019

6524 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6523 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/9/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/03/2019)

10/04/2019 6525 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status hearing held and continued to 12/02/19 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

10/04/2019 6526 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status hearing held and continued to 12/02/19 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

10/04/2019 6527 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In court status hearing as to the Recorder of Deeds held and continued to 12/02/19 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

10/04/2019 6528 MOTION by Movant Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough to quash third party subpoena (Holmes, Patricia) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

10/04/2019

6529

MEMORANDUM by Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough in support of motion to quash 6528 third party subpoena (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Third Party Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Anderson v. Hale, # 3 Exhibit 3 - In re Heartland)(Holmes, Patricia) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

10/04/2019 6530 NOTICE of Motion by Patricia Brown Holmes for presentment of motion to quash 6528 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/31/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Holmes, Patricia) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

10/04/2019

6531

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion for approval of the amended Cook County Recorder of Deeds employment plan (doc. # 6523 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

10/04/2019

6532

AGREED ORDER Approving the Amended Cook County Recorder of Deeds Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/4/2019. Mailed notice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (dal, ) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

10/07/2019 6533 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status conference held and continued to 12/20/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/07/2019)

10/07/2019

6534

STATUS Report AMENDED FOURTEENTH REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR by Susan G. Feibus (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/07/2019)

10/08/2019

6535

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on October 4, 2019 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 36316. Court Reporter Contact Information: Ms. Joene Hanhardt, Official Court Reporter, 219 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1744-A, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 312-435-6874.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web

site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 10/29/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/8/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2020. (Hanhardt, Joene) (Entered: 10/08/2019)

10/09/2019 6536 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Third Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 10/09/2019)

10/09/2019

6537

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Third Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/09/2019)

10/09/2019 6538 ORDER regarding petition 6536 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/9/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/09/2019)

10/11/2019

6539

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion to supplement the record on appeal to include transcript of proceedings from June 27, 2019 (doc. # 6521 ) is granted. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/11/2019)

10/11/2019

6540

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: With respect to the motion to quash filed by Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough (doc. # 6528 ), plaintiffs shall file any written response by 10/18/19. No replies shall be filed. The motion will be heard on 10/31/19 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/11/2019)

10/11/2019

6541 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for extension of time to file response/reply to Plaintiffs Motion for Supplemental Relief (AGREED) (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/11/2019)

10/11/2019

6542

NOTICE of Motion by Adam Robert Vaught for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 6541 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/28/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/11/2019)

10/11/2019

6543

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Defendant's agreed motion for extension of time to file defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6541 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Defendant Clerk of Cook County's response to the motion is due by 10/28/19. The status on plaintiff's motion set for 10/31/19 is RESET to 11/14/19 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/11/2019)

10/15/2019 6544 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Sixteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 10/15/2019)

10/15/2019

6545

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Sixteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/15/2019)

10/15/2019 6546 ORDER regarding petition 6544 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/15/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/15/2019)

10/16/2019 6547 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and Costs with Respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019

6548

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6547 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/31/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019

6549 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019

6550

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6549 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/31/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019

6551 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019

6552

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6551 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/31/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019 6553 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019

6554

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6553 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/31/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019

6555

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motions to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (doc. # 6547 ), the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 6549 ) the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 6551 ), and the Cook County Assessor (doc. 6553 ) are granted; no appearance on the motions is required. ENTER ORDERS. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019

6556 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6547 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/16/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019 6557 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6549 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/16/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019 6558 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6551 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/16/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/16/2019

6559 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6553 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/16/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

10/17/2019

6560

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 221 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/17/2019)

10/17/2019

6561

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #221 (Doc. # 6560 ) is granted. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/17/2019)

10/17/2019 6562 ORDER regarding petition 6560 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/17/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/17/2019)

10/18/2019

6563

RESPONSE by Michael L Shakman to MOTION by Movant Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough to quash third party subpoena 6528 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/18/2019)

10/22/2019 6564 ORDER dated 10/22/2019 from the 7th Circuit regarding notice of appeal 6493 ; Appellate case no. : 19-2772: IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED without prejudice to renewal

in the briefs. The parties are DIRECTED to devote thorough treatment in their merits briefs to the authority of the appellant, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 700, to appeal in the circumstances present here. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the existing briefing schedule is VACATED. Briefing in this appeal shall proceed as follows: 1. The brief and required short appendix of the appellant are due by November 21, 2019. 2. The briefs of the appellees are due by December 23, 2019. 3. The reply brief of the appellant, if any, is due by January 13, 2020. (lma, ) (Entered: 10/22/2019)

10/23/2019 6565 STATUS Report FIFTH REPORT FOR EXPANDED DUTIES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 10/23/2019)

10/24/2019

6566

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 222 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

10/24/2019

6567

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #127 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

10/24/2019

6568

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 8 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

10/25/2019

6569

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, Petition for Payment of Invoice #222.Mailed notice (sxw, ) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

10/25/2019 6570 ORDER regarding 6566 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2019.Mailed notice(sxw, ) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

10/25/2019

6571 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus, Agreed Order for Invoice #127.Mailed notice (sxw, ) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

10/25/2019 6572 ORDER regarding 6567 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2019.Mailed notice(sxw, ) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

10/25/2019

6573

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County Compliance Administrator, Susan F. Feibus', Agreed Order for Payment of Invoice No. 8.Mailed notice (sxw, ) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

10/25/2019 6574 ORDER regarding 6568 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/25/2019.Mailed notice(sxw, ) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

10/28/2019

6575 ATTORNEY Appearance for Movant Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough by Leslie Dean Davis (Davis, Leslie) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019 6576 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for extension of time to file response/reply (AGREED) (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019

6577 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for extension of time to file response/reply (AGREED) CORRECTED (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019

6578

NOTICE of Motion by Adam Robert Vaught for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 6577 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/31/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019 6579 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Clerk by Lari Ann Dierks (Dierks, Lari) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/29/2019

6580

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion for extension of time (doc. # 6577 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We extend to 10/31/19 the deadline for the Clerk of Cook County to respond to plaintiffs' motion for supplemental relief. The motion at docket entry 6576 is terminated as moot in light of this ruling. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/29/2019)

10/29/2019

6581

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report they have reached a settlement in principal on the issues raised in plaintiff's motion to compel the JTDC to comply with the SRO (doc. # 6208 ). The matter is set for a status hearing with the magistrate judge on 11/27/19 at 9:00 a.m. If the parties report that their settlement has been finalized before the next status, the hearing will be stricken. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/29/2019)

10/30/2019 6582 ATTORNEY Appearance for Movant Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough by Lauren Elizabeth Jaffe (Jaffe, Lauren) (Entered: 10/30/2019)

10/31/2019

6583

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, the motion to quash subpoena issued to Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough (doc. # 6528 ) is denied, however, the information sought will be limited to the timeframe of 2017 to the present, and must focus on Clerk's Office employees and applicants. By 11/14/19, the parties will submit an agreed confidentiality order, or in the event of a disagreement, a proposed order which indicates the portion(s) of the order where there is disagreement, to the Court's proposed order inbox. At that time, the parties will also submit in writing their proposed timeframe for the Committee to provide plaintiffs with the requested information. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 10/31/2019)

10/31/2019

6584

MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for leave to file excess pages (Attachments: # 1 Response, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/31/2019)

10/31/2019

6585

MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for leave to file excess pages (Attachments: # 1 Response, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/31/2019)

10/31/2019

6586

NOTICE of Motion by Adam Robert Vaught for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages 6585 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/6/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/31/2019)

11/01/2019

6587

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion by Cook County Clerk for leave to file in excess of 15 pages (doc. # 6585 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. The Cook County Clerk shall file the memorandum attached to the motion as a separately docketed entry. The motion at Docket Entry No. 6584 is terminated as moot. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

11/01/2019

6588

RESPONSE by Cook County Clerk to MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Supplemental Relief 6486 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

11/01/2019

6589

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The status hearing on plaintiff's motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6486 ) set for 11/14/19 is RESET to 11/20/19 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

11/13/2019

6590

STATUS Report TWENTIETH REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/13/2019)

11/19/2019

6591

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10/31/19 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 36638. Court Reporter Contact Information: TRACEY D. McCULLOUGH, 312-435-5570, tracey_mccullough@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 12/10/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/20/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/18/2020. (Mccullough, Tracey) (Entered: 11/19/2019)

11/20/2019

6592

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 223 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/20/2019)

11/20/2019

6593

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #223. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/20/2019)

11/20/2019 6594 ORDER regarding petition 6592 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/20/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/20/2019)

11/20/2019

6595

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held regarding plaintiff's motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6486 ). Plaintiffs will file a reply by 12/19/19. The parties will meet and confer regarding an evidentiary hearing tentatively to be held in the second week of February 2020. By 11/27/19, the parties will submit a joint status report containing (1) the proposed issues the parties plan to address at the evidentiary hearing, (2) the scope of evidence to be presented at the evidentiary hearing, and (3) any proposed limited discovery the parties plan on taking in anticipation of the hearing. The Court will set a further status as needed after

reviewing the parties' report. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/20/2019)

11/21/2019

6596

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The in chambers status hearing regarding the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County set for 12/02/19 is RESET to 12/13/19 at 11:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019

6597

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #128 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019

6598

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 9 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019 6599 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Fourth Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019

6600 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Seventeenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019 6601 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Agreed Order for Invoice #128. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019 6602 ORDER regarding other 6597 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/21/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019

6603

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County Compliance Administrator, Susan F. Feibus', Agreed Order for Payment of Invoice No. 9. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019 6604 ORDER regarding other 6598 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/21/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019

6605

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Fourth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019 6606 ORDER regarding petition 6599 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/21/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019

6607

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Seventeenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/21/2019 6608 ORDER regarding petition 6600 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/21/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/25/2019 6609 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/25/2019)

11/25/2019

6610

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6609 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/10/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/25/2019)

11/25/2019

6611

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement, the in court status hearing as to the Recorder of Deeds set for 12/02/19 is RESET to 01/10/20 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/25/2019)

11/25/2019

6612

NOTICE by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Governor's Comprehensive Employment Plan for Agencies Under the Jurisdiction of the Governor)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 11/25/2019)

11/26/2019

6613

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motion to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (doc. # 6609 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/26/2019)

11/26/2019

6614 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6609 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/26/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/26/2019)

11/26/2019 6615 AGREED PROTECTIVE Order Governing Third-Party Production. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 11/26/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/26/2019)

11/27/2019 6616 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing held. The parties report on the progress of finalizing their settlement on the issues raised in plaintiff's motion to compel the

JTDC to comply with the SRO (doc. # 6208 ). The matter is set for a status hearing on 01/15/20 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

11/27/2019

6617

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: By agreement, the deadline for filing the joint status report required by the Court's 11/20/19 order (doc. # 6595 ) is extended to 12/06/19. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

12/02/2019

6618 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status hearing held and continued to 01/27/20 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/02/2019)

12/06/2019 6619 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time to file response/reply [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/06/2019)

12/06/2019

6620

NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 6619 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/12/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/06/2019)

12/06/2019

6621

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time (doc. # 6619 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of the motion for supplemental relief against the Clerk of Cook County by 01/16/20. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/06/2019)

12/09/2019

6622

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 224 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/09/2019)

12/09/2019

6623

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #224. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/09/2019)

12/09/2019 6624 ORDER regarding petition 6622 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/9/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/09/2019)

12/10/2019

6625

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference held in chambers regarding plaintiffs' motion for supplemental relief as to the Clerk of Cook County (doc. # 6486 ). The motion is set for an evidentiary hearing on 02/10/20 and 02/11/20, with post-hearing argument to be held on 02/12/20 (one-half hour per

side). The matter is set for a status hearing in court on 01/22/20 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/10/2019)

12/13/2019

6626

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status conference in Clerk of Court case held and continued for an in-chambers status conference on 01/31/20 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/13/2019)

12/16/2019

6627 MOTION by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to Amend The Cook County Assessor's Exempt List [Agreed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/16/2019 6628 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6627 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/19/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/16/2019 6629 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard NOF OIIG ROD Report (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/16/2019 6630 OIIG ROD Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/16/2019

6631

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Assessor's exempt list (doc. # 6627 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/16/2019 6632 AGREED ORDER Amending the Cook County Assessor's Office Exempt List. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/16/2019. (Exhibits). Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/16/2019

6634

MAIL RETURNED, for document # 6601 , 6596 , 6608 , 6604 , 6603 , 6602 , 6607 , 6606 , 6605 sent to Roger R. Fross returned as undeliverable, return to sender. No new contact information received; therefore future mailings will not be sent until a new address is provided to the Clerk's Office using a Notification of Change of Address or Pro Se Appearance form. (ph, ) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/18/2019

6633

NOTICE by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois re notice of filing 6501 Notice of Filing List of Technical Positions and Convert to Code Positions at IDOT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of IDOT Technical Positions, # 2 Exhibit List of IDOT Convert to Code Positions)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 12/18/2019)

12/19/2019 6635 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 225 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/19/2019

6636

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #225. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/19/2019 6637 ORDER regarding other 6635 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/19/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/19/2019 6638 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Fifth Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/19/2019 6639 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Eighteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/19/2019

6640

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Fifth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/19/2019 6641 ORDER regarding petition 6638 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/19/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/19/2019

6642

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Eighteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/19/2019 6643 ORDER regarding petition 6639 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/19/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/20/2019

6644

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In chambers status conference held. The matter is set for a in court status conference on 02/21/20 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/20/2019

6645

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #129 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/20/2019

6646 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 10 by Susan G.

Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/20/2019

6647 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Agreed Order for Invoice #129. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/20/2019 6648 ORDER regarding other 6645 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/20/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/20/2019

6649

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County Compliance Administrator, Susan F. Feibus', Agreed Order for Payment of Invoice No. 10. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/20/2019 6650 ORDER regarding other 6646 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 12/20/2019. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

01/02/2020

6651

MOTION by Attorney Margarita Kulys Hoffman to withdraw as attorney for Susan G. Feibus. No party information provided (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 01/02/2020)

01/02/2020

6652

NOTICE of Motion by Margarita Kulys Hoffman for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 6651 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/8/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hoffman, Margarita) (Entered: 01/02/2020)

01/02/2020

6653

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion to withdraw (doc. # 6651 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. We give leave to Margarita Kulys Hoffman to withdraw as counsel for the Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County ("CCCA"), with thanks for her dedicated service in this matter. The CCCA has leave to retain counsel to replace Ms. Hoffman. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/02/2020)

01/07/2020

6654

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 226 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/07/2020

6655

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #130 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/07/2020

6656

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 11 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Feibus, Susan) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/07/2020

6657

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #226. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/07/2020 6658 ORDER regarding other 6654 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/7/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/07/2020

6659 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Agreed Order for Invoice #130. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/07/2020 6660 ORDER regarding other 6655 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/7/2020. Mailed notice(dal, ) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/07/2020

6661

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Agreed Order for Payment of Invoice No. 11. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/07/2020 6662 ORDER regarding other 6656 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/7/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/10/2020

6663

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In court status hearing as to the Recorder of Deeds held and continued for a further in court status hearing on 02/14/20 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/10/2020)

01/14/2020

6664

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/14/2020)

01/14/2020 6665 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to compel, 6664 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/21/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/14/2020)

01/14/2020

6666

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The motion hearing on plaintiffs' motion to compel (doc. # 6664 ) noticed for presentment on 01/21/20 is RESET to 01/22/20 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/14/2020)

01/15/2020

6667

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on January 10, 2020 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 37409. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy L. Bistany nancy_bistany@ilnd.uscourts.gov - 312.435.7626.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 2/5/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/18/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/14/2020. (Bistany, Nancy) (Entered: 01/15/2020)

01/15/2020

6668

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing regarding plaintiff's motion to compel JTDC to comply with the SRO held and continued to 02/18/20 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/15/2020)

01/15/2020

6669

REPLY by Plaintiffs Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to motion for miscellaneous relief 6486 in Support of Standing and Justiciability (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 01/15/2020)

01/15/2020

6670

GENERAL ORDER 20-0001: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That United States Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani be designated at the magistrate judge assigned to 69 cv 2145 Shakman, et at v. Cook Co Democratic, et al. Upon the entry of this General Order, parties are hereby notified that the procedures and the deadline outlined in Local Rule 73.1(a) apply to this planned reassignment that will take place on April 30,2020; that is, any objection to the assignment must be made within 21 days of the date of this order. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 1/15/2020. See General Order for further details. Mailed notice. (bg, ) (Entered: 01/16/2020)

01/21/2020

6671

STATUS Report TWENTY-FIRST REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/21/2020)

01/21/2020 6672 RESPONSE by Cook County Clerk to MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to compel 6664 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 01/21/2020)

01/22/2020

6673

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held regarding plaintiffs' motion to compel (doc. # 6664 ). The Court issues the following ruling on the motion to compel: the motion is denied as moot as to Interrogatory 4 in light of the subsequent production of information by the Clerk's Office; the motion is granted as to Interrogatory 9 and Requests for Production 9 and 29, and; the motion is denied as to Requests for Production 3 and 5, but any supplemental production in response to those requests shall be made by 01/29/20. The Clerk's Office will supplement their responses to plaintiffs' Interrogatory 9 and Request for Production 29 with the results of a search of the cell phones of exempt employees, to be conducted by counsel for the Clerk with the affected employees present, using search terms agreed upon by the parties. Any responsive documents found through those searches shall be produced on a rolling basis, with the production to be completed as soon as possible. The Clerk's Office will supplement their production to Request for Production 9, as limited on the record, by the close of business on 01/31/20. Cook County Clerk's oral motion to file a surreply to plaintiffs' motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6486 ) is granted; the Clerk's Office will file their sur-reply by 02/05/20. By the close of business on 01/31/20, the parties will inform the Court if they will be ready to proceed with the evidentiary hearing currently set for 02/10/20-02/11/20. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/22/2020)

01/27/2020

6674

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference held in chambers. At the request of the State, briefing schedule set on State defendants' motion to terminate or modify the 1972 Consent Decree: (1) State defendants' motion and memorandum (not to exceed 25 pages) are due by 02/14/20; (2) the OEIG shall file any memorandum with respect to the motion by 02/14/20; (3) plaintiffs and the Special Master shall file any memoranda (not to exceed 25 pages) in response to the motion by 03/06/20; and (4) the State defendants shall file any reply by 03/20/20. The matter is set for a further status conference in chambers on 03/13/20 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/27/2020)

01/27/2020

6675

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 06/27/2019 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 36223. Court Reporter Contact Information: Rosemary Scarpelli, Rosemary_Scarpelli@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312)435-5885, on behalf of Pamela Warren.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 2/18/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/27/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/27/2020. (Scarpelli, Rosemary) (Entered: 01/27/2020)
01/28/2020 6676 STATUS Report Third Report of Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County by Susan G. Feibus (Feibus, Susan) (Entered: 01/28/2020)

01/28/2020 6677 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/28/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/28/2020)

01/29/2020

6678

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 227 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/29/2020)

01/29/2020

6679

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #227. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/29/2020)

01/29/2020 6680 ORDER regarding petition 6678 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 1/29/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/29/2020)

01/29/2020 6681 NOTICE by Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman of Withdrawal of Julia K. Schwartz as Co-Counsel for Plaintiff (Schwartz, Julia) (Entered: 01/29/2020)

01/31/2020 6682 ATTORNEY Appearance for Court Monitor Susan G. Feibus by Dina Marie Masiello Attorney (Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

01/31/2020

6683

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference in chambers regarding Clerk of Court matter held and continued to 03/13/20 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

01/31/2020 6684 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Telephone conference with counsel for plaintiffs and County Clerk regarding

plaintiffs' motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6486 ). At plaintiffs' request and over objection of the County Clerk, the evidentiary hearing set to commence on 02/10/20 is RESET to 03/03/20 at 9:00 a.m. Any discovery motion plaintiffs wish to file shall be filed by 5:00 p.m. on 02/03/20; and response shall be filed by noon on 02/05/20. The matter is set for a hearing on 02/06/20 at 1:30 p.m. County Clerk's unopposed motion to extend the deadline for filing a sur-response to the motion for supplemental relief is granted; sur-reply shall be filed by 02/25/20. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

02/03/2020 6685 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Sixth Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/03/2020

6686 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Nineteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/03/2020

6687

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Sixth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/03/2020 6688 ORDER regarding petition 6685 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/3/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/03/2020

6689

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Nineteenth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/03/2020 6690 ORDER regarding petition 6686 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/3/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/03/2020

6691

MOTION by Plaintiffs Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to compel [Second] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/03/2020

6692 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to compel, 6691 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/6/2020 at 01:30 PM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/03/2020 6768 OBJECTION from Zachary Ferguson (Exhibit). (td, ) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

02/04/2020

6693

MOTION by Plaintiffs Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to compel [Amended Second] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/04/2020)

02/05/2020 6694 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie to Amend The Cook County Assessor's Exempt List [Agreed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020 6695 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6694 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/13/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020

6696

RESPONSE by Cook County Clerk to MOTION by Plaintiffs Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to compel [Amended Second] 6693 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020

6697

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #228 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020

6698

Objection to Reassignment to New Magistrate Judge by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Governor's limited consent to magistrate judge)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020

6699

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #131 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020

6700

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 12 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020

6701

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The parties' agreed motion to amend the Cook County Assessor's exempt list (doc. # 6694 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020 6702 AGREED ORDER Amending the Cook County Assessor's Office Exempt List. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2020. Mailed notice. (Exhibits) (dal, ) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020

6703

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #228. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020 6704 ORDER regarding other 6697 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/05/2020 6705 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Agreed Order for Invoice #131. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/06/2020)

02/05/2020 6706 ORDER regarding other 6699 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/06/2020)

02/05/2020

6707

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Agreed Order for Payment of Invoice No. 12. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/06/2020)

02/05/2020 6708 ORDER regarding other 6700 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/5/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/06/2020)

02/06/2020

6709

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status and motion hearings held. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court grants plaintiff's amended second motion to compel (doc. # 6693 ). The Clerk's Office is ordered to produce to plaintiffs' counsel the following documents with respect to the job promotions or hirings listed at page 6 of plaintiffs' motion: job descriptions, resumes, application packets, interviewee scoring sheets, notes, recommendations from politicians and/or political organizations, and justifications for hire. Any production will be designated for attorney's eyes only. By 02/10/20, the parties will submit their proposed deadline for completion of the production detailed in this order. The parties report on their readiness to participate in the evidentiary hearing scheduled for 03/03/20. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/06/2020)

02/06/2020

6710 STATUS Report Sixth Report Regarding Statewide Compliance with the Shakman Decree by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/06/2020)

02/07/2020 6711 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Independent Voters of IllinoisIndependent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L

Shakman by Mary Eileen Cunniff Wells (Wells, Mary) (Entered: 02/07/2020)

02/10/2020

6712

RESPONSE by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to status report 6710 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit cover email and draft report, # 2 Exhibit email exchange)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 02/10/2020)

02/11/2020

6713

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In line with the Court's direction (doc. # 6709 ), the County Clerk has advised that the production required by the Court's 02/06/20 order will be made on a rolling basis and will be completed by 02/19/20. That timeline, to which the parties have agreed, is acceptable to the Court. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/11/2020)

02/11/2020

6714 MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to reset briefing schedule (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 02/11/2020)

02/11/2020 6715 NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion to reset 6714 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/18/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 02/11/2020)

02/11/2020

6716

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The Governor has filed a motion to reset a briefing schedule and for other relief (doc. # 6714 ), which he noticed for presentment on 02/18/20. We reset the presentment date to 02/13/20 at 8:45 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/11/2020)

02/11/2020 6717 ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Ricardo Meza by Aaron Scott Chait (Chait, Aaron) (Entered: 02/11/2020)

02/11/2020 6718 MOTION by Amicus Ricardo Meza for extension of time to file Memorandum (Chait, Aaron) (Entered: 02/11/2020)

02/11/2020

6719

NOTICE of Motion by Aaron Scott Chait for presentment of motion for extension of time to file 6718 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/13/2020 at 08:45 AM. (Chait, Aaron) (Entered: 02/11/2020)

02/12/2020 6720 RESPONSE by Special Master Noelle C Brennan to motion to reset 6714 (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/12/2020)

02/13/2020

6721

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. The Governor's motion to reset briefing schedule and other relief (doc. # 6714 ) is granted in part and denied in part in line with the Court's ruling on the record. The parties and the Special

Master will submit their proposed briefing schedule on the Governor's motion to terminate or modify by noon on 02/14/20. The briefing schedule set on 01/27/20 is stricken. The OEIG's motion to extend time for filing of memorandum (doc. # 6718 ) is granted to the extent that it will be able to file its memorandum at the same time as the Governor, but denied to the extent that it requests to file at the same time as the Special Master. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/13/2020 6722 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The status hearing regarding the Assessor set for 02/21/20 is RESET to 02/28/20 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/13/2020

6723 REPLY by Special Master Noelle C Brennan to Response 6712 to Sixth Report of The Special Master (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/14/2020

6724

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Counsel for the Governor has advised the Court, plaintiffs and the Special Master that he will not be proceeding at this time with a motion to terminate or modify. Accordingly, we strike the requirement in our 02/13/20 order (doc. # 6721 ) that the parties submit a proposed briefing schedule on that prospective motion. The in chambers status hearing set for 03/13/20 remains unchanged. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/14/2020)

02/14/2020

6725

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In court status hearing as to the Recorder of Deeds held and continued for a further in court status hearing on 04/03/20 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/14/2020)

02/14/2020

6726

MOTION by Plaintiffs Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to compel Rule 30(b)(6) Testimony (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/14/2020)

02/14/2020

6727 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion to compel, 6726 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/25/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/14/2020)

02/17/2020

6728

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Independent Voters of IllinoisIndependent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman by Irina Dashevsky (Dashevsky, Irina) (Entered: 02/17/2020)

02/17/2020

6729

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Independent Voters of IllinoisIndependent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman by Irina Dashevsky (AMENDED) (Dashevsky, Irina) (Entered: 02/17/2020)

02/18/2020 6730 MOTION by Movant Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough to quash Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough (Gilbert, Janet) (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/18/2020

6731

MEMORANDUM by Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough in support of motion to quash 6730 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action, # 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Henderson Yarbrough, Sr.)(Gilbert, Janet) (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/18/2020

6732 NOTICE of Motion by Janet H. Gilbert for presentment of motion to quash 6730 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/25/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Gilbert, Janet) (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/18/2020

6733

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing regarding plaintiff's motion to compel JTDC to comply with the SRO held and continued to 03/18/20 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/19/2020 6734 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for protective order Motion for Protective Order to Quash Subpoena Issued to Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 02/19/2020)

02/19/2020

6735

NOTICE of Motion by Adam Robert Vaught for presentment of motion for protective order 6734 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/25/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 02/19/2020)

02/24/2020

6736

MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for extension of time to file response/reply Motion for Extension of Time to File Sur-Reply to Motion for Supplemental Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/24/2020

6737

NOTICE of Motion by Adam Robert Vaught for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 6736 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/27/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/24/2020

6738

RESPONSE by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to memorandum in support of motion 6731 to Squash Subpoena (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/24/2020

6739

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #229 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/24/2020

6740

RESPONSE by Michael L Shakman to MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for protective order Motion for Protective Order to Quash Subpoena Issued to Citizens to Elect Karen Yarbrough 6734 (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/24/2020

6741

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #229. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/24/2020 6742 ORDER regarding other 6739 Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/24/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/24/2020)

02/25/2020

6743

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on February 13, 2020 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 37888. Court Reporter Contact Information: Nancy L. Bistany nancy_bistany@ilnd.uscourts.gov - 312.435.7626.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 3/17/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/27/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/26/2020. (Bistany, Nancy) (Entered: 02/25/2020)

02/25/2020

6744

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motion hearing held. Without objection, defendant's motion for extension of time to file defendant's sur-reply to plaintiffs' motion for supplemental relief (doc # 6736 ) is granted. Defendant Clerk of Cook County will file her response by 03/20/20. Consistent with the rulings made on the record, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs' motion to compel Rule 30(b)(6) testimony (doc. # 6726 ), CEKY's motion to quash subpoena (doc. # 6730 ), and Cook County Clerk's motion for protective order (doc. # 6734 ). Plaintiffs' deposition subpoena is quashed as to topics 1, 8-10, 14, and 21. The remainder of the topics are permissible consistent with the Court's limitations on the record.

CEKY and plaintiffs will inform the Court of their proposed date for CEKY's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition by the close of business on 02/26/20. Counsel for the Clerk's Office and plaintiffs will provide the Court with electronic and hard copies of the exhibits to be used at the evidentiary hearing scheduled for 03/03/20 by 3:00 p.m. on 02/28/20 and will provide the Court with a witness list by noon on 03/02/20. The motion hearing set for 02/27/20 is stricken. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/25/2020)

02/25/2020

6745

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The minute entry dated 02/25/20 (doc. # 6744 ) is amended to reflect defendant Clerk of Cook County will file her sur-reply to plaintiffs' motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6736 ) by 03/02/20. The remainder of the entry stands. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/25/2020)

02/26/2020

6746

MOTION by Attorney Edward M. Hogan to withdraw as attorney for Chicago & Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council, Chicago Federation of Labor, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399. New address information: See Notification of Party Contact Information Sheet, Exhibit A (Hogan, Edward) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

02/26/2020 6747 NOTICE of Motion by Edward M. Hogan for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney, 6746 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/10/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hogan, Edward) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

02/26/2020

6748

MOTION by Attorney Matthew J. Cleveland to withdraw as attorney for Chicago & Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council, Chicago Federation of Labor, County Municipal Employees, Supervisors, and Foremans Unions, Local Number 1001, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399, Water Pipe Extension, Bureau of Engineering Laborers Local 1092. New address information: See Notification of Party Contact Information - Exhibit A (Hogan, Edward) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

02/26/2020 6749 NOTICE of Motion by Edward M. Hogan for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney, 6748 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hogan, Edward) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

02/26/2020

6750 NOTICE of Motion by Edward M. Hogan for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney, 6746 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hogan, Edward) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

02/26/2020 6751 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Motions to withdraw (docs. ## 6746 and 6748 ) are granted; no appearance on the motions is required. We ask the Clerk of the Court to terminate the

appearances of Edward M. Hogan and Matthew J. Cleveland. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/26/2020)

02/28/2020

6752 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In Court status hearing as to the Assessor held and continued to 04/20/20 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/28/2020)

02/28/2020 6753 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 2/14/2020 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 37897. Court Reporter Contact Information: Amy Spee, amyofficialtranscripts@gmail.com.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 3/20/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/30/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/28/2020. (Spee, Amy) (Entered: 02/28/2020)

02/28/2020 6754 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Seventh Petition for Payment (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/28/2020)

02/28/2020 6755 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twentieth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/28/2020)

02/28/2020

6756

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Seventh Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/28/2020)

02/28/2020 6757 ORDER regarding petition 6754 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/28/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/28/2020)

02/28/2020

6758

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Twentieth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/28/2020)

02/28/2020 6759 ORDER regarding petition 6755 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 2/28/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 02/28/2020)

03/02/2020

6760

SUR-REPLY by Unknown Cook County Clerk Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs Motion for Supplemental Relief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

03/03/2020

6761

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Evidentiary hearing conducted regarding plaintiffs' motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6486 ). The matter remains set for a continued evidentiary hearing on 03/10/20 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/03/2020)

03/04/2020

6762

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 13 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 03/04/2020)

03/04/2020

6763

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Agreed Order for Payment of Invoice No. 13. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/04/2020)

03/04/2020 6764 ORDER regarding other 6762 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/4/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/04/2020)

03/06/2020

6765

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #132 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

03/06/2020 6766 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Agreed Order for Invoice #132. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

03/06/2020 6767 ORDER regarding other 6765 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/6/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

03/06/2020

6769

AMENDED GENERAL ORDER 20-0001: On January 15, 2020, General Order 20-001 was entered directing that a number of actions take place in case number 69 CV 2145, Shakman, et al v. Cook Co Democratic, et al. The order allowed 21 days from the date of the order for parties to file objections. Two objections were filed (docket #6698 and #6768). The Executive Committee has reviewed these objections and therefore orders the following: 1. Objection #6768 is denied as moot, as the filer is not a party to the case. Objection #6698 was filed by a party to the case and has not been withdrawn. Pursuant to that objection, the case will be reassigned. 2. The Clerk of Court is

directed to immediately use the random case assignment wheel and draw the name of a district judge to be assigned to case number 69 CV 2145 at the end of Magistrate Judge Schenkier's term of office. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately use a random case assignment system of available magistrate judges as identified in General Order 20-0001 to be designated as the magistrate judge in case number 69 CV 2145 at the end of Magistrate Judge Schenkier's term of office. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately make a docket entry and identify the district and magistrate judges who will be assigned case number 69 CV 2145 and notify those judicial officers at that time. 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to reassign case number 69 CV 2145 on May 1, 2020 to the newly assigned district judge and designated magistrate judge. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 3/6/2020. Mailed notice (td, ) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

03/06/2020

PURSUANT to Amended General Order 20-0001, 69cv2145 will be assigned to U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang and U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes is the designated Magistrate Judge, effective May 1, 2020. (td, ) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

03/08/2020

6770

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Pursuant to the order of 03/06/2020, Judge Chang has been assigned as the district judge for this case effective as of 05/01/2020. In an abundance of caution, Judge Chang posts this docket entry for the parties' consideration. When Judge Chang was the chief of appeals in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago, he provided legal advice, in 2006, to the prosecution team in connection with the trial in United States v. Sorich et al., Case No. 05 CR 644, aff'd, 523 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2008). The case involved alleged violations of the Shakman decree by City of Chicago employees. On appeal, Judge Chang (again in the capacity of chief of appeals) was on the appellate brief after the trial conviction. Because the City of Chicago has been dismissed from this case, R. 3861 (06/16/2014), it does not appear that this prior representation poses a basis for recusal. But if any party believes that this is a basis for a motion to recuse, then a motion for recusal shall be filed by 03/23/2020, so that any issue can be promptly resolved. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 03/08/2020)

03/10/2020

6771

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Evidentiary hearing conducted regarding plaintiffs' motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6486 ) and continued to 03/16/20 at 2:00 p.m. The parties will conduct Mr. Igasaki's deposition by 03/13/20. The parties stipulate that they will designate portions of the Igasaki deposition to offer into evidence in lieu of his in-court testimony. The parties will submit their Rule 30(b)(6) designations to the Court by 03/16/20. Closing

arguments are set for 03/18/20 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6772 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6773

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6772 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/18/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020 6774 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6775

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6774 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/18/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6776 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6777

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6776 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/18/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6778 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6779

[Unopposed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6778 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/18/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6780

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motions to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County (doc. # 6772 ), the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (doc. # 6776 ) the Governor of Illinois (doc. # 6778 ), and the Cook County Assessor (doc. 6774 ) are granted; no appearance on the motions is required. ENTER ORDERS. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020 6781 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6772 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020 6782 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6774 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6783 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6776 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020 6784 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6778 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/10/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6785

SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Clarification Regarding, or, in the Alternative, to Expand the Scope of the Special Master's Responsibilities (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-9)(Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6786 NOTICE of Motion by Michael L. Shakman for presentment of Sealed motion 6785 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/13/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6787

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for leave to file Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification Regarding, or, in the Alternative, to Expand the Scope of the Special Master's Responsibilities [UNREDACTED VERSION] Under Seal (Dkt. 6785) (Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020 6788 NOTICE of Motion by Michael L. Shakman for presentment of motion for leave to file, 6787 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/13/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

6789

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Clarification Regarding, or, in the Alternative, to Expand the Scope of the Special Master's Responsibilities [REDACTED VERSION; MOTION TO FILE UNREDACTED VERSION UNDER SEAL PENDING] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-9)(Shakman, Michael) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/11/2020

6790 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status conference in chambers held with parties and RCA in the Recorder case. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/11/2020)

03/12/2020 6791 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE #230 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/12/2020)

03/13/2020

6792

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing off the record held and continued to 04/30/20 at 8:30 a.m. Briefing schedule set on plaintiffs' motion to clarify or expand (doc. # 6789 ): Governor's response is due by 04/13/20, any submission by HEM is due by 04/13/20, and plaintiffs' reply is due by 04/20/20. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/13/2020)

03/13/2020 6793 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Status hearing off the record held and continued to 04/30/20 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/13/2020)

03/13/2020

6794

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #230. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/13/2020)

03/13/2020 6795 ORDER regarding other 6791 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/13/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/13/2020)

03/16/2020

6796

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The minute entry dated 03/13/20 at docket # 6792 is amended to add the following: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file document under seal (doc. # 6787 ) is granted. The remainder of the entry stands. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/16/2020

6797

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The status hearing regarding plaintiff's motion to compel JTDC to comply with the SRO set for 03/18/20 at 9:00 a.m. will be held by telephone. The parties will call the Court's toll-free call in number (Number: (888) 684-8852; Access Code: 3236820) prior to the scheduled call time. Given the increased volume of users that is anticipated, we ask that you keep your phone on mute until your case is called. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/16/2020

6798

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Evidentiary hearing held and completed. In light of Amended General Order 200012, closing statements will be delivered by simultaneous written submissions. The parties will file their submissions, not to exceed 20 pages, by 5:00 p.m. on 03/20/20. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/17/2020 6799 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In light of Amended General Order 20-0012, the status hearing regarding plaintiff's motion to compel JTDC to comply with the SRO set for

03/18/20 and the in court status hearing as to the Recorder of Deeds set for 04/03/20 are stricken. The hearings will be reset by a separate order at a later date. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

03/19/2020

6800

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of Amended General Order 20-0012, the deadline for any recusal motion of the district judge, see R. 6770, is extended from 03/23/2020 to 04/13/2020. In light of the 05/01/2020 effective date of the reassignment, it is very unlikely that this deadline can be extended again. So the Court reluctantly asks the parties to make every effort to maintain the deadline despite the extraordinary public-health conditions. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 03/19/2020)

03/20/2020

6801

TRIAL Brief Post Hearing Submission by Cook County Clerk (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 03/20/2020)

03/20/2020 6802 EXHIBIT by Unknown Cook County Clerk Hearing Excerpts in Support of Post Trial Submission regarding trial brief 6801 (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 03/20/2020)

03/20/2020 6803 MEMORANDUM motion for miscellaneous relief 6486 by Michael L Shakman as Closing Argument (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-E)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 03/20/2020)

03/23/2020

6804

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 231 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/23/2020

6805

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #231. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/23/2020 6806 ORDER regarding other 6804 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 3/23/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/31/2020

6807

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On 03/08/2020, the Court set 03/23/2020 as the deadline to file any motion to recuse Judge Chang. R. 6770. The deadline was extended to 04/13/2020 in light of Amended General Order 20-0012, which addressed the public-health conditions. Yesterday, Second Amended General Order 20-0012 was entered, generally extending deadlines in civil cases for 28 more days. The most recent order did provide that the presiding judge could make exceptions. The Court directs that the

parties maintain, if feasible and safe to do so, the current 04/13/2020 deadline in light of the 05/01/2020 effective date of the case's reassignment. Of course, the Court will consider any extension motion and sends best wishes for everyone's health.Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 03/31/2020)

04/01/2020 6808 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Approval of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Amended Interim Employment Plan [Agreed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

04/01/2020 6809 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6808 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/7/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

04/01/2020

6810

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: The parties' agreed motion for approval of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's amended interim employment plan (doc. # 6808 ) is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER AGREED ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

04/01/2020

6811

AGREED ORDER Approving the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Amended Interim Employment Plan. Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/1/2020. Mailed notice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(dal, ) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

04/13/2020

6812

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: In view of Second Amended General Order 20-0012, at the request of defendants and without objection we strike the briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion to clarify or expand (doc. # 6789 ). The briefing schedule will be reset at a later date. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/13/2020

6813

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #133 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/13/2020

6814

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 14 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/14/2020

6815

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #232 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020 6816 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Agreed Order for Invoice #133. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020 6817 ORDER regarding other 6813 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/14/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020

6818

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County Compliance Administrator, Susan G. Feibus', Agreed Order for Payment of Invoice No. 14. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020 6819 ORDER regarding other 6814 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/14/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020

6820

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #232. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020 6821 ORDER regarding other 6815 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/14/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020

6822

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 2/28/2020 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 38062. Court Reporter Contact Information: TRACEY D. McCULLOUGH, 312-435-5570, tracey_mccullough@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 5/5/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/15/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2020. (Mccullough, Tracey) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/15/2020 6823 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020 6824 OIIG ROD Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020 6825 MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for hearing TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CANDIDATE UNDER REVIEW WAS APPOINTED

AS A STAFF ASSISTANT IN VIOLATION OF THE 1972 DECREE (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020

6826 NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion for hearing, 6825 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/21/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/16/2020

6827

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: We have received IDOT's motion requesting a hearing to determine whether the candidate under review was appointed as a staff assistant in violation of the 1972 Decree (doc. # 6825 ) No appearance on the motion is required at this time. We set the following briefing schedule on the motion: By 05/18/20, IDOT and plaintiffs shall file any memorandum in support of its position that the candidate's prior experience should not be considered in connection with her application; by 06/05/20, the candidate shall file any response; and by 06/19/20, IDOT and plaintiffs shall file any reply. A hearing date on the motion will be set by a separate order. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/17/2020

6828

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. We grant in part plaintiffs' motion for supplemental relief (doc. # 6486 ). We appoint Cardelle B. Spangler to serve as special master to discharge the duties set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order with respect to Clerk of Cook County. By a separate order to be entered at a later date, the Court will set a status hearing. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/17/2020 6829 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/17/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/20/2020 6830 AFFIDAVIT of Cardelle B. Spangler Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 53 (Spangler, Cardelle) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/20/2020

6831

ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknowns Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Cook County Assessor, Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Joseph Michael Gagliardo (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/20/2020

6832

ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknowns Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Cook County Assessor, Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Michael A. Kuczwara, Jr (Kuczwara, Michael) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/21/2020 6833 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: IDOT's motion (doc. # 6825 ) is stricken without prejudice. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020

6834

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 233 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020

6835

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Cook County Recorder of Deed's Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler, Agreed Order for Invoice #233. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020 6836 ORDER regarding other 6834 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/21/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020

6837

STATUS Report FIFTEENTH REPORT OF THE ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR by Susan G. Feibus (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020

6838 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with respect to the Governor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020

6839

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6838 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020 6840 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with respect to IDOT (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020

6841

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6840 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/22/2020

6842

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motions to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois 6838 and with respect to IDOT 6840 are granted; no appearance on the motions is required. ENTER ORDERS. In view of Second Amended General Order 20-0012, the status hearing set for 4/20/2020 as to the Assessor and the status hearings set for 4/30/2020 as to the Governor and as to the Clerk of the Circuit

Court are stricken. The status hearings will be reset by a separate order at a later date. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/22/2020

6843 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6838 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/22/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/22/2020 6844 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6840 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/22/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/24/2020 6845 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/24/2020)

04/24/2020

6846

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6845 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/24/2020)

04/24/2020 6847 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/24/2020)

04/24/2020

6848

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6847 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/24/2020)

04/27/2020

6849

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Unopposed motions to award plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County 6845 and with respect to the Recorder of Deeds 6847 are granted; no appearance on the motions is required. ENTER ORDERS. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

04/27/2020

6850 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6845 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/27/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

04/27/2020 6851 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6847 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/27/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

04/27/2020 6852 STATUS Report TWENTY-SECOND REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY

RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

04/27/2020

6853 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Cook County Assessor [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

04/27/2020

6854

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6853 before Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/30/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

04/27/2020

6855

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 6853 is granted; no appearance on the motion is required. ENTER ORDER. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

04/27/2020 6856 ORDER regarding motion for attorney fees 6853 . Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/27/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/27/2020)

04/28/2020 6857 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Eighth Petition for Payment for IDOT (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/28/2020)

04/28/2020 6858 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-First Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 04/28/2020)

04/29/2020

6859

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter order granting Illinois Department of Transportation Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Eighth Petition for Payment. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

04/29/2020 6860 ORDER regarding petition 6857 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

04/29/2020

6861

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: Enter Special Master, Noelle C. Brennan's, Agreed Order for Twenty-First Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

04/29/2020 6862 ORDER regarding petition 6858 signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 4/29/2020. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

04/30/2020 6863 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier: On 04/17/20, we appointed Cardelle B. Spangler to serve as a special

master for the Clerk of Cook County, effective upon Ms. Spangler filing the required affidavit showing no ground for disqualification (doc. # 6829 : Mem. Op. and Order at 41). Ms. Spangler filed her affidavit on 04/20/20 (doc. # 6830 ), and we find that there is no basis for disqualification. Thus, Ms. Spangler's appointment as special master is effective as of this date, and she shall commence forthwith the work outlined in the Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mailed notice. (dal, ) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

05/01/2020

CASE REASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes pursuant to Amended General Order 20-0001. (td, ) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

05/04/2020

6864

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of Third Amended General Order 20-0012, but balanced against the public interest to move forward where possible, the Court sets the following scheduling order. Any of the parties and monitors may move for a scheduling adjustment (and if agreed, may jointly email the courtroom deputy in lieu of a motion at Michael_Wing@ilnd.uscourts.gov). 1. Assessor's Office. Given the relatively recent filing of Report 15 of the Assessor Compliance Administrator, R. 6837 (04/21/2020), and the next status report deadline (08/17/2020), the next status hearing is set for 08/20/2020 at 8:30 a.m. In the meantime, the Court hopes that progress will be made on the action items in Report 15. 2. Clerk of the Circuit Court. The next in-camera, off-record status hearing is set for 07/30/2020 at 9:15 a.m. The Court asks the parties and the Compliance Administrator to email to the courtroom deputy a joint agenda of discussion items by 07/27/2020; if there are helpful filings and pertinent pages that the Court should read in advance, please cite them in the joint agenda. 3. County Clerk. Under Third Amended General Order 20-0012, the initial report deadlines are reset: the Special Master shall serve on the parties a draft of her initial report by 08/31/2020. The parties shall provide any comments on the draft report by 09/08/2020. The Special Master shall file her initial report by 09/15/2020. The time period of the appointment, R. 6829 at 44, remains through 08/31/2021, as does the 06/30/2021 deadline to advise whether the appointment should be extended. Rather than wait until after the initial report, the Court sets an in-court status hearing for 07/30/2020 at 10:00 a.m., to check on progress and any other issues the parties or the Special Master wishes to raise. If the parties and the Special Master think it useful, they may email to the courtroom deputy a joint agenda of discussion items by 07/27/2020; if there are helpful filings and pertinent pages that the Court should read in advance, please cite them in the joint agenda. 4. Recorder. In light of the relatively recent filing of Report 22 of the

Recorder Compliance Administrator, R. 6852 (04/27/2020), the Court sets an in-court status hearing for 07/30/2020 at 10:00 a.m., to coincide with the status hearing on the County Clerk. If the parties and the Recorder Compliance Administrator think it useful, they may email to the courtroom deputy a joint agenda of discussion items by 07/27/2020; if there are helpful filings and pertinent pages that the Court should read in advance, please cite them in the joint agenda. 5. State of Illinois. Given the State's legal team's involvement in the pandemic response, the Court aspirationally resets the State's response deadline to Plaintiffs' motion to clarify or expand 6789 to 07/13/2020. That is the same deadline for any filing on the motion by HEM. Plaintiffs' reply is due by 07/27/2020. The next in-camera, off-record status hearing is set for 07/30/2020 at 8:30 a.m. The Court asks the parties to email to the courtroom deputy a joint agenda of discussion items by 07/27/2020; if there are helpful filings and pertinent pages that the Court should read in advance, please cite them in the joint agenda. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/04/2020)

05/07/2020

6865

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 234 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

05/07/2020

6866

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed motion for payment to Recorder Compliance Administrator Cardelle Spangler in the amount of $24,132.40 6865 is granted. The order will be posted separately on the docket. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

05/08/2020

6867

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #234 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 5/8/2020. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/08/2020

6868

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #134 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/08/2020

6869

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 15 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/11/2020 6870 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Assessor Compliance Administrator's unopposed motion 6868 for

payment of Invoice #134 in the amount of $44,356.95 is granted. An order will be posted on the docket separately. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/11/2020

6871

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS,AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #134 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 05/11/2020. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/11/2020

6872

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Circuit Court Compliance Administrator's unopposed motion 6869 for payment of Invoice 0015 in the amount of $42,989.52 is granted. An order will be posted on the docket separately. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/11/2020

6873

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS',AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 15 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 05/11/2020. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/11/2020

6874 MOTION by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with Respect to the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/11/2020

6875

Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for attorney fees 6874 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 5/18/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/12/2020

6876

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for fees and costs relating to the Juvenile Detention Center 6874 is granted in the amount of $5,376 to Locke Lord LLP, to be paid by the County of Cook. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

05/12/2020

6877

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO THE JUVENILE TEMPORARY DETENTION CENTER Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 5/12/2020. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

05/12/2020

6878

MOTION by SPECIAL MASTER FOR THE COOK COUNTY CLERK FOR APPROVAL OF STAFF BILLING RATES by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Docket Text modified by Clerk's Office on 5/13/2020) (lma, ). (Entered: 05/12/2020)

05/13/2020 6879 NOTICE of Correction 6878 (lma, ) (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/13/2020 6880 NOTICE of Motion by Matthew David Pryor for presentment of motion for order 6878 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 6/1/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/13/2020

6881

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the Special Master's motion 6878 to set rates as to the County Clerk, the County Clerk's response is due by 05/20/2020. The reply, if any, is due by 05/27/2020. More importantly, if the County Clerk is going to move to stay the Special Master's performance of the duties set forth in the appointment order, R. 6829 (04/17/2020), then that motion must be filed promptly, and no later than 05/26/2020. To track this issue only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a status hearing is set for 06/05/2020 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/14/2020 6882 NOTICE of appeal by Cook County Clerk regarding orders 6829 Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0752-17014189. Receipt number: n (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

05/14/2020 6883 DOCKETING Statement by Cook County Clerk regarding notice of appeal 6882 (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

05/15/2020 6884 NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record regarding notice of appeal 6882 (lma, ) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

05/15/2020 6885 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 6882 . Notified counsel (lma, ) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

05/18/2020

6886

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 235 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/18/2020)

05/19/2020

6887

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motion of Recorder Compliance Administrator for fees and costs 6886 is granted. Cook County shall pay, as soon as practicable, the amount of $12,509.52 to Cardelle Spangler, asCompliance Administrator, for the time period of 05/01/2020 to 05/15/2020. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/19/2020)

05/19/2020

6888

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #235 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 5/19/2020. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/19/2020)

05/20/2020 6889 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for leave to file oversized Motion to Stay Enforcement of this Court's April 17, 2020 Order

Pending Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Motion, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

05/20/2020 6890 RESPONSE by Unknown Cook County Clerk to motion for order 6878 (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

05/21/2020 6891 NOTICE of Motion by Adam Robert Vaught for presentment of motion for leave to file 6889 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 5/26/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/22/2020

6892

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The County Clerk's motion to file 25-page brief in support of a stay motion 6889 is granted. Plaintiffs may use 25 pages in response, which is due by 06/10/2020. The County Clerk's reply is due by 06/17/2020. The tracking status of 06/05/2020 is reset to 06/26/2020 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

05/26/2020 6893 REPLY by Cardelle Spangler to Response 6890 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

05/28/2020 6894 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for extension of time [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/28/2020)

05/28/2020

6895 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of extension of time 6894 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 6/3/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 05/28/2020)

05/28/2020

6896

EXHIBIT by Unknown Cook County Clerk Exhibits to Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Supplemental Relief for Record on Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Clerk's Exhibits to Evidentiary Hearing - Part 2, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits to Evidentiary Hearing, # 3 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Stephen Stern, # 4 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Clerk's 30(b)(6) Witness, # 5 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Erica Sanchez, # 6 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Byron Steele, # 7 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of CEKY 30(b)(6) Witness, # 8 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of David Igasaki)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 05/28/2020)

06/01/2020

6897

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiffs' unopposed extension motion to respond to the stay motion 6894 is granted to 06/15/2020. The County Clerk's reply is due by 06/22/2020. The status hearing of 06/26/2020 is reset to 07/02/2020 at 8:30 am., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/02/2020 6898 MOTION by Defendant Cook County, Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds to reassign case based on relatedness

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Complaint)(Ori, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

6899 NOTICE of Motion by Kathleen Cunniff Ori for presentment of motion to reassign case 6898 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 6/17/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Ori, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/03/2020 6900 STATUS Report Eleventh IDOT Report of the Special Master by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/05/2020

6901

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the Recorder and County's motion to reassign Case No. 18-cv-7497 6898 , it does not appear that there is a statement of conferral with the Plaintiffs in that case. By 06/10/2020, the defense shall confer with the Plaintiffs in that case and then the defense shall advise the courtroom deputy, michael_wing@ilnd.uscourts.gov, whether there is an objection. It does seem like the requirement of Local Rule 40.4 have been met, as previously found. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020

6902

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Pursuant to R. 6901, counsel for the Recorder and County report that Plaintiffs in Pillows et al., 18-cv-07497, do not object to the motion 6898 to reassign the case. Under Local Rule 40.4, the Court grants the motion to reassign 18-cv-07497. The order will be processed with the Executive Committee. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/07/2020

6903

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 2-25-2020 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 38555. Court Reporter Contact Information: Krista Burgeson, krista_burgeson@ilnd.uscourts.gov, 312-435-5567. IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 6/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/8/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/8/2020. (Burgeson, Krista) (Entered: 06/07/2020)

06/08/2020

6904

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #236 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/08/2020)

06/09/2020

6905

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #135 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

06/09/2020

6906

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 16 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

06/15/2020 6907 PETITION SPECIAL MASTER, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S, PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #1 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

6908

RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to Cook County Clerk's Motion to Stay (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

6909

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motion of Recorder Compliance Administrator for fees and cost 6904 is granted. Cook County shall pay, as soon as practicable, the amount of $8,664.41 to Cardelle Spangler, as Compliance Administrator, for the time period of May 16, 2020 through May 31, 2020. The motion of Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator for fees and cost 6905 is granted. Cook County shall pay, as soon as practicable, the amount of $46,522.45 to Susan G. Feibus, as of Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator, for the time period of May 1, 2020 through May 31, 2020.The motion of Clerk of the Circuit Court Compliance Administrator for fees and cost 6906 is granted. Cook County shall pay, as soon as practicable, the amount of $22,939.73 to Susan G. Feibus, as of Clerk of the Circuit Court Compliance Administrator, for the time period of May 1, 2020 through May 31, 2020. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

6910

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #236 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 06/15/2020.Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

6911

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #135 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 06/15/2020. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020

6912

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS', AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 16 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 06/15/2020. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/18/2020

6913

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 237 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/22/2020 6914 REPLY by Unknown Cook County Clerk in Support of Motion to Stay April 17, 2020 Order Pending Appeal (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/24/2020

6915

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: At the request of Plaintiffs, the Recorder's Office, the Cook County Clerk, and the Compliance Administrator, the Court sets a telephonic status hearing for 07/02/2020 at 9:30 a.m. Because the hearing will be in the nature of preliminary discussions in lieu of formal motion practice, the hearing will be off the record. The Court will send dial-in instructions to counsel early next week. Mailed notice (ma,) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

06/24/2020 6916 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to Terminate Interim Appointment [Agreed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

06/24/2020 6917 [Agreed] NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 6916 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/2/2020 at 09:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

06/29/2020

6918

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiffs' agreed motion 6916 to terminate appointment of the Compliance Administrator as the Interim Director of Compliance for the Circuit Court Clerk is granted in light of the employment of the new Director of Compliance. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/29/2020)

06/29/2020 6919 STATUS Report Supplement To Sixth Report Regarding Statewide Compliance With The Shakman Decree by Noelle C Brennan (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 06/29/2020)

06/30/2020

6920

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #238 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020 6921 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS'

PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 17 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020

6922

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #136 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020

6923

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #237 6913 is granted. Cook County shall pay, as soon as practicable, the amount of $12,624.06 to Cardelle Spangler, as Recorder's Compliance Administrator, for the time period of 06/01/2020 through 06/15/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020

6924

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #237 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 06/30/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020

6925

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #238 6920 is granted. Cook County shall pay, as soon as practicable, the amount of $12,817.08 to Cardelle Spangler, as Recorder's Compliance Administrator, for the time period of 06/16/2020 through 06/28/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020

6926

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #238 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 06/30/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020

6927

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motion of Clerk of the Circuit Court Compliance Administrator for fees and cost 6921 is granted. Cook County shall pay, as soon as practicable, the amount of $21,831.71 to Susan G. Feibus, as of Clerk of the Circuit Court Compliance Administrator, for the time period of 06/01/2020 through 06/28/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020 6928 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 17 Signed by the

Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 06/30/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020

6929

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motion of Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator for invoice #136 6922 is granted. Cook County shall pay, as soon as practicable, the amount of $43,097.65 to Susan G. Feibus, as of as Assessor's Compliance Administrator, for the time period of 06/01/2020 through 06/28/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020

6930

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #136 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 06/30/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/30/2020

6931

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Court has the County Clerk's stay motion (and the Special Master's related staffing-rate motion 6878 ) under active advisement. The status hearing of 07/02/2020 is reset to 07/10/2020 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the motion only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

07/01/2020

6932

MOTION by Plaintiffs Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman for leave to file Sur-Reply (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/01/2020

6933 NOTICE of Motion by Brian Ignatius Hays for presentment of motion for leave to file, 6932 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/8/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/01/2020

6934

MOTION by Plaintiffs Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman for leave to file Sur-Reply [AMENDED] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/02/2020

6935

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Off-record telephonic status hearing held with Plaintiffs' counsel, Compliance Administrator, Recorder's counsel and representatives, and County Clerk's counsel. On Plaintiffs' motion to file sur-reply, the motion should not have been noticed for presentment, as stated in the Fourth Amended General Order 2020-0012, Para. 11. So the notice of motion 6933 is vacated. In any event, the amended motion to file sur-reply 6934 is taken under advisement. If the proposed sur-reply might have

an impact on the Court's decision on the stay motion, then the Court will set a response deadline for the Clerk. Plaintiffs' original motion to file sur-reply 6932 is terminated as superseded by the amended motion. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

07/02/2020 7000 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: Status hearing attended by magistrate judge. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/07/2020

6936

MEMORANDUM motion for miscellaneous relief, 6789 by Ricardo Meza The Executive Inspector General's Memorandum on the Plaintiffs' Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 3)(MacDonald, Francis) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/07/2020 6937 NOTICE by Ricardo Meza re memorandum 6936 Notice of Filing (MacDonald, Francis) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/08/2020

6938

ORDER signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/8/2020: For the reasons stated in the Order, the County Clerk's motion [6889-1] to stay the appointment of the Special Master is denied. The Special Master's motion 6878 to set fees for the staff is granted. Plaintiffs' motion 6934 to file sur-reply is terminated as unnecessary. Emailed notice(Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/09/2020

6939

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In view of the denial of the stay motion, the motion 6907 to pay the first invoice of the County Clerk Special Master is granted. The Court orders Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $4,875.00 to Cardelle Spangler, as County Clerk Special Master. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

07/09/2020 6940 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #1 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 07/09/2020. Emailed notice (mw,) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

07/13/2020

6941 MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to vacate May 5, 1972 consent decree (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/13/2020 6942 NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion to vacate 6941 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/16/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/13/2020

6943

MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for leave to file oversized briefs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit proposed memo in support of motion to vacate consent decree, # 2 Exhibit exhibit A to proposed memo in

support, # 3 Exhibit exhibit B to proposed memo in support, # 4 Exhibit proposed cross-motion and response regarding special master, # 5 Exhibit exhibit A to proposed cross-motion and response)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/13/2020 6944 NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion for leave to file, 6943 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/16/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/14/2020

6945

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The State's motion 6943 to file oversized briefs (for the motion 6941 to vacate decree and for the cross-response/motion on the Plaintiffs' motion 6789 to clarify/expand) is granted. The State shall file the briefs on the docket as separate docket entries. On the motion 6941 to vacate, Plaintiffs' response is due by 08/10/2020. The State's reply is due by 08/31/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/14/2020

6946

MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to vacate memorandum in support of motion to vacate consent decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit May 5, 1972 consent decree, # 2 Exhibit transcript of proceedings)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/14/2020

6947

RESPONSE by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinoisin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Clarification Regarding, or, in the Alternative, to Expand the Scope of the Special Master's Responsibilities [REDACTED VERSION; MOTION TO FILE UNREDACTED VERSION UNDER SEAL PENDING] 6789 and cross-motion to vacate Rule 53 appointment of special master (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit transcript of proceedings)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/16/2020 6948 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Ninth Petition for Payment for IDOT (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020 6949 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Second Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020

6950

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The petition 6948 of IDOT Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Thirty-Ninth petition for payment is granted. The Court orders IDOT to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $15,928.72 to Noelle Brennan and Associates, Ltd. and in the amount of $3,125.00 to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for her appointed attorney, Kristi Nelson. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020

6951

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S THIRTY-NINTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 07/16/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020

6952

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The petition 6949 of Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-second petition for payment for expanded duties granted. The Court orders the State of Illinois to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $7,045.00 to Noelle Brennan and Associates, Ltd. and in the amount of $6,825.00 to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for her appointed attorney, Kristi Nelson. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020

6953

AGREED ORDER FOR SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-SECOND PETITION FOR PAYMENT FOR EXPANDED DUTIES Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/16/2020: Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020

6954 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to Amend Briefing Schedule (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020 6955 RESPONSE by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to motion for miscellaneous relief 6954 (Fletcher, Christopher) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/18/2020

6956

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of the Plaintiffs' motion 6954 to alter briefing schedule and of the State's response 6955 to the motion, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted. It will assist the Court to have the Special Master file a motion-specific report/response. So the Special Master may file a combined Report and Response on the State's motion by 08/24/2020. The Plaintiffs' combined reply and response is due by 08/28/2020. The State's reply is due by 09/18/2020. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 07/18/2020)

07/20/2020

6957 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to IDOT [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/20/2020 6958 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/20/2020 6959 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/21/2020

6960

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to award Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs through June 30, 2020 with respect to IDOC 6957 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/21/2020

6961

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS RELATING TO IDOT Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/21/2020: $1,899.50 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP, and $1,400.00 in fees and costs to Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/21/2020

6962

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County 6958 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/21/2020

6963

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTSWITH RESPECT TO CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/21/2020: Plaintiffs' counsel is hereby awarded $35,632.32 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP and $4,608.80 in fees and costs to Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP to be paid by the County of Cook. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/21/2020

6964

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 6959 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/21/2020

6965

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/21/2020: Plaintiffs' counsel is hereby awarded $8,904.00 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP and $225.00 in fees and costs to Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP to be paid by the County of Cook. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/21/2020 6966 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/21/2020 6967 STATUS Report Fourth Report to the Court as Compliance Administrator by Susan G. Feibus (Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/22/2020 6968 PETITION SPECIAL MASTER, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S, AGREED PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #2 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

07/23/2020

6969

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiff Paul M Lurie's unopposed motion for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Assessor 6966 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

6970

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/23/2020: Plaintiffs' counsel is hereby awarded $20,772.65 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP to be paid by the County of Cook. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

6971

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Cardelle B. Spangler, Special Master for the Clerk of Cook County's agreed petition for payment of invoice #2 6968 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

6972

SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #2 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 07/23/2020: The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $775.00 to Cardelle Spangler, as County Clerk Special Master. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

6973

STATUS Report INTERIM REPORT OF THE SHAKMAN COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/24/2020 6974 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Fortieth Petition for Payment for IDOT (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/24/2020 6975 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Third Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/24/2020

6976

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 239 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/24/2020

6977

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 3/3/20 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Jennifer Costales, CRR, RMR, jenny.uscra@yahoo.com, (312)4355895. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 8/14/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/24/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/22/2020. (Costales, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/24/2020

6978

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 3/10/20 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Jennifer Costales, CRR, RMR, jenny.uscra@yahoo.com, (312)4355895. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 8/14/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/24/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/22/2020. (Costales, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/24/2020

6979

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 11/20/19 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Court Reporter Contact Information: Jennifer Costales, CRR, RMR, jenny.uscra@yahoo.com, (312)4355895. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 8/14/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/24/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/22/2020. (Costales, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/27/2020

6980

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Approval of the Amended List of Exempt Positions for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [AGREED] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020 6981 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 3/16/2020 before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Order Number: 38314. Court Reporter Contact Information: Amy Spee, amyofficialtranscripts@gmail.com.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 8/17/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/27/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/26/2020. (Spee, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020

6982

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: IDOT Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's fortieth petition for payment 6974 is granted. The Court orders IDOT to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $16,462.00 to Noelle Brennan and Associates, Ltd. and in the amount of $1,450.00 to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for her appointed attorney, Kristi Nelson. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020

6983

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIALMASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S FORTIETH PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 07/27/2020. Emailed notice (mw,) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020

6984

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's twenty-third petition for payment 6975 is granted. The Court orders the State of Illinois to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $3,642.50.00 to Noelle Brennan and Associates, Ltd. and in the amount of $1,975.00 to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for her appointed attorney, Kristi Nelson. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020 6985 AGREED ORDER FOR SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-THIRDPETITION FOR PAYMENT FOR

EXPANDED DUTIES Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 07/27/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020

6986

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of Fifth Amended General Order 2020-0012, the off-record status hearings (Illinois and Circuit Court Clerk) and the on-record status hearing (Recorder and County Clerk) will be held by telephone. For the the on-record status hearing, members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearings with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020

6987

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #239 6976 is granted. The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $21,526.59 to Cardelle Spangler as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020

6988

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #239 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 07/27/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/28/2020

6989

RESPONSE by Unknown Cook County Recorder of Deeds to status report 6973 (Report of Shakman Compliance Admin for the Recorder of Deeds) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Web clock, # 2 Exhibit B: Correspondence 4.20.2020, # 3 Exhibit C: Correspondence 4.28.2020)(Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/28/2020 6990 CONTEMPT of consent decree by Zachary Ferguson (Exhibit) (sxb, ) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/28/2020 6991 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/29/2020 6992 AMENDED contempt of consent decree application by Movant Zachary Ferguson (Exhibits) (sxb, ) (Entered: 07/29/2020)

07/29/2020

6993

NOTICE of Motion by Zachary Ferguson for presentment of AMENDED contempt of consent decree application 6992 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 8/5/2020 at 8:30 AM. (sxb, ) (Entered: 07/29/2020)

07/30/2020

6994

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Plaintiffs' agreed motion 6980 to approve the proposed amendments to the Exempt List is granted. The order will be posted separately. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

6995

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for fees and costs as to the State of Illinois 6991 is granted. The amounts awarded are $3,602.50 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP, and $2,638.09 in fees and costs to Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP. vvEmailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020 6996 ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 07/30/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

6997

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The pro se application for contempt 6990 6992 filed by Zachary Ferguson are terminated. The application does not cite a basis for a pro se individual to petition for contempt. The Clerk's Office shall terminate the pro se appearance of Zachary Ferguson, R. 4832, from the docket. See R. 3873 (denying Ferguson's prior motion to intervene). Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

6998

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of the conflict with another hearing that went longer than expected, the status hearing as to the Clerk of Circuit Court set for 07/30/2020 is reset to 07/31/2020 at 11:00 a.m. The Court apologizes for the short notice, but the Court starts a trial next week. If the rescheduled date and time absolutely does not work for the participants, then contact the courtroom deputy, michael_wing@ilnd.uscourts.gov, and the Court will fit the hearing into a Noon hour hearing next week. Also, the hearing will be on the record, not off the record. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record and the Probation Officer will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media

credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

6999

AGREED ORDER APPROVING AMENDED LIST OF EXEMPT POSITIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 07/30/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020 7001 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: Status hearing attended by magistrate judge. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

7002

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Off-record status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, the Special Master, and the State of Illinois counsel and entities. Progress and status reports were provided on the agenda topics. There is one pending John Doe proceeding; the objection deadline, after two extensions, is 08/18/2020. The IDOT conversion plan (filed in 12/2019) on technical positions is ongoing, with a completion goal for late Fall or Winter. Proposed legislation on the amendment to Section 4(d)(3) remains in progress and on the legislative agenda. The rollout of the Comprehensive Employment Plan is ongoing, with some initial training completed. The electronic hiring system has been piloted on non-CBA positions and a further rollout on Union positions is in the discussions stage. By 08/12/2020, OEIG shall provide, for in camera inspection and in digital format, (a) the 67 HEM advisories; and (b) the records provided by IDOT to the OEIG for the IDOT advisories. The courtroom deputy will contact IG Susan Haling to make the arrangements. The Court and the parties discussed the communication protocols going forward during the pendency of the cross-motions. The next status hearing, which will be on the record (only certain parts will be under seal if good cause supports it), is set for 09/14/2020 at 9:15 a.m. As the date approaches, the parties will receive further information on the remote means by which the status hearing will be held. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

07/30/2020

7003

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On-record status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, the Compliance Administrator, the County Clerk, and the Recorder of Deeds. Progress and status reports were provided on the agenda topics. As discussed during the hearing, real-time monitoring is authorized by the appointment order. R. 6829 at 41, Duty No. 2 ("monitor the County Clerk's application of [the personnel policy] to determine whether the policy in in fact applied in the observance"). This is a crucial time for employment

decisions because of the assumption of the Recorder's Office duties, including 79 new positions to fill. Status hearing set, which will be on the record (only certain parts will be under seal if good cause supports it), for 09/10/2020 at 9:00 a.m. As the date approaches, the parties will receive further information on the remote means by which the status hearing will be held. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

07/31/2020

7004

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On-record status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, Compliance Administrator, and representatives of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. As discussed during the hearing, it is a pressing priority to have the Full Employment Plan (which is a required step for substantial compliance) in place in full by 12/01/2020. The Plaintiffs and Compliance Administrator shall provide the draft to the Circuit Court Clerk by 08/07/2020. The Circuit Court Clerk shall provide a response by 09/11/2020. On the Exempt List, by 08/14/2020, the case participants shall finalize after conferral the Amended Exempt List. Any motion to approve the Amended Exempt list is due by 08/17/2020. If there is a dispute, then the movant shall include a proposed briefing schedule in the motion. On document production concerning employment decisions during the pandemic, the initial skeleton-crew responsive records are due by 08/07/2020, with the remainder of the records due by 08/14/2020. On the telecommuting policy, the Circuit Court Clerk's response to the proposed revisions is due today, 07/31/2020. The Plaintiffs and the Compliance Administrator shall reply by 08/14/2020. The case participants shall confer by 08/21/2020. The Circuit Court Clerk reported that the HR Chief has resigned, and the position will not be filled in the remaining months of the current Clerk's tenure. Telephonic status hearing set for 09/16/2020 at 9:00 a.m. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

08/05/2020 7005 MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for hearing regarding John Doe candidate (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/05/2020 7006 NOTICE of Motion by Brent Douglas Stratton for presentment of motion for hearing 7005 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 8/10/2020 at 08:30 AM. (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/07/2020

7007

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On IDOT's motion 7005 for hearing as to Staff Assistant Joseph Iacullo, the Court directs IDOT, OEIG, the Special Master, and Mr. Iacullo (or his counsel or representative, if any) to confer and to propose (either jointly or setting forth their respective positions) the procedure going forward, whether it be a written briefing schedule only (and if so, propose a schedule); live (whether in-court or remote) argument or testimony; some combination of both; or something else. See R. 5644, para. 9. The conferral shall take place by 08/14/2020 and the one combined filing setting forth the positions shall be filed by 08/19/2020. To track this case only (no appearance is required), a status hearing is set for 08/21/2020 at 8:30 a.m. If greater time urgency is at stake, then the interested parties may jointly contact the Court through the courtroom deputy to alter the schedule. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/10/2020

7008

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: As discussed during the Illinois status hearing on 07/30/2020, the Special Master's verbal extension request to respond to Illinois's motion 6941 to vacate is granted through 09/14/2020. The Plaintiffs' combined reply and response is due by 09/18/2020. Illinois's reply on its own motion is due by 11/09/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/11/2020 7009 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In R. 7008, the reply brief deadline for Illinois on its motion to vacate 6941 is corrected to 10/09/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

7010

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 240 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

7011

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #137 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

7012

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 18 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

7013

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #240 7010 is granted. The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $22,050.13 to Cardelle Spangler as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

7014

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #240 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 08/11/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

7015

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motion of Cook County Assessor Compliance Administrator for invoice #137 7011 is granted. Cook County shall pay, as soon as practicable, the amount of $45,896.05 to Susan G. Feibus, as of as Assessor's Compliance Administrator, for the time period of 06/29/2020 through 07/31/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

7016

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #137 Signed by the Honorable Edmond Chang on 08/11/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

7017

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motion of Clerk of the Circuit Court Compliance Administrator for fees and cost 7012 is granted. Cook County shall pay, as soon as practicable, the amount of $31,376.20 to Susan G. Feibus, as of Clerk of the Circuit Court Compliance Administrator, for the time period of 06/29/2020 through 07/31/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

7018

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS', AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 18 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 08/11/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/12/2020

7019

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 07/30/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 38912. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Copies can be ordered at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the

redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 9/2/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/14/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/10/2020. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/13/2020 7020 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Forty-First Petition for Payment for IDOT (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/13/2020 7021 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Fourth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/13/2020

7022 STATUS Report Twenty-Third Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/14/2020 7023 PETITION for Fees and Costs with Respect to the Cook County Clerk [Plaintiffs'] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/14/2020

7024

Joint Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 54.3 by Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/14/2020 7025 PETITION for Fees and Costs with Respect to the Cook County Clerk [Amended] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/17/2020 7026 NOTICE by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020 7027 OIIG ROD Report by Patrick Malone Blanchard (Blanchard, Patrick) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

7028

ORDER dated 8/14/2020 from the 7th Circuit regarding notice of appeal 6882 ; Appellate case no.: 20-1828; The following are before the court: 1. MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL, filed on July 20, 2020, by counsel for the appellant. 2. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL, filed on July 30, 2020, by counsel for the appellees, 3. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL, filed on August 6, 2020, by counsel for the appellant. IT IS ORDERED that the motion for a stay is DENIED. (ph, ) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020 7029 STATUS Report Sixteenth Report of the Assessor Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Assessor by Susan G. Feibus (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020 7030 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct the List of Exempt Positions for the Clerk of the Circuit Court (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/18/2020

7031 STATUS Report by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

7032

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Special Master's IDOT petition 7020 for fees and costs is granted in the amounts of $37,807.14 to Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., and to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for attorney Kristi Nelson in the amount of $7,700.00. The Special Master's Expanded-Duties petition 7021 for fees and costs is granted in the amounts of $15,090.00 to Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., and to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for attorney Kristi Nelson in the amount of $6,075.00. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

7033

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S FORTY-FIRST PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 8/18/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

7034

AGREED ORDER FOR SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-FOURTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT FOR EXPANDED DUTIES Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 8/18/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

7035

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the Plaintiffs' amended petition 7025 for fees and costs, which is accompanied by the Local Rule 54.3 statement 7024 , the County Clerk's objections to the requested fees and costs is due by 09/14/2020. The Plaintiffs' response (including whether particular objections were forfeited under Local Rule 54.3) is due by 10/05/2020. The County Clerk's reply is due by 10/19/2020. To track this particular petition only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a status hearing is set for 10/16/2020 at 8:30 a.m. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

7036 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The agreed motion 7030 to approve the amended exempt list for the Clerk of the Circuit Court is granted. The order will be posted to the docket

separately after obtaining an MS Word version from the parties. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

7037

AGREED ORDER APPROVING AMENDED LIST OF EXEMPT POSITIONS FOR THEOFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 08/18/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/19/2020

7038

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: To clarify, the Assessor status hearing on 08/20/2020 will be on the record and via phone conference. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 3361831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020

7039

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #241 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020

7040

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Cook County Recorder of Deeds' Compliance Administrator, Cardelle Spangler's, petition for payment of invoice #241 7039 is granted. The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $10,174.50 to Cardelle Spangler as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020

7041

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #241 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 08/19/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/20/2020

7042

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of the withdrawal of the objection by the IDOT employee, R. 7031, the schedule set in R. 7007 is vacated, as is the tracking status hearing of 08/21/2020. The motion 7005 for hearing is terminated as withdrawn. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/20/2020 7043 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Telephonic, on-record status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, Compliance

Administrator, and representatives of the Assessor's Office. Overall, the Court emphasized the need to maintain robust lines of communication, with the designated Shakman liaison having the overarching responsibility to "ensure" that the Compliance Administrator and the Director of Compliance "receive cooperation from all Assessor employees." R. 3007, Section I(E). (1.) On the Employment Plan revisions, conferrals are ongoing and the revised Employment Plan will be filed with the Court by 08/31/2020. (2.) On the Performance Evaluation Policy and its implementation, conferral shall take place by 08/28/2020. If the parties are unable to agree, then the Plaintiffs shall file a motion for appropriate relief by 09/08/2020. So far, 24 evaluations were completed (out of around 200 non-exempt employees), with the goal of training managers on the evaluations in 09/2020 and completing around 140 evaluations in the next couple of months. (3.) On the Employee Handbook, the Assessor's additional revisions will be provided by 09/11/2020, and the parties and Compliance Administrator will confer by 09/25/2020. If agreement is not reached, then the Plaintiffs shall file a motion for appropriate relief by 10/02/2020. The goal is for the annual Employee Handbook training to be accomplished in the next few months. (4.) On hiring, the sequences generally have been accomplished smoothly, with 58 positions filled since 12/2018. (5.) On enforcement of the Time and Attendance Policy, the Court urges fuller communication. If the Assessor wishes to file any motion concerning how an HR director, even as a licensed attorney, who is fulfilling HR functions can assert attorney-client privilege in that capacity, the Assessor's Office is welcome to make that filing for consideration. (6.) On the Director of Compliance reports, the goal for the Assessor to respond to the 02/20/2020 sick-time audit is around 09/14/2020. The response deadline on the 08/14/2020 performance-evaluation report and recommendation is due by 09/15/2020. The Compliance Administrator (when serving as Interim DOC) will be advancing the pending investigation as discussed during the hearing. (7.) The IG reported no Shakman-related concerns at this time. (8.) The Assessor is given leave to file a written summary report by 09/04/2020. The next status hearing is set for 10/13/2020 at 9:30 a.m. via phone. (All hearings will be on the record unless otherwise ordered.) The prehearing agenda shall be emailed to the Court by 10/07/2020; the agenda must list the names and titles of the expected participants. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to

future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court.Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/20/2020 7044 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: Magistrate judge attended telephonic status conference. Mailed notice. (jj, ) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/21/2020

7045

PETITION COUNTY CLERK COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE B. SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #3 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

7046

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the County Clerk Compliance Administrator's petition for fees, costs, and advance 7045 , if the County Clerk wishes to file a written response (it is not required, just an opportunity), it is due by 08/26/2020. The Court will act on the petition after 08/26/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/24/2020

7047

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: For the next status hearings as to Illinois, the County Clerk and Recorder, and the Circuit Court Clerk (as with the Assessor status hearing, R. 7043), the pre-hearing agenda shall be emailed to the Court at least three business days in advance of the respective status hearing. The agenda also must list the names and titles of the expected participants. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/25/2020

7048

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the request of the Recorder Compliance Administrator, a status hearing is set for 08/31/2020 at 10:30 a.m. to discuss document review and production by the Recorder. Although not directly impacting the County Clerk, the Court asks that counsel for the County Clerk also attend the hearing. Each party shall email to the courtroom deputy a list of who is expected to attend the hearing. The status hearing will be held by phone. Members of the public and media will be able to callin to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record and the Probation Officer will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions

deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/27/2020

7049

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The response deadline on the County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Third Petition for Payment 7045 is now past. The petition is granted. The Court orders Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $16,416.90 to Cardelle Spangler, as County Clerk Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020

7050

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COUNTY CLERK COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S INVOICE #3 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 08/27/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020

7051

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: At the request of the County Clerk Compliance Administrator, the Court adds the following topics to the status hearing on 08/31/2020: (1) notice to the Administrator concerning employment actions taken by the Clerk; (2) the Clerk's position on whether any contact between the Administrator and Clerk employees must be through legal counsel; and (3) the Clerk's position on whether the Administrator must provide the Clerk with the sources of information received by the Administrator. The Court has asked the Administrator to forward to the Court a copy of the memorandum of 08/21/2020 from Chief Legal Counsel to Clerk employees concerning the appointment of the Administrator. Separately but relatedly, the parties shall finish conferral on the confidentiality order referred to in the appointment order, R. 6829 at 43, and submit an agreed order to the Court for entry. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/28/2020

7052 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 08/28/2020: Regarding County Clerk. Emailed notice (mw,) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

7053

MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for recusal of Cook County Clerk Compliance Administrator (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

7054

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The County Clerk has filed a motion 7053 to recuse the Compliance Administrator. On a preliminary review of the motion, the arguments appear to be weak, with some bordering on frivolous. So the Compliance Administrator shall continue to carry out the appointment

order during the briefing on the motion and during its pendency. The status hearing of 08/31/2020 remains in place. The Compliance Administrator's response to the recusal motion is due by 09/11/2020. Because the motion refers to the Plaintiffs too, the Plaintiffs may file a Position Paper on the motion by 09/11/2020 as well. The Count Clerk's reply is due by 09/18/2020. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/31/2020

7055

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Telephonic status hearing held with representatives for the Plaintiffs, Recorder, County Clerk, and the Compliance Administrator. (1.) On the Recorder's document production related to the transfer of duties to the County Clerk, the parties and the Compliance Administrator shall promptly continue to confer on narrowing the priority of the production, with the goal of reporting enough progress by the 09/10/2020 status report so that a first substantial tranche of production will occur no later than 09/17/2020. This is unfortunate time compression, but the Court clarified the required production on 07/02/2020 and almost two months later there has been no production. (2.A.) The Court made clear that the Compliance Administrator's duties, as a part of Duty No. 2, R. 6829, Appointment Order at 41, is to real-time monitor application of the personnel policy, of course without disrupting the Office. (2.B.) There is no blanket requirement that every contact with a Clerk employee be arranged through the Clerk's legal counsel. Generally, requests for information will go through counsel (or whomever the Clerk wishes to designate), but at times, notification will be inappropriate for (1) employee reports of compliance concerns and the ensuing inquiry; and (2) if prior attempts at information gathering have not been successful (for this latter category, the Compliance Administrator will still notify counsel of the proposed communication). Unfortunately, the 08/21/2020 memorandum sets forth a rigid requirement that would thwart even the first category, and now a clarifying memorandum is needed. This could have been avoided by conferral with the Compliance Administrator. The conferral on the clarifying memorandum shall finish by 09/11/2020, and if there remains a dispute over it, then the parties and the Compliance Administrator shall file a motion for relief with the Court. (2.C.) There is no blanket requirement that the Compliance Administrator must provide the Clerk with the identity of sources of information. Nothing in the record would support the notion that the Compliance Administrator willy-nilly wasted the time and resources of the Recorder's Office in chasing down rumors, nor has done so with the Clerk. The status hearing set for 09/10/2020 as to the Recorder and County Clerk remains in place. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/01/2020)

09/02/2020

7056

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 08/31/20 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 39104. Court Reporter Contact Information: Patrick Mullen, (312) 435-5565, patrick_mullen@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

Redaction Request due 9/23/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/5/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/1/2020. (Mullen, Patrick) (Entered: 09/02/2020)

09/03/2020

7057

CERTIFIED COPY OF OPINION from the USCA for the 7th Circuit; Argued 4/15/2020; Decided 8/12/2020 in USCA case no. 19-2772; We lack jurisdiction unless a party invokes it, so this appeal is DISMISSED. (ph, ) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/03/2020

7058

CERTIFIED COPY OF USCA FINAL JUDGMENT dated 8/12/2020 regarding notice of appeal 6493 ; USCA No. 19-2772; We lack jurisdiction unless a party invokes it, so this appeal is DISMISSED, with costs. The above is in accordance with the decision of this court entered on this date. (ph, ) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/03/2020

7059 MANDATE of USCA dated 9/3/2020 regarding notice of appeal 6493 ; USCA No. 19-2772; No record to be returned. (ph, ) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/03/2020

7060

MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie for Approval of the Amended Cook County Assessor's Office's Employment Plan [AGREED] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/04/2020 7061 STATUS Report on Substantial Compliance by Cook County Assessor (Gagliardo, Joseph) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/04/2020 7062 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 08/20/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 39065, 39099. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR.

Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 9/25/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/5/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/3/2020. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/04/2020

7063

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of the agreed motion to approve the Amended Cook County Assessor's Office Employment Plan 7060 , as well as the attachments to the motion, the motion is granted. The Plan, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to R. 7060, is approved. The Court commends the parties for their efforts. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/04/2020

7064

AGREED ORDER APPROVING THE AMENDED COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE'S EMPLOYMENT PLAN Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 09/04/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/05/2020 7065 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk to withdraw motion for recusal, 7053 (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 09/05/2020)

09/07/2020

7066

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 07/31/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 38993. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 9/28/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/8/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/7/2020. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 09/07/2020)

09/08/2020

7067 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to amend/correct the Cook County Clerk's List of Exempt Positions (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/08/2020)

09/08/2020

7068

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The County Clerk's motion 7065 to withdraw the previously filed motion for recusal 7053 is granted. The recusal motion is terminated without prejudice. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 09/08/2020)

09/09/2020

7069

AGREED ORDER AMENDING THE COOK COUNTY CLERK'S EXEMPT LIST Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 9/9/2020: The agreed motion to amend the County Clerk's Exempt List 7067 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/10/2020

7070

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 242 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/10/2020

7071

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: As discussed during the 07/30/2020 Illinois status hearing, the Illinois OEIG provided HEM Advisory materials for in camera review, comprising 67 HEM Advisories and the complete underlying HEM files for four IDOT hiring reviews. On review of those materials, the Court sets forth these preliminary views: the sampling of underlying HEM files are substantial in their breadth and volume, and it seems likely that many of the other underlying files would be too. So, rather than order across-the-board production of the 63 underlying non-IDOT files at this time, the better way to proceed is for the Special Master to identify specific Advisories that reflect specific reasons to investigate further. The specific reason could arise from the circumstances described in the Advisory itself; the past employment-decision history of a particular agency, department, or division; or any other appropriate reason. This specificity will enhance the interest in disclosure, which would be relevant (if it comes to it) in deciding whether a state-law confidentiality provision (if any is held to apply) must yield to a federal subpoena or is otherwise overcome by the Supremacy Clause. If after conferral the OEIG maintains the position that it will not produce the underlying files, then the parties can brief the issue on the record (with appropriate sealing for confidential information if good cause justifies it). That is the other obstacle to ordering across-the-board production right now: the matter was discussed off the record and without sufficient substantive briefing. Rather than set any deadlines on this issue, the Court leaves it to the Special Master to proceed at an appropriate pace, given the Special Master's other duties. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/10/2020 7074 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On-record status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, the County Clerk, the Recorder

of Deeds, and the Compliance Administrator. (1.A) With regard to the Recorder, the final edits to the amendments to the 07/06/2020 Executive Order will be disclosed on 09/15/2020, with the goal of issuing them on 09/18/2020. (1.B.) The Performance Management Policy was finalized and then distributed to employees on 09/09/2020. The Discipline Policy final draft was disclosed today. (1.C.) The Director of Compliance reported that a comprehensive meeting is set for 09/14/2020 to discuss lack of enforcement of the Time and Attendance Policy, as well as HR staffing gaps. The Court invited the DOC to confer with the Administrator and to file, if appropriate, an interim report on the results of this important meeting. (1.D.) By 09/21/2020, the Recorder will be disclosing the long-awaited information on hiring sequences. (1.E.) The Recorder began to produce Recorder-assumption records for certain custodians on 09/04/2020, with additional records of five prioritized custodians to be disclosed today, 09/10/2020, and one more prioritized custodian by the end of 09/11/2020. (2.A.) With regard to the County Clerk, the Clerk shall make good-faith efforts to produce records at least 48 hours in advance of status hearings in increase their productivity. (2.B.) The Clerk disclosed a version of the employee list on 09/09/2020, and will supplement as appropriate; the organizational chart is also being drafted. (2.C.) The memorandum to clarify the 08/21/2020 memorandum was generated and disseminated promptly, on 09/02/2020. The Court appreciates the collaboration on that clarifying step. (2.D.) The Clerk anticipates disclosing all job descriptions, including for Recorder-assumption positions, by 09/18/2020. The Clerk does not anticipate short-term changes to the existing Clerk job descriptions; as the Recorder-assumption takes hold, future revisions might be warranted. (2.E.) On the Exempt List, the Clerk produced records yesterday (09/09/2020), so the Administrator will be reviewing and conferring on the production. The goal is to report substantial progress on this responsibility. The parties will continue to work promptly together in order to propose approval of time-urgent positions. (2.F.) On temporary election workers, the parties will be conferring, along with the Administrator, on what verbal direction has been given to hiring decision-makers. (2.G.) On other hiring, the Clerk's HR Director reported on the need for some overhaul and gap-filling in the policy manual. Status hearing set for 10/15/2020 at 9:00 a.m. for both the County Clerk and the Recorder. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record and the Probation Officer will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings.

Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. The parties shall email an agenda three business days in advance of the status hearing, and the agenda shall list the names and titles of the expected participants. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

7072

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 19 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

7073

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #138 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

7075

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Recorder Administrator's unopposed motion 7070 for payment of fees and costs is granted. The Court orders Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $12,673.70 to Cardelle Spangler, as Recorder Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

7076

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #242 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 09/11/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

7077

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Circuit Court Clerk Administrator's unopposed motion 7072 for payment of fees and costs is granted. The Court orders Cook County to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $25,096.51 to Susan G. Feibus, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

7078

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS', AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 19 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 09/11/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

7079 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Assessor Administrator's unopposed motion 7073 for payment of fees and costs is granted. The Court orders Cook County to submit

payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $54,771.98 to Susan G. Feibus, as Assessor Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

7080

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #138 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 09/11/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/14/2020 7081 RESPONSE by Unknown Cook County Clerk to petition 7025 for Fees (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020

7082

RESPONSE by Special Master Noelle C Brennan to motion to vacate 6941 and Updated Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit c, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020

7084

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On-record status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, State of Illinois, Office of the Executive Inspector General, and the Special Master. (1.) There are no current IDOT John Doe proceedings, but the parties, IDOT, and the Special Master will be discussing a potential modification of the procedure to insert time limits for more prompt action. (2.) On the conversion of IDOT "technical" jobs to those covered by the Personnel Code (and thus CMS), a first set is ready for approval by the Civil Service Commission next month, but in light of the time lag in implementing the conversion, IDOT and CMS memorialized an agreement on 08/11/2020 for CMS to start oversight immediately. Illinois shall provide a copy of the 08/11/2020 agreement to the Plaintiffs (the Special Master has a copy). The parties and the Special Master shall confer to confirm the scope of the agreement. (3.) On the IDOT technical jobs that remain technical, the parties and the Special Master shall confer on whether some form of CMS oversight ought to be implemented, and before the next status hearing, either file the issue will be presented via a motion or a concrete written proposal. It would be relevant to know whether any of the employment-action concerns arose out of the genuinely technical job positions. (4.) On minimum required qualifications, training on the MRQs begins on 09/18/2020, with the Special Master's participation. (5.) On so-called temporary assignments, the parties shall confer and propose a plan for handling current temporary assignments and their impact on future employment actions. (6.) The Comprehensive Employment Plan training will start on 09/22/2020 and continue through mid-11/2020. Illinois shall continue to provide the Special Master with training

materials so that she may comment on them before the sessions. (7.) On the electronic hiring system, additional agencies have been added to the system, but engagement with the Union (which covers the vast majority of employees) is ongoing. Sustained and prompt engagement is important in accomplishing this goal. (8.) On Personal Service Contracts, this employment mechanism is a topic in the CEP training. The tone and content of the training must promote close attention to adhering to the policy by supervisors. (9.) The Court encouraged the parties and the Special Master to adhere to the past level of communication during the pendency of the motions to terminate and to clarify. (10.) The Court held an under-seal, but on-the-record session to discuss the concerns of the OEIG on confidentiality. The Special Master shall serve the OEIG with the unredacted version of the combined response and status, and the OEIG shall confer with the Special Master, by 09/18/2020, about any request to maintain the redactions. By 09/22/2020, the OEIG shall file a position paper on whether redactions should remain in place; the position paper may be filed under seal if necessary. The Special Master's response is due by 09/29/2020 and the OEIG's reply is due by 10/05/2020. In the meantime, the parties will receive the redacted version so that the Plaintiffs can refer to the filing as needed in the upcoming response to the motion to terminate. If warranted, a later supplement can be filed limited to the redacted information. Telephone status hearing set for 11/10/2020 at 9:15 a.m. The parties and the Special Master shall email an agenda three business days in advance, including the list of participants and their titles. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

09/15/2020

7083

RESPONSE by Special Master Noelle C Brennan to motion to vacate 6941 and Updated Report - Redacted (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

09/15/2020 7085 STATUS Report Initial Report of the Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of Cook County by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

09/16/2020

7091

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On-record status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, representatives of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and the Compliance Administrator and her counsel. (1.) On the Full New Employment Plan, which is the highest priority step to accomplish by 11/30/2020, the Court Clerk provided a revised draft on 09/11/2020, and the parties shall confer by 09/25/2020. The Court expressed its views on the need for promotions, transfers, and other employment decisions to be covered by the Plan, of course within the framework of the CBA. See Am. Supp. Relief Order, Section II(C). By 10/02/2020, Plaintiffs and the Compliance Administrator shall provide proposed revisions back to the Court Clerk. By 10/16/2020, the Court Clerk shall respond with comments and revisions. The final conferral shall take place by 10/23/2020. Under the Impasse Resolution provision, see id. at Section II(F), the Compliance Administrator shall present any impasse to the Court by 11/06/2020. The Plaintiffs and the Court Clerk shall respond by 11/13/2020. The Compliance Administrator's reply is due by 11/20/2020. The Court shall issue a decision before 11/30/2020. (2.) On the Exempt List, two positions that were added conditionally to the most recent amended list will be desk audited. The Court learned about and discussed PID numbers, and concluded that the Court Clerk shall list the PID numbers on the Exempt List. If more flexibility is needed, then of course the Court Clerk may raise the issue with the Plaintiffs and the Compliance Administrator, and ultimately to the Court. The addition of the PID number shall be accomplished by 10/16/2020. (3.) Exempt and non-exempt hiring sequences were discussed; the parties agree that the Deputy General Counsel offeree meets minimal qualification requirements. The Director of Compliance should be consulted as well on these matters. (4.) On the Telecommuting Policy, the text has been finalized but implementation is now the key issue. The Court Clerk will provide comments on the proposed implementing forms by 09/21/2020. Conferral on the comments shall take place by 10/02/2020. The goal is to have training on the Policy no later than mid-11/2020, and to fully implement the Policy by 11/30/2020. In the meantime, the County Clerk reports that the subject is being negotiated with the Union as well; the Compliance Administrator should be kept apprised so that the result of the bargaining does not undermine the requirements of the consent decree and the relief orders. (5.) On the BOT conversion of the Time and Attendance system, the Court Clerk is re-engaging with BOT to advance the conversion. The Compliance Administrator will be invited to take part in the meetings in an effort to promote progress.

The goal is that, by the next status hearing, the additional reengagement meeting will have taken place or at the very least be scheduled. (6.) Document production is overall satisfactory and responsive. (7.) The Special Master, all parties, and the Court commended Ms. Gloria Legette for her prodigious work ethic and her exceptional devotion to these wide-ranging issues. Telephonic status hearing set for 11/19/2020 at 9:00 a.m. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/17/2020

7086

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Counsel for the Plaintiffs emailed the courtroom deputy, with AAG Brent Stratton copied, to request an extension of the Plaintiffs' response brief on the motion to vacate 6941 . The response is extended from 09/18/2020 to 09/25/2020. The reply for Illinois is extended from 10/09/2020 to 10/16/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

7088

COUNTY CLERK COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #4 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/18/2020

7089

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: With regard to the Special Master's response to Illinois's motion to terminate, after OEIG redaction review, the parties have separately received a lessredacted version of the public filing, but one redaction remains in the version that the parties have received. The Court has authorized the redaction to remain in place because it relates to an ongoing investigation and knowledge of the particular details is not necessary for the parties to adequately respond to the point advanced by the Special Master. When deliberating over the underlying motion, the Court will consider again whether disclosure to the parties is required, though that is unlikely. The briefing schedule on potential redactions is vacated. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020 7090 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 243 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020

7092

SEALED RESPONSE by Ricardo Meza to MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to vacate May 5, 1972 consent decree 6941 REDACTED VERSION OF R. 7082 FOR PARTIES POST-OEIG REDACTION REVIEW (MacDonald, Francis) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020

7093 NOTICE by Ricardo Meza re sealed response, 7092 REDACTED VERSION OF R. 7082 FOR PARTIES POST-OEIG REDACTION REVIEW (MacDonald, Francis) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/21/2020

7094

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Fourth Petition for Payment 7088 is granted. The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $26,667.22 to Cardelle Spangler, as County Clerk Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

7095 COUNTY CLERK COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #4 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 09/21/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

7096

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motion 7090 of the Recorder Compliance Administrator is granted, and Cook County shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $8,424.94 to Cardelle Spangler, as Recorder Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

7097

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #243 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 9/21/2020: Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020 7098 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie to amend/correct Cook County Assessor's Exempt List (Agreed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020 7099 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Assessor's exempt list 7098 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

7100

AGREED ORDER AMENDING THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE EXEMPT LIST Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 09/21/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/22/2020

7101

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 09/10/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 39154. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 10/13/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/23/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/21/2020. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/25/2020

7102

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed request of the Plaintiffs' counsel, transmitted via email to the courtroom deputy and all relevant counsel, is granted: the Plaintiffs' combined filing (on the motion for clarification, R. 6789, and on the Illinois motion to vacate, R. 6946) may consume 45 pages. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020 7103 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to File Document Under Seal [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

7104

REPLY by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman in Support of Motion to Clarify Special Master's Responsibility and Response to Governor's Motion to Terminate Special Master's Appointment and Motion to Terminate The May 5, 1972 Decree (Combined) [REDACTED VERSION; MOTION TO FILE UNREDACTED VERSION UNDER SEAL PENDING] 7103 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/28/2020

7105

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion 7103 to file an unredacted version of the reply under seal is granted provisionally; the Court will review the propriety of sealing when considering the underlying motions. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/28/2020)

09/28/2020

7106

SEALED REPLY by Michael L Shakman to response in opposition to motion, 6947 , MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to vacate memorandum in support of motion to vacate consent decree 6946 , MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Clarification Regarding, or, in the Alternative, to Expand the Scope of the Special Master's Responsibilities [REDACTED VERSION; MOTION TO FILE

UNREDACTED VERSION UNDER SEAL PENDING] 6789 [UNREDACTED VERSION OF PLAINTIFFS' COMBINED REPLY] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 09/28/2020)

10/01/2020 7107 ENTERED IN ERROR (Mullen, Patrick) Modified on 10/1/2020 (tg, ). (Entered: 10/01/2020)

10/01/2020 7108 NOTICE of Correction regarding 7107 (tg, ) (Entered: 10/01/2020)

10/03/2020

7109

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 09/16/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 39227. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 10/26/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/3/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/1/2021. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 10/03/2020)

10/05/2020 7110 REPLY by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman in Support of Amended Plaintiffs' Petition for Fees and Costs with Respect to the Cook County Clerk (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/05/2020)

10/06/2020 7111 RESPONSE by Unknown Cook County Clerk to status report 7085 Initial Report of the Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of Cook County (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/06/2020)

10/07/2020

7112

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Counsel for Plaintiff emailed the courtroom deputy, with the Special Master and State of Illinois participants copied, to report the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has set oral arguments on the County Clerk's appeal for the same date and time. Telephonic status hearing on the State of Illinois matter set for 11/10/2020 is reset to 11/12/2020 at 9:30 a.m. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/07/2020)

10/08/2020

7113

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 244 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

7114

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #139 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

7115

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 20 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020 7116 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk to amend/correct the Cook County Clerk's List of Exempt Positions (Agreed) (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

7117 MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk to amend/correct the Cook County Clerk's List of Exempt Positions (Agreed CORRECTED) (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/09/2020

7118

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The corrected motion 7117 to amend the County Clerk Exempt List is granted. The prior motion 7116 is terminated as superseded. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020 7119 AGREED ORDER AMENDING THE COOK COUNTY CLERK'S EXEMPT LIST Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/09/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

7120

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed motion 7113 for fees payable to the Recorder Compliance Administrator is granted. Cook County shall submit payment of $13,172.52 to Cardelle Spangler, as Recorder Compliance Administrator, as soon as practicable. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

7121

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #244 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/09/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

7122

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed motion 7114 for fees payable to the Assessor Compliance Administrator is granted. Cook County shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $44,245.19 to Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

7123

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #139 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/09/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

7124

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed motion 7115 for fees payable to the Circuit Court Clerk Compliance Administrator is granted. Cook County shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $29,245.81 to Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

7125

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTYCOMPLIANCE ADMINISTATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS',AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 20 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/9/2020: Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/13/2020

7126

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Telephonic, on-record status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, Compliance Administrator, and representatives of the Assessor's Office. The Assessor's Office chose the Chief Deputy Assessor to serve as Shakman Liaison, and overall the lines of communication have improved. (1.) The Performance Evaluation Policy has been completed and annual performance evaluations managers are ongoing, with 75 already completed. The goal is to finish the entire Office by the end of 01/2021. The Director of Compliance reported that, overall, the thoroughness of the evaluations seems to be substantially better than the 90/180-day evaluations, although some operations units are better than others so far. The Office intends to incorporate (with redactions) exemplar evaluations for the upcoming training. (2.) The Employee Handbook is nearing completion, with the final exchange of comments likely to happen this week. The Office plans to hold training on the Handbook from 10/27/2020 to 10/29/2020, with additional supervisor training on 11/02/2020. The Handbook forms will be revised to reflect the Handbook changes. The Plaintiffs and Compliance Administrator will provide comments on 10/16/2020. The Office will respond by 10/20/2020. Any final conferral will take place by 10/22/2020. (3.) The hiring sequences for Exempt, Actively Recruited, and Non-Exempt are proceeding as well as practicable, with the Director of Compliance providing important feedback on interviews and follow-up questions. (4.) The Compliance Administrator continues to provide feedback on Shakman-policy implementation and the Office is more responsive in exchanges of communication. (5.) The Office reported that, as of 08/2020 forward, it has been enforcing the Time and Attendance Policy through the

regular disciplinary process. The Director of Compliance issued a written reminder, as did others. The Telecommuting Policy is now in effect and being followed. (6.) On the back to work plan, additional details were provided to the Compliance Administrator and the Director of Compliance, and is nearing the completion of what is practicable in terms of providing information. If a future similar situation arises (though hopefully never), then the Office will keep the lines of communication more open. (7.) The Compliance Administrator will be advancing the Executive Assistant follow-up investigation before the next status hearing. (8.) Overall, the Director of Compliance reported an improvement in communication and receptiveness, with some remaining exceptions, but senior leadership has been very helpful in setting the tone. The Director of Compliance also explained the ongoing communication on the sick-time audit, which did uncover areas of potential HR-related concerns. But it appears that partisan decision-making is not at issue, at least based on the current facts. The Court thanks the Director for undertaking this examination. (9.) The response to the Director of Compliance report on the performance evaluation was extended to 10/15/2020. (10.) The OIG reported that there is one inquiry pending, encompassing a handful of employment actions. The OIG should know in around 3045 days whether there is a concern over political discrimination. (11.) The Court appreciates the Assessor status report, R. 7061, which sets forth the history that was inherited by the current Assessor and the significant reasons for optimism. The next status hearing is set for 12/17/2020 at 9:15 a.m. via phone. The pre-hearing agenda shall be emailed to the courtroom deputy, michael_wing@ilnd.uscourts.gov, by 12/10/2020; the agenda must list the names and titles of the expected participants. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/14/2020)

10/15/2020

7127

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: With regard to the County Clerk's Office, specifically on the Plaintiffs' amended petition 7025 for fees and costs, the tracking status hearing for this petition is reset from 10/16/2020 to 10/30/2020 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/15/2020)

10/15/2020

7128

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Telephonic, on-record status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, the County Clerk, the Recorder, and the Compliance Administrator. (1.) The Recorder produced additional documents on the transition to the County Clerk. This issue had diminished in priority, but unfortunately there is some renewed concern about uneven discipline because the Clerk plans on asking all applicants for Recorder-related positions whether they have been disciplined, which would include asking former Recorder employees. So the imposition, or even the lack of imposition, of discipline on political-affiliation grounds arises again as a concern. The Compliance Administrator and the Plaintiffs will try to focus on specific instances if possible. Having said that, the Court recognizes the volume of work necessary so that the 12/07/2020 assumption of duties progresses smoothly, so the focus still ought to be on the personnel policy of the Clerk as related to hiring for Recorder-related duties. (2.) On that subject, the Clerk is prioritizing job descriptions of non-exempt, Recorded-related positions, and drafted a Hiring Plan for these positions with the participation of the Compliance Administrator and her counsel. Training has begun within the Clerk's Office on the Recorder-related hiring process. On the online description of the reason for the delay in postings, a reasonable reader could interpret an element of blame on the Court and the Compliance Administrator; greater caution and communication are warranted before pronouncements of that sort. The broader organizational chart and the Exempt List are being drafted, but on a lower priority than the assumption of duties. (3.) The Clerk reported on the hiring for election-related positions, which is a substantial undertaking. The parties and Compliance Administrator shall confer on whether there is an expeditious way to provide notice of hiring, but with the recognition that the conduct of the elections has the first priority. Having said that, after the election, it is expected that the Clerk would draft a written election-season hiring policy going forward to avoid political-hiring concerns (except of course for those positions that partisan affiliation is appropriate). (4.) The Clerk reported on Exempt hiring for positions that were added to the Exempt List. The Court noted that the sole reason for the Compliance Administrator to inquire about the minimum qualifications is simply as a check on the larger process for non-exempt hiring. On the proposed Recorder-related Exempt List positions, the Compliance Administrator shall provide rolling feedback and complete the feedback by 10/23/2020. To the extent agreed-on by the parties, the Court grants immediate interim approval to add agreed-on positions to the Exempt List without a formal court order. The broader Exempt List feedback is due by 11/06/2020. (5.) On the Policy Manual revisions, the Clerk and the Compliance Administrator previously agreed that the Administrator will take the primary editing role, and the Clerk provided an MS Word

copy on 10/05/2020. As discussed during the hearing, the goal now is to complete the revisions by early 01/2021. The Compliance Administrator (and the Plaintiffs, with a 24-hour turn-around after receipt from the Compliance Administrator) will provide drafts on a rolling basis, with a completion deadline of all section drafts by 12/11/2020. (6.) The OIIG reported that it very recently began an investigation of an allegation of political employment action as to the Clerk's Office. By the next status hearing, the OIIG hopes to have an estimated timeline for the completion of the investigation. (7.) On the scope of monitoring, the Court discussed the parameters of communication by monitors who observe (or listen-in on) employment-related sessions, and the Clerk and the Compliance Administrator shall discuss whether clarifying questions should be addressed in an entirely separate conversation, or simply at the end of sessions after other employees have departed. Also, as previously discussed, R. 7055, the Compliance Administrator generally will speak with current employees through counsel or the Clerk's senior staff (with exceptions set forth in R. 7055). For former employees, however, the Compliance Administrator has substantial leeway in gathering information, though there will be instances when it would be better if the Clerk facilitated and participated in the communication. (8.) The Recorder completed and issued the edits to (a) the 07/06/2020 executive order; (b) the performance policy; and (c) the discipline policy. (9.) The Director of Compliance reported ongoing concerns with the HR staffing gaps, recognizing the difficulty in management of the final months and weeks of the Recorder's Office. As noted earlier in this entry, there is a renewed concern over potentially inconsistent discipline now that the Clerk will be asking applicants about discipline. (10.) The OIIG reported that the two remaining investigations as to the Recorder's Office do not involve political discrimination. (11.) With the assumption of duties by the Clerk on 12/07/2020, the monitoring of the Recorder shall formally end and the Compliance Administrator shall submit a final report after that date. With regard to the Clerk, the next status hearing is set for 12/21/2020 at 9:15 a.m. via phone. The pre-hearing agenda shall be emailed to the courtroom deputy, michael_wing@ilnd.uscourts.gov, by 12/16/2020; the agenda must list the names and titles of the expected participants. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other

sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (eec) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

10/16/2020 7129 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Forty-Second Petition for Payment for IDOT (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

10/16/2020 7130 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Fifth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

10/16/2020

7131

MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for leave to file oversized reply brief instanter (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A reply brief (proposed), # 2 Exhibit Ex. 1 to reply brief, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 2 to reply brief, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 3 to reply brief, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 4 to reply brief, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 5 to reply brief, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 6 to reply brief, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 7 to reply brief, # 9 Exhibit Ex. 8 to reply brief, # 10 Exhibit Ex. 9 to reply brief, # 11 Exhibit Ex. 10 to reply brief)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

10/19/2020

7132

COUNTY CLERK COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 5 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/19/2020

7133

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Illinois Special Master's petition 7129 for fees covering 07/01/2020 through 07/31/2020 is granted. The Illinois Department of Transportation shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amounts of $17,871.56 to Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., as Special Master; and to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for appointed attorney Kristi Nelson in the amount of $4,550.00. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/19/2020

7134

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S FORTY-SECOND PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/19/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/19/2020

7135

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Illinois Special Master's petition 7130 for fees covering 07/01/2020 through 07/31/2020 for expanded duties is granted. Illinois shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amounts of $13,275.00 to Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., as Special Master; and to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for appointed attorney Kristi Nelson in the amount of $10,850.00. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/19/2020

7136

AGREED ORDER FOR SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-FIFTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT FOR EXPANDED DUTIES Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/19/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/19/2020 7137 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Illinois's motion 7131 to file oversized reply brief instanter is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/19/2020

7138 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/19/2020 7139 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/19/2020

7140

REPLY by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to Response, 7083 , reply, 7104 Combined reply in support of motion to vacate consent decree and vacate orders appointing special master (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 4, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 5, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 6, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 7, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 8, # 9 Exhibit Ex. 9, # 10 Exhibit Ex. 10)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/19/2020 7141 REPLY by Unknown Cook County Clerk to petition 7025 in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Petition for Fees (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/20/2020

7142

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Counsel for State of Illinois emailed the courtroom Deputy, with opposing counsel copied, to request continuing the 11/12/2020 at 9:30 a.m. telephone status hearing to 10:00 a.m. on the same date. Counsel's request is granted without objection. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/20/2020)

10/21/2020 7143 STATUS Report Fifth Report to the Court by Susan G. Feibus (Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020 7144 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Forty-Third Petition for Payment for IDOT (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020 7145 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Sixth Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020 7146 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to IDOT [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/22/2020

7147

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 245 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/22/2020)

10/23/2020

7148

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion 7138 for fees and costs as to the Recorder is granted in the amount of $19,132.26 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP and $900.00 in fees and costs to Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion 7139 for fees and costs as to the Court Clerk is granted in the amount of $17,099.00 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP and $212.50 in fees and costs to Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion 7146 for fees and costs as to IDOT is granted in the mount of $10,304.80 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP, and $746.50 in fees and costs to Miller Shakman Levin & Feldman LLP. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

7149

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

7150

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

7151 ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

7152

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Special Master's motion 7144 for fees and costs as to IDOT is granted in the amounts of $19,159.56 to Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., and to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for appointed attorney Kristi Nelson in the amount of $7,175.00. The Special Master's motion 7145 for fees and costs as to expanded duties is granted in the amounts of $19,037.50 to Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., and to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for appointed attorney, Kristi Nelson, in the amount of $5,725.00. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

7153

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S FORTY-THIRD PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

7154

AGREED ORDER FOR SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-SIXTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT FOR EXPANDED DUTIES Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

7155

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Recorder Compliance Administrato's motion 7147 for fees and costs is granted in the amount of $11,279.42 to Cardelle Spangler, as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

7156

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #245 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/23/2020. Emailed notice(mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

7157

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Agreed Petition for Payment of invoice #5 7132 is granted. The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $41,168.66 to Cardelle Spangler, as County Clerk Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020 7158 COUNTY CLERK COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #5 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

7159

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10/15/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 39369. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 11/13/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/23/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/21/2021. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/26/2020 7160 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for leave to file Sur-Reply Regarding Governor's Reply (Dkt. 7140) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Sur-Reply)(Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 10/26/2020)

10/28/2020

7161

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the Plaintiffs' amended petition 7025 for fees and costs as to the County Clerk's Office, the tracking status hearing for this petition is reset from 10/30/2020 to 12/18/2020 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/28/2020 7162 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie to Amend the Cook County Assessor's Exempt List [Agreed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/28/2020

7163 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Agreed motion to amend the Cook County Assessor's exempt list 7162 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/28/2020

7164

AGREED ORDER AMENDING THE COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE EXEMPT LIST Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 10/28/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/29/2020

7165

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Plaintiffs' opposed motion 7160 to file sur-reply on the pending Illinois motion is granted. The Plaintiffs shall file the sur-reply on the docket as a separate docket entry. On the Court's own initiative, the status hearing of 11/12/2020 is reset to 12/01/2020 at 9:30 a.m. If that poses a scheduling conflict, then the parties may contact the courtroom deputy. The joint agenda and list of participants is due by 11/24/2020. Members of the public and media will be able to call in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/29/2020)

10/29/2020 7166 SUR-REPLY by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to reply, 7140 (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 10/29/2020)

10/29/2020 7167 MOTION by Special Master Noelle C Brennan to enforce Subpoena (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 10/29/2020)

10/30/2020

7168

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 10/13/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 39356. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 11/20/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/30/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/28/2021. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 10/30/2020)

10/30/2020

7169

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Counsel for the OEIG emailed the courtroom deputy, with the Special Master copied, to report that the parties have agreed on a briefing schedule on the motion to enforce subpoena 7167 . The OEIG's response is due by 11/20/2020. The Special Master's reply is due by 11/27/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 10/30/2020)

10/30/2020

7170

REPLY by Court Monitor Cardelle Spangler to Response 7111 County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Reply to Clerk's Response to Compliance Administrator's Initial Report to Court (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 10/30/2020)

11/09/2020 7171 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie for attorney fees with Respect to the Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

11/09/2020

7172

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #140 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

11/09/2020

7173

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 21 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

11/09/2020 7174 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR

PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 246 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

11/11/2020

7175

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees with respect to the Assessor 7171 is granted. Plaintiffs' counsel is hereby awarded $27,340.40 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP to be paid by the County of Cook. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/11/2020)

11/11/2020

7176

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 11/11/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/11/2020)

11/11/2020

7177

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed petition 7172 for fees payable to the Assessor Compliance Administrator is granted. Cook County shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $51,262.75 to Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/11/2020)

11/11/2020

7178

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #140 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 11/11/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/11/2020)

11/11/2020

7179

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed motion 7173 for fees payable to the Circuit Court Clerk Compliance Administrator is granted. Cook County shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $32,420.52 to Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/11/2020)

11/11/2020

7180

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS', AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 21 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 11/11/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/11/2020)

11/11/2020

7181

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Recorder Compliance Administrator's motion 7174 for fees and costs is granted in the amount of $6,247.69 to Cardelle Spangler, as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/11/2020)

11/11/2020 7182 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER

FOR INVOICE #246 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 11/11/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/11/2020)

11/12/2020

7183 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with respect to the Governor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/12/2020)

11/13/2020

7184

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for reasonable fees and costs as to the State of Illinois 7183 is granted on the condition stated in the motion. Fees and costs are awarded as follows: $94,531.51 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP; and $63,745.25 in fees and costs to Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2020)

11/13/2020

7185 ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 11/13/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2020)

11/16/2020 7186 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Approval of the Amended List of Exempt Positions for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County [AGREED] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/16/2020

7187

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Agreed motion for approval of the amended list of exempt positions for the Clerk of the Circuit Court 7186 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/16/2020

7188

AGREED ORDER APPROVING AMENDED LIST OF EXEMPT POSITIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 11/16/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/16/2020

7189

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 247 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/18/2020

7190

COUNTY CLERK COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #6 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 11/18/2020)

11/19/2020 7191 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the motion to enforce subpoena 7167 , the Special Master requested, via an email copying all pertinent case participants, a seven-day extension

on the reply. The unopposed request is granted: the reply now is due by 12/04/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/19/2020)

11/19/2020

7192

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Telephonic status hearing held with representatives of the Plaintiffs, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, and the Compliance Administrator. (1.) The parties reported that the full Employment Plan and Exhibits are 95% agreed-on. The Plaintiffs shall file the (hopefully agreed) motion for entry of the Plan by 11/24/2020. If the Plan is not 100% agreed-on, then the motion shall set forth areas of disagreement. The Court will decide the motion by 11/30/2020, before the transition to the next Clerk administration. The Court commended the parties and the Compliance Administrator on this significant accomplishment, which took enormous effort. (2.) The Clerk's Office reported on hiring sequences. In sum, the non-exempt IT positions will be re-posted under the anticipated new Employment Plan; the entry-level Union clerk positions were filled (with one subsequent resignation) and those sequences went smoothly from the validated eligibility list. The Plaintiffs reported that the new Clerk would like to add four new Exempt positions and discussions have begun. If the parties agree on them, then the Court grants pre-approval to add those positions to the Amended Exempt List, even before formal filing of a motion and entry of an order. (3.) The Telecommuting Policy was finalized and training is nearly complete, and there are deadlines in place for absent employees to view the training. This was a substantial undertaking, and the Court noted its appreciation for finishing it. (4.) On Time and Attendance, the County Bureau of Technology made some enhancements, but access was inadvertently problematic, so the parties will convene a meeting with BOT after the transition. The goal is to convene a meeting with BOT before the next status hearing to reboot this effort. (5.) The Compliance Administrator reported that document production and notice have been satisfactory; document requests have been limited in light of the other work and the transition. (6.) The Clerk has been meeting with the incoming administration, and Shakman will be discussed as part of the General Counsel agenda. The Plaintiffs and the Compliance Administrator expressed optimism that at least one incoming counsel already will be familiar with Shakman. The Court requested that the incoming administration be notified of the need to appoint someone on the leadership team to the serve as Shakman Liaison. (7.) The case participants expressed their appreciation for each other and for the recent and extensive compliance efforts of the Clerk's Office leadership, including Clerk Brown, Acting General Counsel Gloria Legette, and Director of Compliance Byron Wardlaw. The Court also congratulated the outgoing leadership for their commitment to moving toward substantial compliance, as most evidenced by the anticipated

Employment Plan, which will be completed in the midst of a pandemic and transition. The next telephonic status hearing is set for 01/25/2021 at 9:30 a.m. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 3361831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/19/2020)

11/20/2020 7193 RESPONSE by Ricardo Mezain Opposition to MOTION by Special Master Noelle C Brennan to enforce Subpoena 7167 (MacDonald, Francis) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11/20/2020

7194

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Recorder Compliance Administrator's motion 7189 for fees and costs is granted in the amount of $5,127.60 to Cardelle Spangler, as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11/20/2020

7195

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #247 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 11/20/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11/20/2020

7196

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Agreed Petition for Payment of invoice #5 7190 is granted. The Court orders Cook County, to submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $63,145.86 to Cardelle Spangler, as County Clerk Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11/20/2020 7197 COUNTY CLERK COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #6 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 11/20/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11/23/2020 7198 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Governor of Illinois [Amended Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/23/2020)

11/23/2020

7199 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Plaintiffs' amended unopposed motion for reasonable fees and costs as to the State of Illinois 7198 is granted on the condition stated in the

motion. Fees and costs are awarded as follows: $94,531.51 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP; and $63,479.00 in fees and costs to Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/23/2020)

11/23/2020 7200 REVISED ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 11/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/23/2020)

11/23/2020

7201 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to substitute party the Cook County Clerk for the Recorder of Deeds (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/23/2020)

11/24/2020

7202

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the Plaintiffs' motion 7201 to substitute the County Clerk for the Recorder of Deeds, the response of the County Clerk is due by 12/08/2020. The Plaintiffs' reply is due by 12/15/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

11/24/2020

7203

MOTION by Special Master Noelle C Brennan to amend/correct order 5644 Joint Motion to Amend Order For Creating A Review Process For Applications Of Former Staff Assistants For Positions At IDOT (Nelson, Kristi) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

11/24/2020

7204

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for Approval of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Employment Plan [AGREED] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Employment Plan, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit D, # 4 Exhibit F, # 5 Exhibit G, # 6 Exhibit H, # 7 Exhibit I, # 8 Exhibit J, # 9 Exhibit K, # 10 Exhibit L, # 11 Exhibit M, # 12 Exhibit N, # 13 Exhibit O, # 14 Exhibit P, # 15 Exhibit Q, # 16 Exhibit R)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

11/25/2020

7205

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Agreed motion for approval of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's Employment Plan 7204 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/25/2020)

11/25/2020

7206

AGREED ORDER APPROVING THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY'S EMPLOYMENT PLAN Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 11/25/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/25/2020)

11/25/2020

7207

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of the joint Plaintiffs, Illinois, and Special Master motion to add certain interim deadlines to the IDOT review process, the motion 7203 is granted. It is sensible to insert these deadlines to ensure expeditious and deliberative review. The parties shall email an MS Word version

of the proposed order to the Proposed Order email account. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/25/2020)

11/27/2020

7208 STATUS Report Special Master's Report on CMS Oversight by Noelle C Brennan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 11/27/2020)

11/30/2020

7209

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the Court's own initiative, the status hearing as to Illinois is reset from 12/01/2020 to 12/11/2020 at 9:15 a.m., again as a phone hearing. If that poses a scheduling conflict for any of the case participants, they may contact the courtroom deputy to confer on another date or time. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

11/30/2020

7210

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Special Master Noelle C. Brennan emailed the courtroom deputy, with relevant counsel copied, to request resetting the 12/11/2020 status hearing to 8:00 a.m. on the same date, 12/11/2020. After consultation between the courtroom deputy and counsel, the status hearing is reset to 12/11/2020 at 8:00 a.m. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

12/02/2020

7211

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER'S PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE # 248 by Cardelle Spangler (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/02/2020)

12/04/2020 7212 MOTION by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman for leave to file a Response to OEIG's Opposition to the Special Master's Subpoena (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)

12/04/2020 7213 REPLY by Special Master Noelle C Brennan to motion to enforce 7167 OEIG Subpoena (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/04/2020)

12/04/2020

7214

RESPONSE by Ricardo Mezain Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman for leave to file a Response to OEIG's Opposition to the Special Master's Subpoena 7212 (MacDonald, Francis) (Entered: 12/04/2020)

12/07/2020

7215

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Recorder Compliance Administrator's petition 7211 for fees and costs of invoice #248 is granted in the amount of $5,818.23 to Cardelle Spangler, as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/07/2020)

12/07/2020

7216

COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #248 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/07/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/07/2020)

12/07/2020

7217

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the Plaintiffs' motion 7212 to file a response to the OEIG's response to the Special Master's motion to enforce subpoena 7167 , although the motion (and proposed response) could have been filed earlier, in candor the Court has not yet intensely scrutinized the filings and a fuller presentation will probably aid deliberation. The motion is granted. The Plaintiffs shall file the response on the docket as a separate entry. The OEIG, as requested, may file a reply to the Plaintiffs' response by 12/21/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/07/2020)

12/07/2020

7218 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to OEIG's Opposition to the Special Master's Subpoena (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/07/2020)

12/07/2020

7219

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for leave to file Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and in Opposition to the Governor's Motions to Vacate (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/07/2020)

12/08/2020

7220

RESPONSE by Cook County Clerkin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to substitute party the Cook County Clerk for the Recorder of Deeds 7201 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Final Recommended Implementation Plan for the Assumption of

Duties of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by the Cook County Clerk)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 12/08/2020)

12/09/2020

7221

MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for leave to file response regarding Special Master's subpoena to OEIG (uncontested) (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/09/2020

7222

AMENDED ORDER FOR CREATING A REVIEW PROCESS FOR APPLICATIONS OF FORMER STAFF ASSISTANTS FOR POSITIONS AT IDOT Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/09/2020.Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/09/2020

7223

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 11/19/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 39625. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 12/30/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/11/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/9/2021. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/10/2020

7224

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed motion 7221 by Illinois to file a response to the Special Master's motion to enforce subpoena is granted. The response is due by 12/14/2020. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 12/10/2020)

12/11/2020

7225

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Recorder Compliance Administrator's motion 7216 for fees and costs is granted in the amount of $5,818.23 to Cardelle Spangler, as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/11/2020)

12/11/2020

7226

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Minute entry 7225 is hereby ordered vacated because Compliance Administrator's motion for fees and costs was already granted in R. 7216. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/11/2020)

12/11/2020 7230 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Telephone status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, State of Illinois, Office of the

Executive Inspector General, and the Special Master. (1.) On IDOT John Doe proceedings, the interim-deadlines order was entered and there is one proceeding that began in 11/2020. (2.) On the IDOT conversion of technical positions to coverage under the Personnel Code, around 40 more classifications have moved; additional CMS staff members were assigned in mid-11/2020 to assist in the conversion. By 01/13/2021, Illinois shall file a status report summarizing the remaining conversion tasks and an estimated timeline for completion. (3.) Illinois recently produced records on CMS interim oversight of IDOT technical positions as conversion continues (the oversight was broadly described in R. 7208). By the next status hearing, the Special Master likely will be in a position to make specific recommendations about the interim oversight. (4.) Some newly created technical positions were created without notice to the Special Master. The positions have not been filled and Illinois will provide notice in the future. (5.) The Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the termination/clarification motions with the 11/24/2020 Special Master memorandum is granted. Illinois may respond by 12/18/2020, which shall close the briefing. (6.) The IDOT workshop on minimum qualifications and screening was accomplished with the Special Master's participation on 09/18/2020. (7.) On "official" temporary assignments (that is, temp assignments for which there are pay increases), there are a handful per month and the Special Master is provided notice (though there were Highway Maintainers for which notice was missed). By 12/23/2020, Illinois shall file a blank copy of the form that is used to reflect the temporary assignments. As a cover sheet to the filing, Illinois shall list the type and number of promotional temporary assignments since 09/2020. On "unofficial" assignments without a pay increase, as of 09/2020, the IDOT has been required to use a form, without which no experiential credit is given for the time spent in the position. Illinois is considering an en masse transfer of the approximately 150 employees who have been in the "temporary" assignments for more than three years. The Special Master had considered an objection to that en masse transfer, but recently received more information that altered that position. The overall goal is to match employees with their true job descriptions. The parties shall continue to work on a way to achieve that goal as to the employees who have been in temporary assignment for less than three years (around 85 employees). (8.) On CEP training, seven sessions were held and the Special Master had input into the training materials. The next session will be a refresher training in 01/2021 or 02/2021. The Special Master shall receive advance notice of traning materials. (9.) Since the last status hearing, 48 additional positions have been posted on the electronic hiring system and 30 have been hired through it. Illinois has engaged the Unions on the system. The goal is a mid-01/2021 rollout for the entirety of the application process

as to non-Union positions, and the job postings for the Union positions. (10.) Personal Service Contracts were part of the CEP training and also presented to agency chiefs of staff. The topic might be appropriate for the refresher training too. (11.) The parties and the Special Master presented their view on the overall flow of information and collaboration. Although it is perfectly acceptable for the Governor's Office to serve as the information gatekeeper, that role must not slow down communications and information flow to the Special Master so as to unreasonably burden monitoring efforts. By 12/18/2020, the Special Master and Illinois shall file the final version of the already agreed-upon protocol from 07/2020. The Court will adopt the already-agreed version as an enforceable order. If there is disagreement on its provisions or its interpretation, then either the Special Master of Illinois may file a motion for appropriate relief. Telephone status hearing set for 02/05/2021 at 9:00 a.m. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/16/2020)

12/14/2020

7227

RESPONSE by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to Response 7218 Governor's Response Regarding the Special Master's Subpoena to the OEIG (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/15/2020 7228 STATUS Report Seventeenth Report of the Assessor Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Assessor by Susan G. Feibus (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/15/2020)

12/15/2020 7229 REPLY by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman to motion to substitute party 7201 (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/15/2020)

12/16/2020

7231

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Court has the Plaintiffs' amended petition 7025 for fees and costs as to the County Clerk's Office under advisement. The tracking status hearing for this petition is reset from 12/18/2020 to 01/29/2021 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/16/2020)

12/17/2020

7260

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Status hearing held with representatives of the Cook County Assessor, Plaintiffs, and the Compliance Administrator. (1.) On the Shakman Liaison role, there has been improved communication after Chief Deputy Assessor Resnick took on that role. (2.) On the Employee Handbook, the revisions and forms were completed, and annual handbook training was conducted on 11/17/2020 and 11/19/2020. On review of the Time and Attendance Policy slides, there is the potential for terminology confusion over the term "best practice" when in fact certain steps are actually policy requirements. Of course, no one

expects that every requirement is complied with 100% of the time, either through inadvertence or impracticality due to exceptional circumstances. But it would be better to communicate the requirements for what they are; advanced notice of training materials is also required. The Court notes that training on the Employment Plan is an important part of implementing procedures to ensure compliance with the Plan. R. 3007, Para. 3(F)(8)(1). Overall, however, the increased training has been a substantial accomplishment. (3.) Hiring sequences generally went smoothly, with the Compliance Administrator following-up on relatively minor issues. (4.) The Assessor will be hiring a Compliance Analyst to assist the Director of Compliance. The posting will open in 01/2021, and hopefully the role will be filled by mid-03/2021. (5.) On the Time and Attendance Policy, the Assessor has not needed to counsel or to discipline any employee yet. The Compliance Administrator is examining reports to monitor compliance. (6.) On performance evaluations, the Director of Compliance reported that they are going very well, especially when compared to past evaluations; training on this issue aided in the improvement. As noted previously, it is important that the Assessor was able to conduct the first annual performance evaluations in nearly a decade. (7.) The investigation of the then-Interim DOC has concluded as to the Executive Assistant to the Chief Deputy, and the matter is now closed. (8.) The Assessor responded to the Director of Compliance's 08/14/2020 report on the self-evaluation. Although no formal discipline resulted, the overall take-away has been to encourage front-line supervisors to take ownership of performance evaluations and discipline. The DOC reported that the leadership has been willing to engage during regular meetings and whenever needed as well. (9.) On the OIIG matters, no representative was present for the hearing, but the OIIG had told the Plaintiffs' counsel that there was nothing new to report since the last status hearing. At the 10/13/2020 status hearing, the OIIG had reported a pending investigation for which it was not known whether there was a Shakman-related concern. The Court's staff will contact the OIIG to confirm that the status remains the same, and a record will be made. (10.) The case participants and the Compliance Administrator shall confer on a potential timeline to initiate the Sunset Procedures. See R. 3007, Para. III(F). The Plaintiffs, the Assessor, the Director of Human Resources, the Director of Compliance, and the Compliance Administrator shall contribute to the report, and may provide a separate section of the report if there is a difference of opinion. The next status hearing is set for 03/19/2021 at 9:15 a.m. by phone. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record and the Probation Officer will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons

granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/29/2020)

12/18/2020 7232 NOTICE by Noelle C Brennan Notice of Joint Filing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Nelson, Kristi) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

12/18/2020

7233

RESPONSE by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois Response regarding plaintiffs' supplemental authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit email)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

12/18/2020

7234

MOTION by Defendant Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois for leave to file Notice of supplemental authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit proposed notice of supplemental authority)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

12/18/2020

7235

RESPONSE by Amicus Ricardo Meza to Response 7218 SurResponse to the Plaintiff's Response to OEIG's Opposition to the Special Master's Subpoena (MacDonald, Francis) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

12/21/2020 7236 PETITION County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice 7 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/21/2020)

12/21/2020

7237

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 22 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 12/21/2020)

12/21/2020

7238

REPORT OF BYRON M. WARDLAW AS DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE FOR THECLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY: The Director of Compliance for the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County forwarded this report to the courtroom deputy; it is being posted on the docket. (mw, ) (Entered: 12/22/2020)

12/21/2020

7264

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Telephonic status hearing held with the Plaintiffs, the County Clerk, and the Compliance Administrator. (1.) On the assumption of Recorder duties, the Clerk created 21 non-exempt job titles. The Compliance

Administrator reported overall communications went well and any issues were discussed with the Clerk's office, in particular the Deputy Clerk for HR, who all praised as having devoted significant attention to Shakman-related issues. (2.) On exempt positions, the Clerk is finalizing job descriptions and conforming minimum qualifications to the descriptions. (3.) On the election-related positions, the Deputy Clerk of Elections provided an overview of elections-related hiring for each election season: (a) Candidate Filings for around 5,000 candidates; (b) Election Day positions (including partisan-based election judges who are exempt in light of the partisan-party requirement; and (c) Voter-Related duties, such as voter registration. The goal remains to commit whatever process there is to writing (again, omitting any exempt positions and recognizing that this is simply a description of already-followed policies, not a further constraint on the hiring process or a hindrance to the volume and the speed of hiring. The goal for the draft is 02/02/2021. If an interim status hearing is needed on this topic, then the case participants may contact the courtroom deputy. (4.) On the Exempt List, the Clerk has proposed 40 positions, 25 are agreed-on already, and 15 remain under discussion, with the Plaintiffs and the Compliance Administrator to provide comments by 12/21/2020. (5.) On the Policy Manual, the Compliance Administrator has been providing draft sections and the discussion is ongoing. The goal is to complete the Policy Manual revisions before the next status hearing. The Court clarified that of course the Clerk may amend policies and implement them, but the best way to avoid disputes is to provide drafts to the Compliance Administrator. (6.) On the production of documents to the Compliance Administrator, the Director of Training was hired after the Compliance Administrator's appointment but notice was not provided until around 12/14/2020. The Clerk is working on providing records for hiring sequences. Relatedly, the Compliance Administrator is otherwise generally receiving timely notice of employment actions. (7.) On the recent referral of the OIIG, the Court noted that it is not unusual for Compliance Administrators or Special Masters to make referrals to the OIIG. (8.) On the three OIIG inquiries into alleged partisan-employment actions, one inquiry is now closed without further action, and the other two remain pending (with an estimated completion in mid-01/2021). (9.) The case participants should begin thinking about the format (simultaneous briefs with cross-responses; or if sequenced, who files first; or some other format) of the 06/30/2021 position presentations on whether an extension of the Compliance Administrator appointment is needed. Telephone status hearing set for 02/25/2021 at 9:15 a.m. The next Compliance Administrator Status Report deadline is extended to 02/16/2021. Separately, the joint agenda and list of hearing participants is due by 02/22/2021. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to

listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 01/03/2021)

12/22/2020 7239 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Forty-Fourth Petition for Payment for IDOT (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/22/2020)

12/22/2020

7240 PETITION Special Master Noelle C. Brennan's Twenty-Seventh Petition for Payment for Expanded Duties (Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 12/22/2020)

12/22/2020 7241 WITHDRAWING Notice of Withdrawal for Aaron S. Chait as counsel for Amicus Ricardo Meza and substituting Francis Neil MacDonald as counsel of record (MacDonald, Francis) (Entered: 12/22/2020)

12/22/2020

7242

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #141 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 12/22/2020)

12/22/2020

7243 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds [Unopposed] (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 12/22/2020)

12/22/2020 7244 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Kenneth Ayers, Michael L Shakman to motion for leave to file 7234 (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 12/22/2020)

12/23/2020

7245

NOTICE by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois Notice of filing IDOT temporary job assignment form (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit job assignment form)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7246

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motion by Illinois to file the notice of supplemental authority 7234 is granted over the Plaintiffs' objection. The Plaintiffs may respond (limited to six pages) to the notice by 01/06/2021. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7247

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed motion 7237 for fees payable to the Circuit Court Clerk Compliance Administrator is granted. Cook County shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $30,425.81 to Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7248

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS', AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 22 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7249

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed petition 7242 for fees payable to the Assessor Compliance Administrator is granted. Cook County shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $42,539.16 to Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7250

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS,AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #141 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7251

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs with respect to the Cook County Recorder of Deeds 7243 is granted.Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7252

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7253

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The motion of the County Clerk Compliance Administrator for fees and costs 7236 is granted in the amount of $68,132.32 right now. Cook County shall pay that amount as soon as practicable. This amount overrules the County Clerk's objection to the 0.1 entry concerning the OIG referral, in light of the propriety of the referral. For the remaining $650 website cost, if the County Clerk wishes to file a written response, then it is due by 01/04/2021. No reply is likely to be needed. To track this one issue only, a tracking status hearing is set for 01/08/2021 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the issue only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020 7254 COUNTY CLERK COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #7 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020 7255 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7256

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Special Master's motion 7239 for fees and costs as to IDOT is granted in the amounts of $45,689.86 to Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., and to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for appointed attorney Kristi Nelson in the amount of $8,825.00. The Special Master's motion 7240 for fees and costs as to expanded duties is granted in the amounts of $39,422.50 to Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., and to Gair, Eberhard, Nelson, Dedinas, Ltd. for appointed attorney, Kristi Nelson, in the amount of $16,600.00. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7257

AGREED ORDER FOR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S FORTY-FOURTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/23/2020

7258

AGREED ORDER FOR SPECIAL MASTER NOELLE C. BRENNAN'S TWENTY-SEVENTH PETITION FOR PAYMENT FOR EXPANDED DUTIES Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/23/2020. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/28/2020

7259

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 12/21/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 39816, 39820. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 1/18/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/28/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/29/2021. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 12/28/2020)

12/29/2020

7261 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: With regard to the Assessor's Office, pursuant to R. 7260, through the Court's staff, the OIIG reports that the matter referenced during the 10/13/2020

status hearing was closed by the OIIG on 12/08/2020, and did not raise any Shakman-related issues that would be of concern to the Court, the parties, or the OIIG. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 12/29/2020)

12/30/2020

7262

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 12/17/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 39792. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 1/20/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/1/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/30/2021. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 12/30/2020)

12/31/2020 7263 MOTION by Attorney Lari A. Dierks to withdraw as attorney for Cook County Clerk. No party information provided (Dierks, Lari) (Entered: 12/31/2020)

01/04/2021 7265 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Lari A. Dierks motion to withdraw as attorney for Cook County Clerk 7263 is granted. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 01/04/2021)

01/04/2021 7266 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Paul M Lurie, Michael L Shakman to Governor's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. 7234-1) (Feldman, Edward) (Entered: 01/04/2021)

01/04/2021

7267 RESPONSE by Unknown Cook County Clerk Defendant's Response to County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice #7 (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 01/04/2021)

01/07/2021

7268

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of the remaining aspect of the motion 7236 for expenses filed by the County Clerk Compliance Administrator, R. 7236, and the Clerk's response, R. 7267, the remaining expense request is granted. The website cost of $650 is reasonably necessary for carrying out the duty to monitor the Clerk's application of the personnel policy "to determine whether the policy is in fact applied in the observance rather than the breach," R. 6829 at 41 (Duty No. 2). Given that an online presence is an indispensable means of communication in this era, a website is warranted so that applicants and employees can seek information and contact the Compliance Administrator in this way.

Naturally, not every expense that is reasonably necessary is listed in the Appointment Order, so the lack of an explicit reference to a website in the Order is not surprising. The motion is granted. The tracking status hearing of 01/08/2021 is vacated. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 01/07/2021)

01/13/2021 7269 STATUS Report Twenty-Fourth Report of the Shakman Compliance Administrator for the Cook County Recorder of Deeds by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/13/2021)

01/13/2021

7270

STATUS Report Status Report Regarding IDOT Conversion of Formerly Technical Positions to become Personnel Code-Covered Positions by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 01/13/2021)

01/18/2021

7271

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 23 by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 01/18/2021)

01/19/2021

7272

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed motion 7271 for fees payable to the Circuit Court Clerk Compliance Administrator is granted. Cook County shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $20,649.66 to Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

01/19/2021

7273

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COMPLIANCE ADMINISTATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS', AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 23 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 01/19/2021. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

01/20/2021

7274 PETITION Recorder Compliance Administrator, Cardelle B. Spangler's Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 249 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/20/2021)

01/21/2021

7275

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Recorder Compliance Administrator's petition 7274 for fees and costs of invoice #249 is granted in the amount of $4,429.77 to Cardelle Spangler, as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

01/21/2021 7276 COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS' COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CARDELLE SPANGLER, AGREED ORDER

FOR INVOICE #249 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 01/21/2021. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

01/21/2021 7277 STATUS Report Sixth Status Report by Susan G. Feibus (Masiello, Dina) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

01/22/2021

7278

**CORRECTED** TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS to reflect the correct date of proceedings held on 12/21/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. CORRECTION to the transcript originally filed at Docket 7259. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 2/12/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/22/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/22/2021. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 01/22/2021)

01/25/2021 7279 PETITION County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 8 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 01/25/2021)

01/25/2021

7281

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Telephonic status hearing held with representatives of the Plaintiffs, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Inspector General, and the Compliance Administrator. (1.) Clerk Iris Martinez was introduced to the Court along with leadership and senior staff. Clerk Martinez expressed the Clerk's commitment to ensuring compliance with the Shakman decree, including the selection of a Chief of Staff and a Human Resources Chief with prior Shakman experience. (2.) Of the 80 Exempt positions, around 72 positions have been filled. The parties and the Compliance Administrator also worked cooperatively in establishing Exempt Minimum Qualifications. The parties will file a proposed Amended Exempt List when the County provides PID numbers. (3.) At the Clerk's Office's request, the Compliance Administrator will present Shakman training (via video) Zoom session, first live for Exempt employees and then recorded for Non-Exempt. The tentative date is 02/24/2021 for the live training. (4.) The Clerk's Office proposed minor revisions to the Employment Plan (which was adopted on 11/24/2020). The parties and the Compliance Administrator will confer and the estimate timeline is two weeks to incorporate the edits.

After that finalization and after conducting near-term hiring, a full training on the Plan will be presented to the Office. (5.) Non-exempt hiring under the Plan has not begun in earnest given the recent change in administration and the need to assess staffing needs. (6.) The Court emphasized the importance of timely notice of employment actions to the Compliance Administrator, recognizing that the timeliness of notice depends on the employment action being taken. The Office has adopted a form that should help in fostering timely notice, and HR recognizes that a process needs to be instituted. (7.) On the Telework Policy, it was disclosed that the prior administration did not in fact implement the Policy. The Office is moving quickly to revise the Policy, and the Court encouraged the Plaintiffs and the Compliance Administrator to quickly turn around any comments. (8.) On the Temporary Assignment Policy, the Office is promptly reviewing and revising the Policy, which technically expires on 01/29/2021. The parties and the Compliance Administrator will be conferring on the revisions promptly. (9.) On the Time and Attendance Policy, the Office is re-engaging with BOT on how to implement the Policy in a more transparent way. If there is an unreasonable delay in responsiveness, the Court may ask for a status report from BOT. (10.) Overall, the Plaintiffs and the Compliance Administrator both reported that the new administration is off to a strong start in moving toward substantial compliance. The next telephonic status hearing is set for 04/05/2021 at 9:30 a.m. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 3361831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 01/28/2021)

01/26/2021

7280

ORDER signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. The County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Eighth Petition for Payment 7279 is granted. The Court orders Cook County to submit payment, as soon as practicable, in the amount of $75,914.09 to Cardelle Spangler, as County Clerk Compliance Administrator. On the propriety of the advance, it is appropriate to grant the request given prior authorizations and also so that the Compliance Administrator is not covering four months of anticipated expenses out of personal funds. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 01/26/2021)

01/28/2021

7282

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Plaintiffs' amended petition 7025 for fees and costs as to the County Clerk's Office remains under advisement. The tracking status hearing for this petition is reset from 01/29/2021 to 03/12/2021 at 8:30 a.m., but to track this one motion only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 01/28/2021)

02/02/2021

7283

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS' PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #142R by Susan G. Feibus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/02/2021

7284

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The unopposed petition 7283 for fees payable to the Assessor Compliance Administrator is granted. Cook County shall submit payment as soon as practicable in the amount of $51,555.71 to Susan G. Feibus as Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/02/2021

7285

COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSAN G. FEIBUS, AGREED ORDER FOR INVOICE #142R Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 02/02/2021. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/04/2021

7286

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 12/11/2020 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 39985. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 2/25/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/8/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/5/2021. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 02/04/2021)

02/05/2021 7287 MOTION by Plaintiff Michael L Shakman for attorney fees with Respect to the Clerk of the Circuit Court (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/05/2021)

02/05/2021 7288 MOTION by Plaintiff Paul M Lurie for attorney fees with Respect to the Assessor (Unopposed) (Hays, Brian) (Entered: 02/05/2021)

02/05/2021

7289

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion 7287 for fees and costs as to the Clerk of the Circuit Court is granted in the amount of $27,588.90 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP and $300.00 in fees and costs to Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion 7288 for fees and costs as to the Cook County Assessor is granted in the amount of $18,558.80 in fees and costs to Locke Lord LLP. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/05/2021)

02/05/2021

7290

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 02/05/2021. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/05/2021)

02/05/2021

7291

ORDERAWARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WITH RESPECT TO COOK COUNTY ASSESSOR Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 02/05/2021. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/05/2021)

02/05/2021

7292

SEALED DOCUMENT by Special Master Noelle C Brennan Second Supplement to Sixth Reort Regarding Statewide Compliance with the Shakman Decree (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/05/2021)

02/05/2021

7293

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Telephone status hearing held with representatives of the Plaintiffs, State of Illinois, Office of the Executive Inspector General, and the Special Master. At the request of the parties, the Court first held an under seal hearing on certain OEIG matters. (1.) The Special Master shall file the entirety of the Second Supplement to the Sixth Report, including its exhibits, under seal at this time. If it becomes necessary, the Court will redact any opinion or order that discloses under-seal information and allow the case participants and the OEIG to respond to proposed unsealing. (2.) As discussed during the hearing, the Governor's Office shall provide the records from the OEIG in its possession. The OEIG and the Special Master, as well as the case participants, shall finish conferring on a revised protective order. The Special Master shall return comments on the proposal by 02/08/2021; from that point forward, every response will be in delivered within a 24-hour period and only address issues that have been raised in the prior set of comments. The deadline to submit the revised protective order is 02/12/2021. If there is any disagreement, then the competing versions will be presented. If there are competing versions, then in the interim, the Court will likely require disclosure under Special Master Eye's Only protection with a bar on filing. The hearing resumed on the

public record: (3.) On the OEIG's objection to the Special Master's 01/26/2021 subpoena, the parties shall meet and confer by 02/12/2021. The Special Master's motion to enforce subpoena due 02/19/2021. OEIG's response due by 02/26/2021. The Special Master's reply due by 03/05/2021. (4.) On the Special Master's request for faster timing on disclosure of potential political contacts, the Comprehensive Employment Plan does not trump the Appointment Order's requirement of cooperation and reasonable access to records. The speed at which the information is disclosed and the scope of the disclosure depends on what kind of information is at stake. Political contacts are a core concern and the access out to be virtually real-time. (5.) The State continues to work on reporting on the usage of Personal Service Contracts via forms and processes, now with input on drafts from the Special Master. (6.) The Special Master is now receiving Temporary Assignment reports for IDOT Highway Maintainers in District 1, which is part of an audit being conducted by the Special Master. (7.) The conversion of IDOT Technical positions to be covered by the Personnel Code is ongoing, with the State setting a goal of 06/30/2021 for completion, though many steps are required. The Special Master is conferring with the State on CMS oversight and potential sampling of entire sequences. If this is not resolved by the next status hearing, the Court will set a briefing schedule if needed. (8.) The State is nearing completion of resolving the unofficial IDOT temporary assignments, either by transferring the employees, ending the assignments, or formally documenting the assignments. The State will be conferring with the Special Master on what temporary assignments ought to be documented depending on the extent to the assignment. (9.) The Special Master made recommendations to CMS on the CEP training materials, and the more open flow of conferral on training materials should continue going forward. (10.) IDOT is not yet using the electronic hiring system to initiate sequences, but the job openings are posted. This has caused some confusion on submission of applications through the system, when in fact applications are not yet accepted that way. The Special Master will recommend to CMS that it adopt a generally applicable policy on how to treat those electronic applications. (11.) The Special Master reported that an IDOT employee apparently requested that a representative of the Special Master attend a promotional interview, but the request was denied. The State had not heard this and shall investigate and confer on with the Special Master on whether it would be appropriate to amend the Communications Protocol to address concrete triggers of information. The next status hearing is set for 03/22/2021 at 9:00 a.m. by phone. Members of the public and media will be able to call-in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is (877) 336-1831 and the access code is 1736479. Counsel of record and the Probation Officer will receive an email before the start of the telephonic hearing with

instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/10/2021)

02/12/2021

7294

MOTION by Amicus Ricardo Meza for protective order Entry of a Proposed Revised Protective Order Governing Information & Documents Produced by the OEIG (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AB)(MacDonald, Francis) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

02/12/2021

7295

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On the OEIG's motion for a revised protective order 7294 , the Special Master may respond by 02/16/2021, and the response may simply take the form of attaching the participants' conferral and the competing version. In the meantime, the disclosures shall be made under a Special Master's eye's-only designation for now and a restraint on filing the disclosures. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

02/12/2021

7296

Objection to proposed protective order by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit proposed protective order, # 2 Exhibit proposed protective order redline)(Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

02/16/2021

7297

RESPONSE by Noelle C Brennan to MOTION by Amicus Ricardo Meza for protective order Entry of a Proposed Revised Protective Order Governing Information & Documents Produced by the OEIG 7294 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/16/2021)

02/16/2021

7298 STATUS Report Second Report of the County Clerk Compliance Administrator by Cardelle Spangler (Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/16/2021)

02/19/2021 7299 MOTION by Special Master Noelle C Brennan to enforce Subpoena (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Brennan, Noelle) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/19/2021

7300

SEALED RESPONSE by Patrick Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois to sealed document, 7292 State's Response to Second Supplement to Sixth Report Regarding Statewide Compliance with the Shakman Decree (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/22/2021 7301 PETITION County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Petition for Payment of Invoice No. 9 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pryor, Matthew) (Entered: 02/22/2021)

02/22/2021 7302 ATTORNEY Appearance for Unknown Cook County Clerk by Shelley Mae Bethune (Bethune, Shelley) (Entered: 02/22/2021)

02/22/2021

7303

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The County Clerk Compliance Administrator's Agreed Petition for Payment of Invoice #9 7301 is granted. The Court orders Cook County to submit payment, as soon as practicable, in the amount of $48,426.37 to Cardelle Spangler, as County Clerk Compliance Administrator. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/22/2021)

02/22/2021

7304 COUNTY CLERK COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INVOICE #9 Signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 02/22/2021. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/22/2021)

02/22/2021

7305

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS redacting the ex parte portions, held on 02/05/2021 before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Order Number: 40097, 40098. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR. Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 3/15/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/25/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2021. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 02/22/2021)

02/23/2021 7306 PRO SE Appearance by Johnetta Anderson. (lma, ) (Entered: 02/23/2021)

02/23/2021

7307

RESPONSE by Unknown Cook County Clerk Redacted Response [to 7298] Second Report of the Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of Cook County (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 02/23/2021)

02/23/2021

7308

MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk to seal document Response 7307 to the Second Report of the Compliance Administrator for the Clerk of Cook County Under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2, MOTION by Unknown Cook County Clerk for leave to file (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 02/23/2021)

02/23/2021

7309

NOTICE of Motion by Adam Robert Vaught for presentment of motion to seal document,, motion for leave to file, 7308 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 2/25/2021 at 09:15 AM. (Vaught, Adam) (Entered: 02/23/2021)

02/24/2021

7310

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The County Clerk's motion 7308 to file the response to the Second Report under seal is granted provisionally; the Court will re-examine the need for sealing if judicial decision-making turns on the sealed information. For future reference, next time the proposed sealed filing should be filed contemporaneously with the motion, as required by Local Rule 26.2(c)(1).Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 02/24/2021)

02/24/2021

7311

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of the docket, Johnetta Anderson filed a pro se appearance form. R. 7306 . It is not clear what is the purpose of the appearance. On or before 03/12/2021, Ms. Anderson shall file a Position Statement explaining the reason for the filing of the appearance. The Clerk's Office shall mail a copy of this order to Ms. Anderson at the mailing address found in R. 7306. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 02/24/2021)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

02/24/2021 11:19:19

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0 Client Code: Feng

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:69-cv02145

30

Cost:

3.00

 
 1
435 F.2d 267 (1970)
Michael L. SHAKMAN and Paul M. Lurie, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
The DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK COUNTY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18043.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
October 23, 1970. Rehearings Denied December 18, 1970.
Robert Plotkin, C. Richard Johnson, Roger R. Fross, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Raymond F. Simon, Corp. Counsel, Marvin E. Aspen, Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Daniel P. Coman, Atty., George J. Schaller, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees City of Chicago, Richard J. Daley and Marshall Korshak; Edmund Hatfield, Daniel Pascale, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of counsel.
Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, and FAIRCHILD and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judges.
FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge.
This action challenges the use of patronage in the city of Chicago and Cook County in a manner which allegedly puts at an electoral disadvantage those who desire the election of candidates in opposition to those in power. In briefest outline, plaintiffs allege that officers of the city and county require city and county employees, as a condition of holding their jobs and drawing their salaries from the public treasuries, to furnish votes, campaign work, and money to elect candidates chosen by the regular democratic organization, and that this practice makes more difficult and often prevents the election of other candidates.
The district court dismissed the complaint and plaintiffs appealed.
The two plaintiffs allege that they are residents, voters, and taxpayers within the 24th state senatorial district, within the city of Chicago and Cook County. Plaintiff Shakman was a candidate, not endorsed by any party, at the election held November 18, 1969 for delegates to the Illinois constitutional convention. Plaintiff Lurie supported Shakman. This action was

2
commenced about a month before the election. Although the particular election is over, the practices challenged are allegedly of a continuing nature, and the case is not moot.[1]
Plaintiffs set out six counts, so as separately to seek redress for deprivation of constitutional rights on behalf of (1) Shakman, and all other independent candidates, including those at future elections, as candidates; (2) both plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, as voters; (3) both plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, as taxpayers; and separately to predicate each such claim upon an averment of conspiracy to effect such deprivation.
The defendants include the mayor and treasurer of the city, the president of the board of county commissioners, the county assessor, the county clerk, and the clerk of circuit court. There has been 269*269 no argument that these defendants are not acting under color of law in making the appointments which allegedly implement the patronage system under attack. The democratic county central committee, which is a statutory party organ, several of its members, several aldermen and county commissioners, and a not for profit corporation known as The Democratic Organization of Cook County are additional defendants. It is alleged that all conspired to deprive plaintiffs of rights.
Jurisdiction is claimed under 28 U.S. C. § 1331, of a controversy arising under the constitution, and a jurisdictional amount is alleged. Jurisdiction is also claimed under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) of an action to redress the deprivation under color of state law, of rights secured by the constitution. Assuming justiciability, the existence of jurisdiction, at least under § 1343(3), is clear.[2]
The complaint defines a democratic patronage employee (DPE) as a person employed by the city or county on the basis of his political support of the county democratic organization, of which the mayor is president, and who is not protected by law against arbitrary discharge. It is alleged that there are between 8,000 and 30,000 DPEs; that many are hired on a basis where one's employment must be renewed each several months if it is to continue; that most DPEs are required, as a condition of keeping their jobs, or in order to escape discipline, to contribute money to the county democratic organization, or its affiliates, or endorse candidates, and to do political work for such organizations and candidates. Some of such allegedly coerced work is done during regular working hours and some on the DPE's own time. The defendants, it is alleged, coerce DPEs by this means to give votes, political support, campaign work, and money to candidates endorsed by the organization and its affiliates.

3
Plaintiffs ask, among other things, for a declaration that the practices of defendants violate constitutional and other federal rights of candidates, voters, and taxpayers of Chicago, an injunction against those practices, and damages.
One of the reasons given by the district court for dismissing the complaint is that plaintiffs lack standing to seek redress for the injury to the rights of the DPEs resulting from the alleged coercion. Plaintiffs point out that there are decisions permitting vicarious vindication of constitutional rights for reasons of policy.[3] But here, in any event, plaintiffs are seeking redress for injuries to their own interests and the interests of others similarly situated. Assuming the truth of plaintiffs' averments, and assuming that interests of theirs which are allegedly injured are rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the federal constitution, their standing to bring a § 1983 or § 1985 action is apparent.[4]
Plaintiffs also aver that they are taxpayers, challenging the misuse of tax funds in that DPEs are allegedly required, as a condition of continuing to receive their compensation out of public money, to vote for and assist candidates selected by defendants and opposed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are asserting that the practice causes injury to their interests as candidates and voters, and if those interests are constitutionally protected from the type of injury alleged, it will be unnecessary to decide whether their taxpayer interest alone would give them standing.[5]
The other reason given by the district court for dismissing the complaint is that it is conclusory. The court 270*270 pointed to a number of assertions in the portion of the complaint where the pleader attempted to describe the impact of the practice complained of on plaintiffs' right of association, right to express one's self as a candidate, right to vote effectively, and the like. The district court did not agree, and we do not, with much of plaintiffs' expression of the legal analysis of such impact. Most § 1983 complaints contain material in this area, and we agree that a pleader's abstract assertion that one or another constitutional right has been violated does not require the court to decide that a claim has been adequately stated.
But the averments concerning the operation of the patronage system and the disadvantage it causes to candidates and voters who attempt to use the election process to change the direction of government are factual and give adequate fair notice of the claim asserted.[6]
We consider the significant questions, unanswered to this point, to be whether these disadvantages to the interests of candidates and voters amount to deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution, and whether for any reason this area of controversy must be deemed nonjusticiable.

4
It is clear that at least some aspect of the interests of candidates in an equal chance and of the interests of voters in having an equally effective voice are rights secured from state action by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.
The interests of candidates in official treatment free from intentional or purposeful discrimination are entitled to constitutional protection.[7] "Where discrimination is sufficiently shown, the right to relief under the equal protection clause is not diminished by the fact that the discrimination relates to political rights."[8]
The equal protection clause secures from invidious official discrimination the voter's interest in a voice in government of equal effectiveness with other voters.[9]
We acknowledge that the decisions just referred to involved mechanical aspects of the election process: e. g., the right to cast a vote, a candidate's place on the ballot, and equal size in districts entitled to a representative. The interest in an equal chance and an equal voice is allegedly impaired in the case before us by the misuse of official power over public employees so as to create a substantial, perhaps massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. We conclude that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure.
We see no ground upon which to decide that the controversy suggested by plaintiffs' claims is nonjusticiable.
"In the instance of non-justiciability, consideration of the cause is not wholly and immediately foreclosed; rather, the Court's inquiry necessarily proceeds to the point of deciding whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for 271*271 the right asserted can be judicially molded."[10] * * * * * * "Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question."[11]

5
One may foresee that in the areas of proof, and devising relief if the claims be proved, care will be required in order to distinguish between compelled and voluntary political support by public employees. Except to the extent some statute validly restricts political expression or activity by public employees, such individuals enjoy the same right of political association and expression, on their own time, as anyone else.
We do not view possible difficulties of the sort just mentioned as demonstrating "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving" the case or as requiring, at the pleading stage, a decision that plaintiffs' claim is not justiciable.
Defendants rely upon the eighth circuit decision in Irish v. Democratic Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota.[12] There the court held that there was nothing of constitutional significance in an alleged malapportionment of representation in the state convention of a political party. The court went on to say that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question. We think that the nature of the problem there, with respect to the internal operations of a political party, is sufficiently different from the problem presented in the complaint before us, that Irish offers no guidance here. Because of the difference, it is unnecessary to decide whether we agree with the reasoning ofIrish.
We note the argument, made by several defendants that the complaint is fatally defective for failure to join as defendant the Republican Party. We find no merit in the proposition.
Plaintiffs have asked that in addition to reversing the order of dismissal we direct the district court to grant a preliminary injunction. We deem it inappropriate, however, at this time, to preempt the district court's discretion with respect to a preliminary injunction.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
SWYGERT, Chief Judge (dissenting).
I would sustain the district court's dismissal of the complaint, but on a ground different from those assigned by the district judge. In my opinion this case presents a nonjusticiable controversy in the sense that it involves a "political question" — one that should be dealt with by the state legislature and not by the courts.
A distinction should be drawn in this area between the rights of voters and candidates for public office to be given equal treatment by the state in the "mechanical aspects of the election process," to use Judge Fairchild's apt phrase, and remedies for alleged abuses of the persuasion or electioneering aspects of the process. For example, in Baker v. Carr, 369

6
U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), it was held that the citizens of a state suffer a "debasement of their votes" and thereby a denial of equal 272*272 protection of the laws when the state legislature refuses or fails to allocate its legislative representation on an equal basis among the voters of the state. In Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968), the Supreme Court held that a state may not discriminate against the residents of the more populous sections of a state in favor of the less populous by requiring a rigid, arbitrary number of signatures from each county on petitions for independent candidates for political office. In Weisberg v. Powell, 417 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1969), this court had before it a case concerning an arbitrary and discriminatory procedure adopted by the Illinois Electoral Board in the placement on the ballot of candidates to a state constitutional convention. All three cases, which are illustrative of the decisions in this area, dealt with procedures enacted by state legislatures relating to the democratic elective process directed to attain representative government.
In the instant case we are not asked to apply the equal protection test to a legislative enactment governing the elective process or even to a deviation from such an enactment by those statutorily charged to carry out its mandate. Rather, we are asked to go one step further and hold that the conduct of a public official is constitutionally proscribed when he allegedly requires employees whom he appoints and can summarily discharge to contribute money and "public" time to the candidacy of those favored by him.
In Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court recognized that there may be areas of activity relating to the elective process that are not justiciable because of the "inappropriateness of the subject matter for judicial consideration." The Court then set forth the applicable test: "In the instance of nonjusticiability, consideration of the cause is not wholly and immediately foreclosed; rather, the Court's inquiry necessarily proceeds to the point of deciding whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded." 369 U.S. at 198, 82 S.Ct. at 700. When this test is applied to the claims made by plaintiffs, it is apparent that the instant case should be classified as nonjusticiable. Assuming proof of the claims, it is not difficult to contemplate the problems facing the district court in molding a proper remedy and, perhaps more important, with its enforcement.
I agree with the observation made by defendants that the relief requested is tantamount to asking the court to enlarge the Federal Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321 et seq., to encompass the political activity of local government employees. Whether coverage should be extended to such employees as a matter of public policy is not the question. The question is whether a federal court should attempt to formulate "judicially discoverable and manageable

7
standards,"[1] relating to such activity and whether it should be called on to mold a piecemeal remedy by injunctive decree.
In my judgment this case presents issues of which the courts should not take cognizance. It is a matter that should be left to the legislature.
[1] Cf. Moore v. Ogilvie (1969), 394 U.S. 814, 816, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1.
[2] See Bell v. Hood (1946), 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939; Baker v. Carr (1962), 369 U.S. 186, 198, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663.
[3] See examples cited in Smith v. Board of Education of Morrilton Sch. Dist. No. 32 (8th Cir., 1966), 365 F.2d 770, 776.
[4] Baker v. Carr (1962), 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663.
[5] See Doremus v. Board of Education (1952), 342 U.S. 429, 434, 72 S.Ct. 394, 96 L.Ed. 475.
[6] See 2A Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 8.13, pp. 1695-1700.
[7] Snowden v. Hughes (1944), 321 U.S. 1, 8, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497. See Weisberg v. Powell (7th Cir., 1969), 417 F.2d 388, 392.
[8] 321 U.S. 11, 64 S.Ct. at 402.
[9] Baker v. Carr (1962), 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663; Gray v. Sanders (1963), 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821; Reynolds v. Sims (1964), 377 U.S. 533, 565, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed. 2d 506; Carrington v. Rash (1965), 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675; Williams v. Rhodes (1968), 393 U.S. 23, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24; Avery v. Midland County (1968), 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45; Moore v. Ogilvie (1969), 394 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1;Hadley v. Junior College District (1970), 397 U.S. 50, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45.
[10] Baker v. Carr (1962), 369 U.S. 186, 198, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663.
[11] Ibid. p. 217, 82 S.Ct. at p. 710.
[12] (8th Cir., 1968), 399 F.2d 119.
[1] Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962).

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NOR1HERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

~nCHAEL L. SHAKr4AN and PAUL M. LURIE et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE DD40CRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK COUNTY, etc., ••• the REPUBLICAN COUNTY CENTRAL COHMITTEE OF COOK COUNTY et al.,
Defendants.

No. 69 C 2145

JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie having filed their complaint herein, and said plaintiffs (on behalf of themselves and the classes they represent under the First Amended Complaint herein as determined by previous Orders of Court) and the defendants named in paragraph C hereof having consented to the entry of this Judgment as to such parties without trial and without adjudication of any allegation in the complaint or any issue of fact with respect to the alleged commission by said defendants of any unconstitutional, unlawful or wrongful act, and without this Judgment constituting evidence of or an admission by any defendant with respect to any issue of fact herein or the co~~ission of any unconstitutional, unlawful or wrongful act;
Now, therefore, upon the consent of the parties as aforesaid, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:
A. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties to this Judgment and of the subject matter of this action under Sections
1331 and 1343(3) of Title 28 of the United States Code.
B. As used herein, (1) the term "govern.'Ilental employment l1 means any employment (whether full-time or part-time,

permanent or temporary, and regardless of whether the employment is paid for by federal funds) by or for the City of Chicago or any employment within the Northern District of Illinois by or for any other governmental entity other than an entity of the federal government; (2) the terms "governmental employee" and "employee ll mean a person employed in governmental employment.

c. The provisions of this Judgment apply to each and

all of the following: (1) defendant The Democratic Organiza-

tion Of Cook County, a corporation; (2) defendant Democratic

County Central Committee of Cook County and-all members there-

o(f4o~

(3) defendant City of Chicago, a municipal corporation; defendant Richard J. Daley, individually and as President

of The De~ocratic Organization Of Cook County, Chairman of the

Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County, Mayor of

the City of Chicago and Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for

the Eleventh Ward of the City of Chicago; (5) defendant

Matthe\'l Bieszczat, individually and as Secretary of The

Democratic Organization Of GJok!County, Secretary of the

Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County, member

of the Board of County Conmissioners of Cook County and

Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Twenty-Sixth Ward

of the City of Chicago; (6) defendant l~rshall Korshak,

individually and as Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for

the Fifth Ward of the City of Chicago; (7) defendant George

W. Dunne, individually and as President of the Board of County

Commissioners of Cook county and as Democratic Party Ward

conunttteeman for the Forty-Second ltlard of the City of Chicago;

(8) defendant P. J. Cu11erton, individually and as County

Assessor of Cook County and as Democratic Party Ward Committee-

man for the Thirty-Eighth Ward of the City of Chicago;

(9) defendant Edward J. Barrett, individually and as County

Clerk of Cook County and as former Democratic Party Ward

Committeeman for the Forty-Fourth l-lard of the City of Chicago;

(10) defendant r~tthew J. Danaher, individually and as Clerk

of the Circuit Court of Cook County; (11) defendant Richard

B. Ogilvie, individually and as Governor of the state of

Illinois; (12) defendant Edmund J. Kucharski, individually

and as Chairman of the Republican County Central Committee

of Cook County; (13) defendant William J. Scott, individually

and as Attorney General of the State of IllinoiS; (14) defendant

John W. Lewis, individually and as acting Secretary of State

of Illinois; (15) defendant Paul Simon, individually and as

Lieutenant Governor of the State of Illinois; (16) defendant

Alan Dixon, individually and as Treasurer of the State of

IllinoiS; (17) defendant Michael Baka1is, individually and as

Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Illinois;

(18) defendant Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater

Chicago, a municipal corporation; (19) defendant John E. Egan,

individually and as President of the Metropolitan Sanitary Dis-

trict of Greater Chicago; (20) defendant Joseph C. Doring,

individually and as Sheriff of Kane County, Illinois; (21) def'cndant Hillinm A~ Vollrath, individually and as County
Clerk of Kane County, Illinois; (22) defendant Jack M.
Weidner, indi.vidually and as Coroner of Kane County, Illinois;
(23) defendant James H. Fitzgerald, individually and as
Treasurer of Kane County, Illinois; (24) defendant Jnn E.
Carlson, individually and as Clerk of the Illinois Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Kane County,
Illinois; J(25) defendant James A. Callahan, individually and
as Sherif!' of LaSalle County, Illinois; (26) defendant George
L. Hunter, individually as as County ClerK of LaSalle County,
Illinois; (27) defendant Ray Rathbu~. individually and as Treasurer of laSalle County, Illinoisj (281 defendant Republican
State Central Committee of Illinois and al members thereor; (29) defendant Victor L. Smith, individually and as Chairman of the Republican State Central Committee of Illin01s; (30) defendant
Will1am F. Scannell, individually and as Secreta~ of the Republican State Central Committee o~ Illinois; (31} defendant
Timothy Sheehan, individually and as Republican Committeeman for the Forty-First Ward of the City of Chicago; (32) defendant Joseph Woods, individually and as a Commissioner of Cook County; (33) defendant Floyd Fu11e, individuall~ as a Commissioner of Cook County and as Republican Committeeman for Maine Township; (34) defendant Charles J. Grupp, individually, as a Commissioner of Cook County and as Republican Committeeman for Bloom Township; (35) defendant William N. Erickson, individually, as a CommissionE of Cook County and as Republican Committeeman for Evanston Township; (36) defendant Eugene Leonard, individually, as Bremen Township Assessor and as Republican Committeeman for Bremen Township; (37) de~endant William E. Kane, individually, as Orland Township Assessor and as Republican Committeeman ~or Orland Township; (38) de~endant John J. Nimrod, individually, as Niles Township Supervisor and as Republican Committeeman for Niles Township;K(39) defendant Bernard Pederson, individually, as Palatine Township Assessor and Republican Committeeman
for Palatine Township; (40) defendant John F. Klmbark, in-
dividually, as Clerk of both the Town of Cicero and Cicero Township and as Republican Committeeman for Cicero Townshipj
(41) defendant Elmer N. Conti, individually, as President of
the Village of Elmwood Park and as Republican Committeeman for Leyden Township; (42) defendant Frank A. Bella, individually, as Calumet Township Collector and as Republican Committeeman for Calumet Township; (43) the successors of each of the foregoing defendants in each o~ their aforesaid capacities; and ~o. (44) the present and ruture of~icers, members, agents, servants, employees and attorneys of each of the defendants and others named or re~erred to hereinabove, and all others in active concert or participation with any of the defendants or others named or referred to in (1) througn- (44~ above who receive actual notice of th-is Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
-3-

D. It is declared that compulsory or coerced political financial contributions by any governmental employee, contractor or supplier, to any individual or orBanization and all compulsory or coerced political activity by any governmental employee are prohibited, and, once hired, a governnental employee is free from all compulsory political requirements in connection with his employment. However, governmental employees ~y engage on a voluntary basiS, on their own time, in any lawful political activit¥ (including the making or political financial contributions).
E. Each and all of the defendants and others na~ed or referred to in paragraph C above are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly, in whole or 1n part:
(1) conditioning, baSing or knowingly prejudicing
or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor.
(2) knowingly causing or permitting any employee to do any partisan political work during the regular working hours of his or her governmental employment, or during time paid for by public fundsj provided that nothing contained 1n this subparagraph (2) shall prohibit governmental employees from voluntarily using vacation time, personal leave time or from taking nonpaid leaves of absence to do political work, but permiSSion to do so must be granted nondlscrimlnatorily.
(3) knowingly inducing, aiding, abettingJ participating 1n, cooperating with or encouraging the commission of any act which is proscribed by this paragraph E, or threatening to commit any such act.
F. Each defendant named or referred to in paragraph C above shall give notice of this Judgment, in the manner directed by this Court, to the employees under said defendant's jurisdiction.
G. This Judgment represents the agreed-to disposition of the claimS asserted in this case by plaintiffs Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie, on behalf of themselves and the classes referred to above, against the defendants named in paragraph C above. Plaintiffs' claims for money damages, compensatory and exemplary, against the defendants named in paragraph C above are hereby dismissed.
-4-

H. Jurisdiction is retained for the following purposes:
(1) To enable the parties to this Judgment to continue to litigate the following questions before this Court:
(a) Certain governmental employment positions under the jurisdiction of the defendants who are parties to this Judgment by their nature involve policy-making to such a degree or are so confidential in nature as to require that discharge from such positions be exempt from inquiry under this Judgment. Jurisdiction is maintained to litigate the question of which governmental employment positions under such defendants' jursidlction are so exempt for the foregoing reasons.
(b) Can political sponsorship or other political considerations be taken into account in hiring empla,yees? If so, to what extent can such considerations be taken into account?
(c) What remedies and implementing procedures ought to be granted and established by the Court in connection with the resolution ot the questions raised in the foregoing subparagraphs (a) and (b)?
(2) To enable the parties to this Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction or carrying out of this Judgment, for the enforcement of compliance l'lith the provisions contained herein, and for the punishment of the violation of any of such provisions. Application to enforce such provisions or to impose punishment for any such violation may be presented to this Court by any registered voter. Prior written notice of all such applications and other matters in this action shall be given to the named parties hereto. Except where emergency relief is sought,
7 days written notice shall be given.
I. The Court expressly finds and determines, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that there is no just reason for delay and directs that this Judgment be entered forthwith.
ENTER:

Dated:

1972. -5-

 
 IN 'fHE UNITED S'fA'n$ Dlstltlc:t COCltT

or I'OR TJiE ~OR'l'HE!Uf tllSTilICT

I%.1.INOIS

!ASTERN DIV1SIOH

MICHUl. L. SHAXtotAN .nc! PAUl. M. L1Jklt~ et .1.,
PllintUh,
VI.
.1._ coox et ~HE C~~OCRA~IC ORCANI%A~ION OF COVNT1.

) )
)
J
)
) Hg. " C 2145
)
1 Bon. Nicholas ~. Bua
)
J
)

.nltlCMEN'l' ~ TO '.rH1:
CITY OF CHICAGO ~Ntl lTS MAYOR

Plaintiffs Mi~hacl ~~ Sh.kman .n~ Paul K. Lu~i. hav~ fil~d their First Amended Compl.i~t, IS .upplE~ent~d. on behAlf of themselves anc! the classes they represent •• dEte~inea by previous Ordet of CDurt. The First Anen~ed, Complaint • • • •~pple~ented. alleges that 4efendant. violated plainti!fs- ri9hts by illegally c~ndit1cning. basing abd affe~tin9 the obtainin9 an4 ~intainin9 of 90v.rn~nt&1 employment upon poli~ic.l sFQnlDrship. affiliation, and .upport. . On May 5, 1972. thia court entered. Consent. J'u49l1\ent wi~h respect to. among other•• the City of Chicago an~ its H,yer. prohibiting the condi~ioning. basing or affecting any ter~ or aspect of governmental employment (with respect to persons once hired) upon or because of any political re••cn
or factor. that Consent :udqmen~ retained ~uri.dic~ion for . the parties to continue to litigat.e the que.tion of whether political IpO"50rship or other pglitical considerations ~y be taken into account in hiring employees. It 11ao r.t.ine~ jurladict.lon t.o enable the parties to apply to the Court for fur~her order• •n~ 41re~tions fer the carryin9 out of the
provision,· of the 1972 Conlant 3ud9ment and to enforce
co~p11.nc. with it. provilion., al _ell •• to determine which governmental e~ployment po.itiona ahould be exampt from its prcv1.ion••

On Sep~e~er 24, 1979. this Court granted plaintiffs' Hocion for Penial Summary Judgment cd entered extensive findings of fact and conclusions of l~w, findi~q ~asically th~t various defendants, incl~di~g the City of Cn;cago, ille9ally conaitioned. based and affected the hiring of persons for governme~tal e~loyment upon and be~Ause of their poli~ical $PQn50r5hip. affiliation and suppo~t. ~his Court held an e~identi~ry hearinq. and r.celved extensive memorAnda with ~e~pect to the fQrm of re11ef to be provided fo. the violatior.$ of plaintiffs' r1gh~~ as d.t~ined by that aecision.
This JU4~eht is entered to provide relief for the violations of plaintiffs' rights as determined in ,the deeision of September 24, 1979. and tc preven~ fu.ther such ~iglations of ~laintiffs' rights. It is also entered to carry Ou~ and implement the 1972 consent Judgment.
The purposes o! thi$ Judqment are to elir.linate the COl\ditioninq, basing or a!fec~ins of employment with the City of Chi~~90 on politieal reasgns or factors wb~le maintainin~
0: the ability of the elect.~ officials of the city lawfully to
establish, ~nage and direct the policies and ~ffai:$ the
City.
, This ~ud~nt qoes no further than to attemp~ to eliminate poli~ieal ~onside:atio~s in the hiring of ~o~-exempt Gove~mental Employees; it does not impose a civil service system nO~ does it neQ~s5it&te that a merit system be ~ti11zed.
NOW, ~H£RSPO~, it is Orderedr Adjudged and Oeereed AS folloW's:
A. .1urisc1iction. ~his Court has juriscUct!on of tnapartie!. to this JUdqmeltt and of the sul:ljeC't mat'ter of this action under Sections 1331 and 1343(3) Q£ Title 28 of the United States Code.
B. Definitions. As used in this .:Judgment. (11 thE! term. "Gove.nunenta! Emplcp1ent" means ~y employtnent. ("'hether full"%.i.me or PaJ:'t-t~, pexmanent. or telnporary, and. r~qarl!less of ~hether the ~loymen~ is paid for by.Federal funds) by or
for the City of Ch1ca90r ar any other non-feotral governmentkl
office or entity UIl..;ier thE! d.i:e~iou aDd Fcntl;'ol of the Cit.y of Chic:agot (2) t.he te:rms -GovermneIltal Employee- and _
-Employee" mean A person employed ~ GOvernmental Employment; (3) the te.nn IIkempt Posit:1on" meAnS a Govenul2ental EmplClyttlent
job. ",hic:h is Cleterm1ned to be exempt fr= the provisions of
PUI-gra.phs D .and S of the 1912 Consent Judqmtmc a.nd l'U'a~a.phs D through K, inclusive, of this Juoqrnent, &11 as prov~ded in Paragraph 11 below; and (4) the term 111972 Consent Jud~nt·
:means the Judgment previously entered in this ~aae. upon the consent gf plaintiffs cd various defencSant$ on Hay 5, 2.972.

or c. PIrie,,!.. llound. ne provi.icna of tilt, Judpent apply
~o ~b. CITY CH1CAGO: IA~C~ WASBINCTON, 1n~!~id~al1y .~4 as

MIYDr of the Clty of Chicagol h1. lue~e~.ora •• Hayor, the

preseftt and future officer•• agentlr a.rv.n~., employe•• an4

attarheys of the C1ty ot Chi~ago, it. MAYC$ and other. n~ed

0% %eferre4 to in this parasraph:.and all Qthers in active

o r con~ert

p.rticip.~ion

with

the City of

Cbi~.901

its' Mayer

cr,

c'thers llamed 0'& refe%"re4 to 1n thll parl.gr.ph who reee;'ve

actual netice ot thi. Jud~ent, by perlcn.l aervice or

otheNiae.

,

D. ~ecl!EatorY ~e11et. %~ ,_ deel.~ed th.t the ~on~itionin9, ~Srh9 0: .tte~~ing t~e hirift9 of GQv.r~mental

.Employee. (other than !a~ rxempt Positiona) upon or ~eaU$e of

any political reason O~ factor includin" vithou~ limitation,

Any prosp~ctive employee'. political .ffiliation, po11~lc.l

.upport or .~tiv1ty, pol1ti~.1 f~n.nci.l qontrib~tioftsr

promises of .u=h political .~pc~t, .ctivi~y or fin~ci.l

qontribucion. ot aueh prclpeetjv~ employee'. pelitical

apcftlorship or re~Qmmen~ltion i . prohib1ted~

E. %h;unetion.!be City of Cb~~.ic, 1~. M.YO~ an4

all others nAmed or ~.te~red to in P.r.~rAph C .bgve' .re

pe~.n.n~ly enjoined from direetlt or in~irBctl1' 1ft whole

Or in part;

.

.

(1) ~on4itionin9, ~sjn9 or knovin91y pre;udieing or affe~~iftg ~he hir1~9 of ~y pe:aon al • Gcv.r~'.nt.l Employee (other th.~ fo:'Exempt POlitionsl. upan or be=ause of any politi~.l rea.~ft O~ fac~or tn~ludin;. without limitation, any prospective employee'. politieal affiliation, pcllt1~.1 .opport or .c~ivit1' paltCic.l fin.n~t.l ccftt:1~gt1on't p:om1ses of .uch polittea••uppoZ't, activity or fS-J'!aneial eQntribu~1Qfts. or .uch pro.pteti~. employee', poli~i~.l sponsorship or ~etommend.c1ofti or

(2) kDovin,ly inducing. aldin,••beetin,•. particlpat£ng 1ft. egc¥~r.ttn, with the eo~islion of any a~t whi~b 1. pros~:ibed by thi~ '4t.,raph t. or threaten-
lng to comai~ any .c~ p%OS~ib.4 ~y thia 'ar'g:.ph Z.

to l a t e rFt. h~nP1l a2n0

oa~fysCg~fpzol1;.inhcee~

Th. City of Chicago ahal date tbia Judgment becomes

l,

bot

ef£ec~tv., file with tbe tcur~, with eopies ,11 partie.

~o this 3Qdgment, • 'lan of Compllance to implement th!&

3u4;~lItnt.

·c·

!he Plan of Co~11.nee .hall .et fortb 1n ~e~.il I ~~hod or metbod. of hiring to be U••d for .11 Go~ernmental %m91ay.ent positions (other than Z~empt Position.) with th. City ot Ch1c190. Zech aueb method of hiting Ihall ••~.bli.h crit.~i. for hirlu9.vhich ahall establish On an objeeti~e b~.J. that the
••tho4 complie~ ~i~h Par_graphs D and E Ibove. ~he method or .ethods Df hiring .et for~h 1ft the 'lan of Compliance ahall be
vi~hin the diseret!cn ot tht City of Cb!cago, •• long as the method or method. comply vith the r.qui:.me~t. ot thi. Judqment.

~he Plan of Campli.nee .hall 11.0 ,~oYide for the !n.traction of ,erscns having respcn,ibility for hi~i"g •• to the rcqQirements of this Jud;mtnt and the 'Ian of Compliance aftd ahall provide for the monitoring Of compliance vith ~. 3Y4~ent &n4 the Plan of Co~pli.nc••

5hogl~ plaintiff. conClude that the Plan of CampI,i.nee cf

the City of Cb1eago is not 1n ~empl1&hce with this 3udgment r or

is inadequate to ensure ccm~li&nc. ~ith this ~ad~~nt, ~hey m4y

apply to ~he Court for fur~he~ orders to cnforc. compliance,

inclu4ing Oire~tin9 ~hange. in the Plan of Compliance. Within

cne yea: of the date this ~dgment becomes effective. ~e ei~y

of Chiea90 .hall implement the .lan of Cg=pliance a. ao filed

.~d •• 1t aay be so ebange~.

"

Tbe Plan of Ccmpliance ~~ ~cnta1n prevision. providin9 for ~e ~e.ns ~y vhi~b hiring methods may be Changed, eon.istent with ~hia :~d~ent. and ,hall provi~e for .ppropriate notice to be given the parti.s of .uch prcpcse4 changes.

o. Netice. of ,ob Availabilitf; the elty 'of Cbica;o and all others namea or r.l~rreJ ~o Paragraph C &Do~e are permanently enjolned f~om hirinv Inr per,oA for any CCver~en~.l Employment pcs1eicn [except for Ixemp~ Po.i~lon. and ._cep~, as provided belo¥, fer emergency hiring1 unle•• prior"public notice. Of the op;or:gn1ty to .pply for an~ be hired for the ~OD ba. been 9ivenr •• provi~ed in this 'aragraph C. ~hi. requi~.m.ftt ahAll apply to hiring of per,ofts after a d.~e 60 dlys .ftar thi. ~ud;meftt beco~e. ~f!ectlv••

Durlng the perlo~ of ten years .fter this ~udv-ent beCQmes .ffective. the method of livin9 Aotice'sbal1 be •• proYi~ed by tbi. 'arlgreph. unle., an alternltive aetho4 1. approved ~ the court. The notice 'hAll be 9iven at le••~ fog~teen days before the la.t date fer which .ppl1~.tlaft•
. .y be .ub~itted ler con.ideration for the job. lIa iDst.~ce.
1ft whiCh ~h. e1ty of Chiclgo eatablishel • liat of persona eligible to be hired {O~ a p.~ti~l.t po.lt!on, and ~1r•• per.on. for ~he politioft 101.11 f~ca th.~ list, it ia .uf·

f1c1ent tor ~b. City of ehieago to have glveft the r.qu1re~ ~o,iee .~ le••t 14 dAy' priQr ~o the ~i=. ift which to f£le an applie.tio~ for the position an~ no .4d!tional notice ~ee~ be ;!ven •• pe~SOb• •~e hired for the position frc~ among the persons pl.~ed on the lilt'of eli~ibl. applicant. pursuant ~o the no~iee.l the no~~~e .h~11 1nclude a des~ription of the ~.~ure of the job, the qu.lific.ti~n., the pay, and how and vhe~e ~o apply for the jc~. %be notice shall be given 'in the following .anners

br ell by prominently FC'tin9 the notice for in- ,
speetion the gene~al pg~lie at the Main offic. of the ~Ip.rtment of '.rsonnel of,the City of Chica90 ana at at least eight .dd1ticn.l g~ovr.phic.lly di.tri~uted City of Chieago f.cilit1e.. (A lilt of all .ueh available job oppo.t~ities with the City of Chica;o shall .im11arly be pos~ed. The li.~ ~~st be upda~ed at least nonthly. Copies of tbe list .n4 of .•11 sueh no~ices shall be provided f~ee of ~h.rge to each pe~scn who ~eques~. & copy tD person), and

(21 by mai11~g c=pies of ehe l£.t of .vAil&ble

job oppertuni~ies to e.~h organization or persan who

shall na~e requested reccivinf .u~h li.ts by ~il_

(~he City of Ch1c.9C.~Y provide 1n ita Pl.n of Cc=;li.nce

.0 fer a charge to o~gaAi:.tion. O~ peZ.cAa requestin~
lists bt mail of • relsenable fee ta coye~ ccsts of

distributing the l!.t.,

'

~he Plan of Camptiaftce ~y ..k. provIsion for establishing reascnable limits on the peried du~in; wbich • person _ball be entitled to cantinue to receive by ~!1 l~~t. of lO~ opportunit£e. aft.r hav1ag .oat reccn~y ~.~ue.t.4 ~. ftotic••

the Plan of Compliance may .ake re.sQnl~le provisions for
hiring persona in exceptional. emergency situations without prior netice h.~ing ~een ,1~eft •• pr~ided in ~hil paragrapb. Aay .~ch provision .hall contain ri;orou. li_it.tionl on ~e n~er of per.ona vho may be 10 hired 1u • teat. ~h. Plan of COMpliance shall .1so p~gYi~. for regular report. ~o ~he Court of instances in which .nch emergency b1r1ng va. made, .et~ift9 forth tbe rea.ona vhy it ~as an emergency a1tuat1oft. including vhy it va. not possible to have made arrange_ent. by ~biCh the hiring cou14 bave beeD m.d. upon p~!or notic••

~h. Plan of co~plian=. may .ate reasonable prOY!.to~. with respect to po$1tionl ~h1cb ai. to ~ filled ~ prOmOtion. 'of p*&.ona aIr••at emplgye4 a. "p10y••' of th. el~y of

-I·
Ch1c&qo, for ftotlc.. to be given only to Employ••• 1119ib1e rc~ the promocioft.
B. Notice of List of 30bs. fhe eity of Ch1ea90 .h~il eaus. to be published, ac least once .ach calendar quarter for • peri04 of ~en year. fellowing the date chis JUd;meht be~cmes effective, in the -help w.nte~· .e~tioft of a Chie.go 4ai1y ne~splper havin, a cir=ulatioft of treater than 200,000, • pro~iften~ notice of the existenee and availability of ~he list deseribed 1n Subp.rlgraph CI1I, at'tin; where the list is available tor pu~lic inlpe~tion, Itating whe~e copiea ~ay be obtained 1ft persoft and stleing also hew persons may re~e~ye
copies of the list by ~11. "I. Notice to Emt1eye... ~h. City of Chicago shall CIUS.
a eopy of ~he NOt~Ce which is attached to this 3~dgmeftt to be
delivered within 3D days of the date th11 Judvment become. effective to each Governmental EaplOy•• of the C1ty of
Ch~caiO.
~. Natiee to Job Appl1~ants. ~he City of Chic.~a is
directed, lor a pcr!a1 01 ~en years, follovinq the'date this
3u~9m.nt be~o~c. e!feetlv_. to cause • copy of the Not1ee referrea t~ 1n Paragraph Ii to be delivered tD .a~h applicant for emplaymen~ with the City of ~hi~.90. The Ng~ice shall be delivered to e.~h applicant at the time he o~ ahe applies for the Governma»tal Employm~ftt po.it~oft.
X.. 7ostin9 of 3~~qmen,. A copy 01 this :udgment and a
~o~y of the NotIce refer%ed to in Jaragrapb % shall be prominently posted at eaeb place where person. may ..ke applications
for employment ~ith ebe City of thi~.90. Copies of thia Judqm.nt .nd .uch notice .ball zemaiD 89 posted fo~ • per104 of teft yeara follovift9 the date ~hi. :udgment become. .ffec~1ye. A netice .jmila~ly posted .hall atate ~h.~ • ~opy of tb. notice referred to 1ft '~~'9~.ph X ia available to any perSOn vho re;ue.ts them.
t. Affidavit. of CamRli.n~.. :he City of eb1ea;o , shall cause to be l~iea with lbe Cl.~k of \hi. Court withiD
.5 ~IY' of the date thi. 3ud9~~n~ beco=e. effeetive an .ffid.vit ahgvin; compliance with '.rI9raph I. ~he City of Cb1c.go 'hall cause co be filed wJcb the clerk of'tbi. Cogrt prior to ~h. 1••t day of ••ch calendar quar~.r, bevianing with the ye.~ 1ft vhieh thi. Judgment become• •ffeetive and .n41ng teft ~e&r. after that 1e.r, an affidavit Ihov1ft,
compl1anci v1~ 'araqraph. C, ., Z. J and • tor the period .inc. the 1.,t d.t. covered 'Y the .oat recent .ff1d.v1t. These qu,rterly affidavitl a~.ll Ii" th_ n.me and po~ltion

of all p~r.cns blre~ tinca the ao.t recent .~=b .fti~.v1t (~r. 1n the ease of the fir.t .!!id.vi~ • •ince the d.t~ ~hi. :u~;ment ~comes effeetiv.) by the City of Chi~.go, other than fer an Exe~pt fc~it1on. ~be affidavi~. ,hall also disclose the nA~ and party positi~n of every,persen or crglnizltioft, reasonably known to official. of ~he City ot Chic.go with the re$ponsibility for hirin, the Employee to be
• politic.l p.r~y organization vhich, c~ an efficial or
"ent of • political party organization who, has, a. reflected ~y a writing k~cwn to such Official gf the city of Chicago. re~~ende~ or sponsored the Employee for Governmental ~lgyment. o~her than for en Exempt Position. Notbin9 In this par.graph sh.ll require any person to =-ke any inquiry as to Any person'. POliticll a:f11i.tion.

M. Annual ~e?Qr~~. In each of the yeara 1984 th~o~9h 1993. in~l~s~ve, the C~ty of Chiea9c ahall file a verified report (prior to Karch 1 of ~hc yea~),.Yith copies ~o all par~ies :0 this Judgment, de~liling all step. taken in the prtce~in9 year to i~plem~nt the PlAn of CQ~pliance ~eferre~ to in Pa~a9raph F .~d otherviae to comply ~ith this Jua~ent and alse stating all chlnge, in methods of biring person. for Ggve~nmental Em~loyment made since the lAst date eavered by the last .uch re~ort or, in the case of the first %epo~t, a~nc. the
. date this ~ud;~e~: becomes e!f~~ti~• N. ~x.mpt ~ositigns. The Governmental Employment ~oslt10n. un~e~ the eon~:Dl of the City of Chic~90 •• listed in the attached Schedule of Exe~pt 'ositions are pg.iticns exempt fro~ thi. 3~d;ment and the 1972 CCnseDt Jud~t. .

~he City of ChiCAgO may fro~ time to time add pesitiens

to or delete po.itiona frem par~ C of the S~be~ul. of Exeapt

'0 PesitiQn., p~gYi~ea that the total number af jc~. aD p.rt G of
the Schedule, .$ amend~d from time to time; sball not exceed

the numb~r initially on part C of the S=hedule and provided

further ~h.~ the to~.l number of job• •~~~d to the S~hedule in

.0 .ny year .h.ll not exceed 10\ of the initial n~~~ of jobs on

part G of ~he Sch~dule. Hc~eyer, each poJi~ion

Ad4ed ~a

part C of the Schedule .uat be a position which invelve. policy

\0 .uch a degree or i ••~ confidenti.l 1ft "a:ure with regard ~o

pOliey thAt .mpl01~ent .deei.ioft. concerning the pOsltions are

req~ired to ~e exempt from inquiry under this 3udg~ent and the

1"2 Consent Judgment. Any .u~h .men~ment to plrt C of the schedule

.hlll, prior to be~omin, etleet1ve, be filed vith the ele~k of

th1. COurt an4 .etved on .&eh ec~ftsel of re~ord 1ft thia case.

-8-

Tbe City of Chica~o shall at all times maintain available foJ;' public examina.tion an up4a.tttd. Sche-dule of Exempt Pcsi-
tiCflS.

ana o. Consent Judsment. The 1912 Consent Judq.men~ remains

in full force

effeet. This Jud~ent rep=esents the

dis,osition. as to the City of Chi~a9Q And ~tS MaVO~t o! the

claims as to which jurisdiction was ~etained uncer Para;raph

B(l) of the 1972 C:cnsQSlt. J'udg=ent. Th1s Jud;-men':. is ~l_so

entered under pa~a~raph H(2l of tha~ 1972 Consent JU=i=en~.

P. Jurisdiction ~etained. 3urisdicticn is re~ained fer the following pu:poses:
.
(1) ~o enable the par~ies ~o ~his JudimQn~ to ap?ly to this Co~t at any t~~e for such fur~he~ o~ce=s ~d cirecticns as may Qe ne~ess~ry or ap~ropri&~e fQ~ ~he ~onst~ction or carrying OQt of the 1972 Consen~ ~ud~en~ an~ this Jud~ent, fo~ the enfc:cement c: co~liance with the prQ~ision$ cQnt4ined in the 1972 Consen~ Jud;ment attd this Jad~ent. and for reme~y fo: :he ~icfa~~on of any of those prQvisions. Application to enforee those provis~ons or to ~emedy any violation, mlt.y .be presented. to _this Co~rl:. ~ any re;istered voter. Prior ~it~en POt~ee of all such applica~ions a~d o~he= ~atte~$ in this action shall b- 9~ven tD the n~ed parties to ~s Judgment:

(2) To enable the parties to this Jud~ent to
ap=ly a~ any ttme for madif£cations to the requirements
of-Parag.apbs F thr.ough K of thts Judgme~tl whie~ modif~eations shall be warranted QY qood ca~se and consistent with or·n~cessary for ~e implemen~ation o~ Pa=agraphs ~ and E:

(3) ~o det~n. whether provisions of tbis 3udgment ~hich by ~e1r terms ~y eXfire upon a term of years shoulQ be exteftded for a f~er pe~1Qd;
(4J ~o eftable the parties to this Judqment, at any~~e w~~hin 2 years of the effectiveness·of this Judqment, ~pon the occurrence of a material change in factual ci:cu=s~ance$, ~o apply for a modifi~ation of Paragraph N of this Ju4gmeftt as may be nec4I!Issary 111 order to achieve the purposes of this 3udgment;
(5] 'ro enal::tle the parties to this JudglZlent to
apply for a modification o~ the Schecule-of Exempt POsi~Q4S as may be necessitated by a material change, f.om the date of the effectiveness of this JIlc1s=ent, iJl the tc'tlll 11~: of pcs1tiODS wit.h 'the C!ty of

. ...9-
.
Chicago whicb involve policy to such a degree or are so confidential in nature ~1~h regard to pcl1cy that employmen,t decisions concerning the posi1;ions are requ1red to be exempt from inq~iry und~r this J~dsment and the 1972 Consent Jud~ent; and
(6) To determine the amonnt of plaintif~s' costs and attorneys· fees. nefendants shall pay plainti!~s' costs and attorneys' fees if so ceta~ned by Ccurt
o:J:c:ier ..
Q_ ~!fee~ive~eas9' The Ccu~t expressly finds ana dete~1ne5; ?u:suan~ ~o Rule 54(b' of the Federal Rules of Civil Pxocedure, thae there is no just reason for delay. Finality of ~his 3udqment 15 important to protect the rights of the par~ies. It di~e;ts that this 3udqmen~ now ~e enterec as ~ final jua;ment And be effective upon its eatry.

.w_ ~r:.

,~..! .. .: : .. -

c: . Da:.e'W 1r

,,~t ':. 1983

1 •

•

'

Nichola.s --t,;.: B\1a""; Jiiaie, . . _.
United States D1st:~ct Ce~r~

 
 1
829 F.2d 1387 (1987)
Michael L. SHAKMAN and Paul M. Lurie, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
George W. DUNNE, et al., and Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois, and Democratic Party County Central Committee for Cook County and its
Members, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 85-1870, 85-1911 and 85-1912.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued February 25, 1986. Decided August 5, 1987. Rehearing and Rehearing Denied September 30, 1987.
Kris E. Sholder, Asst. State's Atty., Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellants.
C. Richard Johnson, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before FLAUM and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied September 30, 1987.
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.
At issue in this class action is the constitutionality of the patronage hiring system maintained by the appellants in Cook County, Illinois. The appellees are independent candidates, independent voters, and taxpayers who allege that the appellants' policy of using political "sponsorship" as a factor in determining who receives a Cook County government job, creates a substantial electoral advantage for the incumbent political office holder and, in doing so, violates the appellees' constitutional rights. The district court granted the appellees' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.[1] Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County, 481 F.Supp. 1315, 1355 (N.D.Ill.1979). For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we reverse.

2
I
Facts
In 1969,[2] Michael Shakman was an independent candidate seeking election as a delegate to the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention. Prior to the election, Mr. Shakman and Paul Lurie, a voter supporter, filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all other independent candidates, independent voters and taxpayers in Cook County, Illinois. The complaint alleged that various government agencies and officials in the City of Chicago and Cook County maintained and conspired to maintain a policy of hiring and retaining only those people who had received political sponsorship. The necessary sponsorship was usually obtained only on the basis of past political support or promises of future support for candidates endorsed by the Democratic Party. This support allegedly included both political contributions and political work on behalf of those candidates selected by the Democratic Party. Lack of sponsorship made employment unlikely and loss of sponsorship often resulted in dismissal. The plaintiffs alleged that this system of hiring and firing based on political sponsorship created an army of political workers 1389*1389 and campaign funds that were not available to candidates who did not receive the endorsement of the Democratic Party. The plaintiffs argued that this system created a governmentallymaintained advantage for one political party. The complaint sought relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 for violation of the plaintiffs' rights protected by the first, fifth and fourteenth amendments.
Before the election, in 1969, the district court dismissed the complaint. Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County, 310 F.Supp. 1398 (N.D.Ill.1969). The district court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the rights of Democratic patronage employees and that any allegations that the harm done to the patronage employees also harms the plaintiffs are "too conclusory to support a cause of action upon which relief may be granted." Id. at 1402.
A divided panel of this court reversed that decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 909, 91 S.Ct. 1383, 28 L.Ed.2d 650 (1971)(Shakman I). The panel first noted that, although the election had already been held, the practices challenged in the complaint were of a continuing nature and, therefore, the case was not moot. Id. at 268. The majority concluded that "the averments concerning the operation of the patronage system and the disadvantage it causes to candidates and voters who attempt

3
to use the election process to change the direction of government are factual and give adequate fair notice of the claim asserted." Id. at 270. Relying on cases that involved the mechanics of the election process, the panel held:
The interest in an equal chance and an equal voice is allegedly impaired in the case before us by the misuse of official power over public employees so as to create a substantial, perhaps massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. We conclude that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure.
Id. Finally, the panel decided that the allegations did not present non-justiciable questions. Id. at 271. Chief Judge Swygert dissented on the ground that the case raised a non-justiciable political question not amenable to "`judicially discoverable and manageable standards.'" Id. at 272 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 710, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962)).
Following the remand, the parties entered into negotiations that produced a consent judgment entered on May 5, 1972. R.42; Consent Decree (May 5, 1972).[3] This judgment prohibits the defendants from "conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor." R.42 at 4. The parties also agreed that they would continue to litigate the issue of whether political sponsorship or other political considerations could be considered in hiring new employees. Id. at 5.
Attempting to resolve the remaining hiring issue, the plaintiffs submitted requests to admit. Each defendant filed an almost identical response. R.89; R.90; R.103; R.105; R.106; R.108. Essentially, the defendants admitted that many departments and agencies in Cook County gave preference 1390*1390 in hiring for many county jobs to those persons who had received political sponsorship from a Democratic Party official. Most of the jobs involved were not policy making positions and generally no public notice was given for those openings. The positions were normally classified as "temporary" despite the fact that many employees remained in them for years. The "temporary" status removed the job from the protection of the civil service statutes. The defendants also admitted that they believed that sponsorship was usually contingent on past political work or the expectation of political work in the future. The defendants also believed that a significant number of persons sponsored did some political work on behalf of candidates supported by the Democratic Party. Finally, the defendants admitted that they believed that this work helped elect candidates and that this perceived political advantage was one of the reasons that preference in hiring was

4
given to those who had obtained sponsorship. Based on these admissions, affidavits, testimony from political science experts, transcripts from prior proceedings, and election results, both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
On September 24, 1979, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. In a lengthy opinion, discussed in detail below, the district court concluded that the patronage hiring practice infringed upon the plaintiffs' rights protected by the first and fourteenth amendments. According to the district court, the record supported the plaintiffs' allegations that the government's hiring policy gave the Democratic candidates "an actual, significant advantage in elections." 481 F.Supp. at 1355. The policy purposefully discriminated against the plaintiffs and the government had failed to provide a compelling interest furthered by the challenged practice. Id. The district court declared the patronage hiring practice unconstitutional.
The court deferred the issue of an appropriate remedy; therefore, it did not immediately enter a final judgment.[4] Instead, discussions concerning the appropriate remedy continued until April 4, 1983, when the district court entered judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from "conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting the hiring of any person as a Governmental Employee (other than for Exempt Positions), upon or because of any political reason or factor...." R.231 at 4. Defendants, George Dunne, President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County; Stanley Kusper, Jr., the Cook County Clerk; Thomas C. Hynes, Assessor of Cook County; the Forest Preserve District of Cook County; the Democratic Party County Central Committee for Cook County and its members; and Edward R. Vrdolyak, filed notices of appeal.[5] R.306; R.309; R.310. To evaluate their arguments on appeal, we must first examine the district court's opinion on entry of partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs.
II
District Court's Opinion
The district court began its analysis by rejecting the defendants' argument that granting any type of relief to the plaintiffs would interfere with the conduct of state government or violate the principles of comity and federalism. 481 F.Supp. at 1326-27. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), required the court to grant their motion for summary judgment. 481 F.Supp. at 1327-28. The 1391*1391court recognized that both the plaintiffs

5
and the patronage practice at issue in this case differed from those in Elrod. After disposing of these preliminary arguments, the district court began searching for a legal framework within which to evaluate the plaintiffs' allegations.[6]
Focusing first on the earlier opinion of this court, the district court noted that, although this court had held that the Constitution protected the interests involved in this case, it did not precisely identify the protected constitutional rights.[7] The plaintiffs' complaint alleged violations of the first and fourteenth amendments. Therefore, the court turned to other Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent in search of an appropriate framework for evaluating the constitutional claims.
As a result of that search, the district court identified three separate rights protected by the first and fourteenth amendments which, in the court's view, are at issue in this case. First, the court concluded that "[t]o the extent that the allegations of the present complaint are true, ... the defendants have clearly burdened the plaintiff candidates' rights of free political belief and expression." Id. at 1333. Because the district court believed that the patronage hiring policy impeded the plaintiffs who chose to run against the Democratic Party, the court considered the policy a content-based restriction on speech. Id. The second constitutional interest identified by the district court involved the plaintiffs' right to associate with the political party of their choice. Analogizing the patronage hiring policy with a ballot restriction that has the effect of excluding certain candidates, the district court concluded that, if the allegations were true, the hiring policy had rendered the associational rights of both the candidates and the voters less valuable. Id. at 1334. Finally, the district court decided that the patronage hiring policy deprived both the candidates and the voters of their right to "equal participation in the electoral process." Id. Not only are the candidates' rights to have an equal chance to win the election infringed by the patronage system but also "[t]he state is alleged to work against and make more difficult the election of certain candidates. To the extent this is true, ... the value of the votes of those supporting those candidates, in terms of their ability to affect the outcome of an election is lessened." Id. at 1335.
After isolating these three constitutional rights, the district court concluded that all the rights could be evaluated under the constitutional standards set forth in the ballot placement cases. See Board of Election Comm'rs v. Libertarian Party, 591 F.2d 22 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 918, 99 S.Ct. 2840, 61 L.Ed.2d 285 (1979); Bohus v. Board of Election Comm'rs, 447 F.2d 821 (7th Cir.1971).
Ballot placement cases ... involve allegations of governmental interference with the equality of the electoral process in a manner and to a degree similar to that charged in the present case. In ballot placement cases, unlike ballot access cases, the government has not

6
excluded any candidate or candidates from the electoral process. Instead, the government is charged, as in the present case, with acting so as to favor, to some 1392*1392 relatively small degree, certain candidates because of their political affiliation.
481 F.Supp. at 1335. Therefore, the court adopted the two-part test established in these cases. "Once a plaintiff shows (1) an intentional discrimination by the government on the basis of his or her political beliefs that gives (2) an actual significant advantage in an election to his or her opponent ... he or she has demonstrated an infringement of that right." Id. at 1338. The burden then shifts to the government to demonstrate that the practice is necessary to the achievement of a compelling government interest.
The district court recognized that this Bohus test did not take the element of voluntary political work into consideration. The court also noted that the earlier opinion from this court may have indicated that coercion was an essential part of the plaintiffs' case.Id. at 1340. However, on the basis of its reading of more recent Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit cases, the court concluded that coercion was not relevant. "The plaintiffs need only show that the government, in sponsoring the patronage system, is purposefully discriminating against them on the basis of their political beliefs, and that the system provides regular Democrats with `an advantage' in elections that they would not otherwise have." Id. at 1341.
Applying the two-part Bohus test to the facts in this case, the district court concluded that the admissions made by the defendants resolved any genuine issues of material fact. The court noted that the defendants had admitted that at least one of the reasons they gave preference in hiring to those who had received sponsorship, was to help elect Democratic candidates. This admission, the court concluded, established the intent to discriminate. Focusing on the defendants' statement that "[t]his political precinct work helps elect candidates supported by the various members of the Democratic County Central Committee," the district court decided that the defendants' admissions also established that the patronage system created an actual significant advantage in elections. Id. at 1345-46. The court refused to consider affidavits, submitted by the defendants, from political scientists who concluded that the patronage system had little or no impact on election results, because the court concluded that this evidence was inconsistent with the admissions. Id. at 1346 n. 35.
Having determined that both parts of the Bohus test were met, the court applied strict scrutiny to the government's policy and required the defendants to establish a compelling governmental interest to justify the patronage hiring practice. Id. at 1349-54. The court found the record devoid of any compelling governmental interest that would justify the practice. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

7
III
The Contentions on Appeal
The appellants have raised several objections to the district court's judgment. As in the first appeal, the appellants challenge the appellees' standing to litigate the constitutionality of the hiring policies. Next, they argue that the ballot placement cases do not provide an appropriate framework for evaluating the constitutional claims in this case. When the appropriate constitutional analysis is utilized, they submit, it becomes clear that no constitutionally-protected rights are infringed by the hiring practices. They also argue that proof of coercion is an essential part of the appellees' case and that the record contains no evidence that coerced political work had any impact on the outcome of elections. Finally, even if the district court has used the proper constitutional analysis, the appellants argue that genuine issues of material fact regarding the actual impact of the hiring practice on elections remain unresolved. The appellants request not only that we reverse the district court's decision to grant the appellees' motion for partial summary judgment but also that we grant appellants' motion for summary judgment.
IV
Discussion
A. The Standing Requirement: The Need for Reexamination
The case before us today is, from a factual viewpoint, a very different case from1393*1393 the case set forth in the complaint. The consent decree with respect to politically-motivated discharges, R.42; Consent Decree (May 5, 1972), has eliminated a significant portion of the contentions that were originally presented in the appellees' complaint and that were before this court during the earlier appeal in 1970, seventeen years ago. The combined impact of political hiring and firing practices — a significant part of the plaintiffs' original case — is therefore not before us on this appeal. This appeal raises only the constitutionality of politically-motivated hiring practices without any reference to other patronage-based employment practices — including the discharge scheme now forbidden by the consent decree, R.42; Consent Decree (May 5, 1972). More importantly, we are confronted with a significantly different legallandscape than the one that confronted the

8
district court at the time the complaint was originally filed in 1969, at the time of the first appeal to this court in 1970, or at the time the district court made the ruling now before us in 1979. During these intervening years, the Supreme Court has engaged in a thorough examination of "justiciability," the limitations imposed on federal courts by the "case-andcontroversy" provision of article III.
These changes have made our consideration of the standing issue in this case most difficult. Indeed, one of the unhappy by-products of these changes has been that, with respect to the standing of voters and candidates to challenge hiring practices alone, we have not been able to regard the earlier holding of a panel of this court, dealing with the standing of voters and candidates to challenge the combination of hiring and firing practices, as having the precedential effect that we would normally accord such an earlier ruling of this court in the same litigation. The law of the case doctrine is not to be lightly disregarded. It is "based on the salutary and sound public policy that litigation should come to an end." White v. Murtha, 377 F.2d 428, 431 (5th Cir.1967);see also Appleton Elec. Co. v. Graves Truck Line, Inc., 635 F.2d 603, 607-08 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 976, 101 S.Ct. 2058, 68 L.Ed.2d 357 (1981). See generally Roberts v. Cooper, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 467, 481, 15 L.Ed. 969 (1858). However, it must be remembered that this doctrine "was understandably crafted with the course of ordinary litigation in mind." Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618-19, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). Moreover, the question of justiciability, grounded in the case-and-controversy requirement of article III, is essentially jurisdictional in nature. As this court noted in Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 798 F.2d 1051, 1056 (7th Cir.1986), courts are significantly less constrained by the law of the case doctrine with respect to jurisdictional questions. Here, where there have been substantial pronouncements in this area since 1970, we are not only free to reexamine the holding of the earlier panel but obliged to do so.
B. The Standing Requirement: Governing Principles
Our evaluation of the appellants' submission with respect to standing will be significantly advanced if we remember, as Chief Justice Warren stated in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968), that standing is "an aspect of justiciability." Id. at 98, 88 S.Ct. at 1952. "Justiciability," the Chief Justice pointed out, is the "term of art employed to give expression to [the] dual limitation placed upon federal courts by the case-andcontroversy doctrine." Id. at 95, 88 S.Ct. at 1950. This doctrine, at the heart of our constitutional concept of judicial power, embodies "two complementary but somewhat different limitations:"

9
In part those words limit the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process. And in part those words define the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure that the federal courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government.
Id. These policy concerns must guide our application of the analytical formula that1394*1394 the Supreme Court has developed with respect to standing.
The basic criteria for standing have been set forth by the Supreme Court in many cases. Perhaps the most comprehensive is Justice O'Connor's statement in Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), that sets forth the three elements of the standing analysis: "A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Id. at 751, 104 S.Ct. at 3324; see also Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). See generally Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 72, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 2630, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 261, 97 S.Ct. 555, 561, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org.,426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1925-26, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976).[8]
The second criteria — that the injury be "fairly traceable" to the challenged action — is an important one if the values underlying the case-and-controversy requirement of article III are to be respected. "The party who invokes [judicial] power must be able to show ... that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury" as a result of the action that forms the basis of the complaint. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488, 43 S.Ct. 597, 601, 67 L.Ed. 1078 (1923); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 618, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 35 L.Ed.2d 536, 95 L.Ed.2d 415 (1973); Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634, 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937). The asserted injury must be shown to be "the consequence of the defendants' actions, or that prospective relief will remove the harm." Warth v. Seldin,422 U.S. 490, 505, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2208, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). See generallyMeese v. Keene, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 1862, 95 L.Ed.2d 415 (1987); South E. Lake View Neighbors v. Department of Housing and Urban Dev., 685 F.2d 1027 (7th Cir.1982). "[U]nadorned speculation will not suffice to invoke the federal judicial power." Simon, 426 U.S. at 44, 96 S.Ct. at 1927; see also Linda R.S., 410 U.S. at 618, 93 S.Ct. at 1149 ("The prospect that prosecution will, at least in the future, result in payment of support can, at best, be termed only speculative."). "[T]he remote possibility, unsubstantiated by allegations of fact, that [the plaintiffs'] situation might have been better

10
had [the defendants] acted otherwise, and might improve were the court to afford relief," Warth, 422 U.S. at 507, 95 S.Ct. at 2209, is simply insufficient.
C. The Standing Requirement: The Appellees' Case
As the Supreme Court indicated in Warth, "standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff's contention that particular conduct is illegal." 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. at 2206; see also South E. Lake View Neighbors, 685 F.2d at 1034. However, the application of the principles governing the law of standing is hardly "a mechanical exercise." Allen, 468 U.S. at 751, 104 S.Ct. at 3324. It is often "appropriate and necessary to look to the substantive issues ... to determine whether there is a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated." Flast,392 U.S. at 102, 88 S.Ct. at 1953; see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. at 2206("Although standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff's contention that particular conduct is illegal, 1395*1395 ... it often turns on the nature and source of the claim asserted."). Given the novelty of the case, this is no easy task. Although several other cases have considered aspects of the patronage system, none have focused solely on the impact of patronage hiring policies on candidates and voters.See, e.g., Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980)(discussing politically-motivated firing); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (discussing politically-motivated firing); Avery v. Jennings,786 F.2d 233 (6th Cir.) (analyzing the impact of patronage hiring practices on prospective employees), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 3276, 91 L.Ed.2d 566 (1986); McCormick v. Edwards, 646 F.2d 173 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981) (discussing firing resulting from political activity), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1165, 102 S.Ct. 1042, 71 L.Ed.2d 323 (1982); Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561 (7th Cir.1972) (discussing politically-motivated firing), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973); Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 641 F.Supp. 249 (N.D.Ill.1986), appeal filed, No. 86-2073 (7th Cir. argued Apr. 7, 1987) (primarily discussing the impact of politically-motivated hiring practices on employees).
In a thoughtful opinion, the district court, operating without very much guidance from the earlier opinion of this court,[9] suggested that three separate constitutional interests were infringed by the defendants' hiring policy: first, "the plaintiff candidates' rights of free political belief and expression," 481 F.Supp. at 1333; second, the plaintiff voters and candidates' right to associate, id. at 1333-34; and third, the plaintiff candidates and voters' right to equal participation in the electoral process, id. at 1334-35. In our view, however, the heart of the plaintiffs' case is their contention that the hiring practices of the defendants violate the speech and associational rights of candidates and voters.[10] As a general proposition, the

11
right of candidates and voters to communicate freely is beyond question. It is also "beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the `liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech." NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 1171, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958). It is also wellestablished that "the rights of voters and the rights of candidates do not lend themselves to neat separation; laws that affect candidates always have at least some theoretical, correlative effect on voters." Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143, 92 S.Ct. 849, 856, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972). However, the recitation of these broad principles — as important as they are — does not provide us with sufficient guidance to resolve the issue of standing before us. A far more focused inquiry is required to determine whether the asserted injury is fairly traceable to the defendants' activity. We must more precisely "consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff[s] seek[] to vindicate." Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 1570, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983).
At the outset, it is important to note that the hiring practice at issue here is significantly different from the sort of activity that usually forms the basis of a challenge to an electoral system. Indeed, this case is not really a challenge to the mechanics of an electoral system at all. We are not 1396*1396 asked to evaluate any aspect of the electoral process — the procedure to get on the ballot or to obtain a place on the ballot. There is no claim that any candidate was deprived of the opportunity to run for office, to appear on the ballot, or to be given any particular place on the ballot. Nor is there any claim that a voter was deprived of the opportunity to vote for a particular candidate. Rather, the gravamen of the appellees' complaint is that the announced hiring practice of the appellants provided a decided advantage in communicating with the electorate and in effectively marshalling community support for the appellants' political cause.
This is not, of course, a claim that the speech and associational rights of the appellees are completely restricted. Rather, it is a claim that the hiring practice had the purpose and effect of giving the appellants a significant advantage in the process of communicating with the electorate. There can be no doubt that unequal treatment of speech by government officials can amount to content regulation of that speech — regardless of whether the government has acted to impede affirmatively the speech of a particular speaker or to assist artificially the speech of another. See generallyPolice Dep't of the City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). Here, government officials have not undertaken either of these roles in any direct manner. Rather, the appellees argue that the incumbents, by maintaining the practice of filling certain government positions with those who have

12
supported them in the electoral process, have indirectly created such an inequality in the treatment of communication. Such a claim of an indirect injury must be scrutinized carefully.
When a governmental prohibition or restriction imposed on one party causes specific harm to a third party, harm that a constitutional provision or statute was intended to prevent, the indirectness of the injury does not necessarily deprive the person harmed of standing to vindicate his rights. E.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 124, 93 S.Ct. 705, 712, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). But it may make it substantially more difficult to meet the minimum requirement of Art. III: to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions, or that prospective relief will remove the harm.
Warth, 422 U.S. at 505, 95 S.Ct. at 2208.
D. The Standing Requirement: The Appellees' Case and Causality
The Supreme Court of the United States has stressed that the "links in the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury,"Allen, 468 U.S. at 759, 104 S.Ct. at 3328, are especially weak when the causal connection depends on many independent decisions of third parties. In Simon, the Court held that standing to challenge a government grant of tax exemption to hospitals could not be founded on the asserted connection between the grant of tax-exempt status and the hospital's policy concerning the provision of medical services to indigents. In that case, noted the Court, the causal connection depended on the decisions hospitals would make in response to withdrawal of tax-exempt status. 426 U.S. at 40-43, 96 S.Ct. at 1925-1927. Those decisions — made by many independent institutions for reasons tailored to the circumstances of the individual institution — were "sufficiently uncertain to break the chain of causation between the plaintiffs' injury and the challenged Government action." Allen, 468 U.S. at 759, 104 S.Ct. at 3329. "Speculative inferences," Simon, 426 U.S. at 45, 96 S.Ct. at 1928,were necessary to connect the injury to the challenged action. Similarly, in Allen, the court found that there was insufficient causation in the claim of parents that their children's opportunity for a racially integrated public education was diminished by the federal tax exemptions granted to some racially discriminatory private schools which "accommodate white students avoiding attendance in desegregating public school districts." Allen, 468 U.S. at 746, 104 S.Ct. at 3322. Such a theory of causation:
involves numerous third parties (officials of racially discriminatory schools receiving tax exemptions and the parents of children attending such schools) who may not even exist in respondents' communities1397*1397 and whose independent decisions may not

13
collectively have a significant effect on the ability of public school students to receive a desegregated education.
Id. at 759, 104 S.Ct. at 3329.
In this case, we find the line of causation between the appellants' activity and the appellees' asserted injury to be particularly attenuated. As in the foregoing cases, the line of causation depends upon countless individual decisions. Moreover, those countless individual decisions must depend upon, according to the appellees' own theory of the case, countless individual political assessments that those who are in power will stay in power. It is not the hiring policy itself which creates any advantage for the incumbents. Any other candidate is entirely free to assert that, if elected, he will follow the same policy. Any advantage obtained by the incumbent is obtained only if potential workers make an independent evaluation that the incumbent, and not the opposition, will win. The plaintiffs will be at a disadvantage if — and only if — a significant number of individuals seeking political job opportunities determines the "ins" will remain the "ins."
Here, the appellants admit that one of the purposes of the patronage hiring policy was to "help[] elect candidates supported by the various members of the Democratic County Central Committee." R. 89 at 4. This admission simply states the obvious that some of the hundreds of office seekers in Cook County will undoubtedly decide that the incumbents are likely to remain the incumbents and, for that reason alone, will work for the incumbents during the campaign. Others — no one knows how many — while interested in a political job will consider such a factor as simply one of many motivating their decision to be politically active. For others, it may not be a factor in the decision to be politically active but may influence the character or intensity of their contribution. However, others who desire to obtain a political job may read the political signs quite differently and decide, either as a matter of principle or expediency, that they ought to commit their energy to the political efforts of non-incumbents.
For each citizen, many factors, many not capable of articulation, will determine the nature and extent of that person's political activity. For those recruiting such political workers, political incumbency has advantages and disadvantages. In some political environments, a patronage hiring policy by the incumbents may enjoy a good deal of credibility with potential workers. Not only may the incumbents be able to point to a successful political track record, but they may also be able to demonstrate their determination to implement such a policy by their present actions. Moreover, in many instances, although not always, the incumbent enjoys certain natural advantages in communicating with the citizenry. However, in other political environments, incumbency may well be a ball and chain on the leg of the candidate

14
and the announcement of such a patronage policy may, far from being an advantage, seal his political doom. Indeed, it may be the challenger who can attract workers with the promise that, once elected, he will continue to seek the help of those who have supported him. We do not believe, therefore, that the plaintiffs can assert, with the certainty required by the case-and-controversy requirement, that the injury they assert is "fairly traceable" to the actions of the defendants that form the basis of their complaint.
In reaching this conclusion, we have found instructive the thoughtful discussion of our colleagues on the District of Columbia Circuit in Winpisinger v. Watson, 628 F.2d 133 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 929, 100 S.Ct. 1867, 64 L.Ed.2d 282 (1980).[11]There, the court was faced with a claim of injury allegedly caused by the abuse of the power of incumbency. In that case, the plaintiffs, supporters of Senator Edward M. Kennedy in his quest for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, 1398*1398claimed that the abuse of the power of incumbency by members of President Carter's administration, including the power to hire federal employees on the basis of political affiliation, id. at 136, injured "plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, as voters, contributors and participants in the process of Presidential nomination," id. at 135. The court, relying on both constitutional and prudential considerations, held that the plaintiffs lacked standing. With respect to constitutional concerns, the court determined that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the requisite causal connection between the actions of the defendants and their alleged injury:
In the case before us, whether an appellant is viewed in the character of a voter, contributor, a noncontributing supporter or a candidate for a delegate post, a court would have to accept a number of very speculative inferences and assumptions in any endeavor to connect his alleged injury with activities attributed to appellees.
Id. at 139.
There are, of course, factual differences between this case and Winpisinger. As theWinpisinger court indicated (albeit in its discussion of prudential rather than constitutional concerns), this case deals with a single activity — political hiring — rather than a widerange of actions by the incumbents. It also involves a single county, not a coordinate branch of the federal government. Id. at 141. But these differences, whatever their relevance with respect to prudential concerns,[12] have little pertinence when assessing whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated the requisite causality between their alleged injury and the actions of a political incumbent. It is no easier to measure the effect of an incumbent's promises on the ebb and flow of the political tide in Cook County, Illinois than it is in any other political context.[13]

15
A plaintiff cannot assert injury to his viability as a candidate or his influence as a voter simply on the basis of the advantage — real or imagined — of incumbency. Such a course would require that we resolve "profound questions of political science that exceed judicial competence to answer...." LaFalce v. Houston, 712 F.2d 292, 294 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1044, 104 S.Ct. 712, 79 L.Ed.2d 175 (1984).[14]Tracing the appellees' asserted injury to the appellants' activity, see Simon, 426 U.S. at 41-42, 96 S.Ct. at 192526, must depend on more than the attempt of a federal court to take the political temperature of the body politic.
Finally, a word of caution is necessary. Our holding today deals only with the plaintiffs' standing to attack the constitutionality of the defendants' hiring practices. Our holding does not address the substantially different question of whether the plaintiffs would have standing to attack the constitutionality of the coerced political work demanded of those already employed by the government as a condition of continued employment. This latter question obviously 1399*1399 raises substantially different considerations. Therefore, we explicitly note that nothing in our holding today can be construed as affecting the continued validity of the Shakman decree.
Conclusion
Because we have determined that the plaintiffs do not have standing to assert the claim they bring to this court, we can proceed no further. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court. Those aspects of the complaint which challenge the patronage hiring practice of the defendants are dismissed. The district court shall, in all other respects, retain jurisdiction.[15]
[1] Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment as to the appellants' liability was granted on September 24, 1979. Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County, 481 F.Supp. 1315 (N.D. Ill.1979). The remedy was left for later determination. On April 4, 1983, the district court entered the implementation order applicable to the hiring aspect of the case. Finding no just reason for delay, the district court ordered the entry of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Final judgment was thus entered as to the hiring practices of the consenting defendants who are before this court as the appellants. This court's jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
[2] This litigation has been in progress since 1969. In this opinion, we set forth only the facts and procedural history relevant to the issues before the court.
[3] Most of the Democratic defendants ultimately agreed to the 1972 consent judgment. Cook County Sheriff, Richard Elrod, and the Chicago Park District remained the only "non-consenting" Democratic defendants. Shakman, 481 F.Supp. at 1323. The district court entered partial summary judgment against the "non-consenting" defendants as to liability on the issues of political hiring, firing and promotion practices. Id. at 1349. The "non-consenting" defendants have not appealed. After partial summary judgment was entered, but before the 1983 implementation order, the "nonconsenting" Democratic defendants entered into separate consent decrees approved by the district court. All the appellants before this court had consented to the 1972 consent judgment prohibiting political firing. Therefore, the only issue before this court is the constitutionality of the hiring policy.

16
[4] The district court invited the parties to seek the certification of the interlocutory summary judgment order necessary for an immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 481 F.Supp. at 1355 n. 51. The Democratic defendants filed a motion to have the summary judgment order certified for appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). R.190; 508 F.Supp. 1059, 1060-61. The district court denied the motion but certified the summary judgment order for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Id. The defendants filed a notice of appeal on March 16, 1981. R.191. The appeal, however, was dismissed by this court pursuant to the defendants' motions. R.193; R.194.
[5] See supra note 3.
[6] The district court also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing as taxpayers to challenge the patronage hiring practice. 481 F.Supp. 1315, 1322 n. 1. We agree with the district court; the counts based on taxpayer standing are, therefore, dismissed. See Frissell v. Rizzo, 597 F.2d 840, 850 (3d. Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 841, 100 S.Ct. 82, 62 L.Ed.2d 54 (1979) (applying United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 41 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974), to a suit brought in federal court by a local taxpayer challenging the constitutionality of a local government expenditure).
[7] The district court wrote:
There are two apparent gaps in the opinion that make analysis difficult. First, while there is general discussion of the protected nature of "the voter's interest in a voice in government of equal effectiveness with other voters" and a right of some sort to protection "from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure," these rights do not appear to be precisely defined and their scope is not stated. Second, while the court of appeals repeatedly used the phrase "constitutional protection," it did not define the nature of that protection.
481 F.Supp. at 1330.
[8] Some of the earlier standing cases do not clearly delineate the second and third element of the analysis. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 753 n. 19, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3325 n. 19, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). As Justice O'Connor pointed out in Allen:
The "fairly traceable" and "redressability" components of the constitutional standing inquiry were initially articulated by this Court as "two facets of a single causation requirement." C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts § 13, p. 68, n. 43 (4th ed. 1983). To the extent there is a difference, it is that the former examines the causal connection between the assertedly unlawful conduct and the alleged injury, whereas the latter examines the causal connection between the alleged injury and the judicial relief requested.
Id.
[9] See supra note 7.
[10] In the view of the district court, the appellees' case has an independent equal protection dimension because the hiring policy of the defendants constitutes a "debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote" similar to that prohibited by the reapportionment cases. Shakman, 481 F.Supp. at 1334 (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964)). The situation presented here is hardly the usual situation in which such a "dilution" claim is made. There has been no restructuring of electoral districts, no restrictions on a candidate's opportunity to appear on the ballot, or no attempt to place one candidate in a particularly advantageous place on the ballot. In our view, the plaintiffs' contention is tied to the merits of their speech and associational rights claims.
[11] While the Winpisinger court found it unnecessary to repudiate directly this circuit's holding inShakman I, it also made it clear that it had serious reservations as to its correctness. Winpisinger v. Watson, 628 F.2d 133, 141 & n. 32 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 929, 100 S.Ct. 1867, 64 L.Ed.2d 282 (1980). While according this circuit's opinion "due respect," id. at 141, it also noted that Shakman I was decided prior to the Supreme Court's reassessment of the standing requirement. Id. at 141 n. 32.
[12] The District of Columbia Circuit, in addressing the prudential concerns, relied heavily on the political question doctrine. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). That aspect of justiciability concerns the relationship between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the federal government. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 351, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 2679, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality); Baker, 369 U.S. at 210, 82 S.Ct. at 706.

17
[13] The Winpisinger court also assumed that Shakman I involved "a system of coercing political activity through the threat of arbitrary dismissal for failure to participate." 628 F.2d at 141. In its present posture, the case involves a far more amorphous complaint — political hiring without the companion practice of political firings.
[14] Our holding today is limited, of course, to the situation before us. We do not address the question of whether candidates and voters would have standing to attack coerced political work demanded of those already employed by the government as a condition of continued employment. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the discharged employees have standing to bring such an action. See Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976).
Of course, we are not confronted with the question of whether those seeking employment could maintain an action against the defendants. This case does not involve plaintiffs in that situation.
[15] This appeal involves only the plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants' hiring practice, standing alone, was unconstitutional. Those portions of the complaint addressing this contention must now be dismissed. This appeal did not involve the plaintiffs' contention that politically-motivated discharges by the defendants are unconstitutional. That issue was the subject of a consent decree with respect to many of the defendants, R. 42, and of the court's unappealed judgment with respect to other defendants. See supra note 3. The district court continues to exercise jurisdiction to enforce its judgment with respect to those claims.

 
 1
396 F.3d 843 (2005)
Gerald O'SULLIVAN, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-1412, 03-1436.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued November 7, 2003. Decided January 31, 2005. Rehearing Denied March 31, 2005.
William R. Jentes (argued), Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Lawrence Rosenthal (argued), Mara S. Georges, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before COFFEY, RIPPLE and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs in the two actions now before us are current and former lieutenants in the Chicago Police Department who were denied promotion to captain. They filed suit against the City of Chicago ("City") to enforce a consent decree entered in 1983 that required the City of Chicago to make hiring and promotion decisions without reference to an individual's political affiliation. The City moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the decree. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs appealed. We now reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

2
I
BACKGROUND
A. The History of the Shakman Litigation
1. The Original Shakman Litigation
In 1969, Michael Shakman, an independent candidate seeking election to the Illinois Constitutional Convention, and one of his supporters, brought suit on behalf of themselves, other candidates for public office and other voters against a number of governmental entities and officials, including the City of Chicago and its Mayor. The class of plaintiffs alleged that the defendants maintained a patronage system: Government jobs were awarded (or retained) based on a prospective employee's or current employee's support of Democratic candidates. The plaintiffs alleged that this patronage system violated the right of candidates to associate with supporters, the right of voters to a free electoral process and the right of public employees 848*848 to associate with candidates from other parties.
The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. It reasoned that the named plaintiff, as a candidate and voter, was the "wrong party to complain about alleged wrongs incurred by patronage workers." Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County, 310 F.Supp. 1398, 1401 (N.D.Ill.1969).
This court reversed. We stated:
The interest in an equal chance and an equal voice is allegedly impaired in the case before us by the misuse of official power over public employees so as to create a substantial, perhaps massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. We conclude that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure.
Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267, 268 (7th Cir.1970) ("Shakman I"). Following the remand, the City and the other defendants agreed to a consent judgment entered on May 5, 1972 ("1972 Consent Decree").

3
2. 1972 Consent Decree
The 1972 Consent Decree prohibited the defendants from "conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor." Appellants' Sep.App., Ex.3 at 3. Furthermore, the district court retained jurisdiction "[t]o enable the parties to this Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction or carrying out of this Judgment, for the enforcement of compliance with the provisions contained herein, and for the punishment of the violation of any such provisions." Id. at 4. The district court also provided: "Application to enforce such provisions or to impose punishment for any such violation may be presented to this Court by any registered voter." Id. The decree did not address whether political considerations could be used in hiring new employees — a matter that continued to be litigated by the parties.
3. 1983 Consent Decree
The litigation on the unresolved hiring issue continued over the next decade. In September 1979, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on their hiring claim. See Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County,481 F.Supp. 1315 (N.D.Ill.1979). The court stated that the patronage hiring practices infringed upon the plaintiffs' rights as voters and candidates because they gave the incumbent party an unfair advantage in elections. The court then directed the parties to address the appropriate form of relief.
On April 4, 1983, the district court entered an order enjoining the defendants from conditioning hiring decisions on an applicant's political affiliation. Although the City initially was bound by this order, it subsequently entered into a second consent judgment on June 20, 1983 ("1983 Consent Decree"), with respect to the hiring issue.
The 1983 Consent Decree enjoined the City from "conditioning, basing or affecting of employment with the City of Chicago on political reasons or factors while maintaining the ability of the elected officials of the City lawfully to establish, manage and direct the policies and affairs of the City." Appellants' Sep.App., Ex.4 at 2. The decree anticipated that the City would 849*849 file, "not later than 120 days from the date this Judgment becomes effective," "a Plan of Compliance to implement this Judgment."Id. at 3. Finally, it was clear that the 1972 Consent Decree remained in effect and that the district court retained

4
jurisdiction to ensure "enforcement of compliance with the provisions contained in the 1972 Consent Judgment and [the 1983] Judgment, and for remedy for the violation of any of those provisions." Id. at 8. Indeed, the 1983 Consent Decree provided that "[a]pplication to enforce those provisions or to remedy any violation may be presented to this court by any registered voter." Id.
4. Plan of Compliance and Detailed Hiring Provisions
In 1984, the City issued its "Principles for Plan of Compliance" ("PPC") to implement the 1983 Consent Decree as well as its "Detailed Hiring Provisions" ("DHP"). The PPC applied to "hiring for all non-Exempt positions covered by the Judgment." Id.,Ex.5 at 2. Central to the PPC was the exclusion of politics from all hiring decisions except those for exempt positions and the elimination of the effects of the past patronage hiring system. The DHP applied to "all hiring decisions concerning individuals who currently are not employed by the City as well as to transfer, demotion, promotion, and reclassification decisions involving current City employees." Id., Ex.6 at I-1. The DHP were amended in 1986 to provide that
[p]romotions from a position with a lower grade classification to a position with a higher grade classification, whereby both positions are in the same job category, shall be exempt from Public Advertising, Posting, and Application and Screening procedures if the only criterion that differentiates the higher classified position from the lower classified position is the period of service in the lower classified position.
R.16, Ex.F at II-8.
5. Shakman II Decision
Unlike the City of Chicago, several Cook County officials did not agree to the 1983 Consent Decree but appealed the district court's partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1987, this court issued its opinion in Shakman v. Dunne, 829 F.2d 1387, 1399 (7th Cir.1987) ("Shakman II"). We first noted that "[t]his appeal raises only the constitutionality of politically-motivated hiring practices without any reference to the other patronage-based employment practices — including the discharge scheme now forbidden by the [1972] consent decree." Id. at 1393 (citations omitted). We also noted that significant changes had occurred since the plaintiffs had filed the action back in 1969:
The case before us today is, from a factual viewpoint, a very different case from the case set forth in the complaint. The consent decree with respect to politically-motivated

5
discharges, has eliminated a significant portion of the contentions that were originally presented in the appellees' complaint and that were before this court during the earlier appeal in 1970, seventeen years ago.... More importantly, we are confronted with a significantly different legal landscape than the one that confronted the district court at the time the complaint was originally filed.... During these intervening years, the Supreme Court has engaged in a thorough examination of "justiciability," the limitations imposed on federal courts by the "case-and-controversy" provision of article III.
Id. at 1392-93 (citations omitted; emphasis in original).
Although reconsideration of the plaintiffs' standing usually would be foreclosed 850*850by the "law of the case doctrine," we noted that the doctrine "`was understandably crafted with the course of ordinary litigation in mind,' "id. at 1393 (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618-19, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)), and that "courts are significantly less constrained by the law of the case doctrine with respect to jurisdictional questions," id. Our prior decision in Shakman I had noted that "the voter's interest" asserted by the plaintiffs was entitled to "constitutional protection"; however, we never had examined the plaintiffs' alleged injuries according to the current standing requirements — namely whether the plaintiffs had suffered a "`personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.'" Id. at 1394 (quoting Allen v. Wright,468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984)). Thus, we examined, for the first time, the plaintiffs' claims against this standard.
We noted that, although the plaintiffs had asserted several injuries, "the heart of the plaintiffs' case [wa]s their contention that the hiring practices of the defendants violate[d] the speech and associational rights of candidates and voters." Id. at 1395. Focusing on the requirement that the injury must be "fairly traceable to the defendants' activity," we concluded that the connection between the patronage hiring practices and the dilution of the voter's political voice was too attenuated to meet the standing requirement:
For each citizen, many factors, many not capable of articulation, will determine the nature and extent of that person's political activity. For those recruiting such political workers, political incumbency has advantages and disadvantages. In some political environments, a patronage hiring policy by the incumbents may enjoy a good deal of credibility with potential workers. Not only may the incumbents be able to point to a successful political track record, but they may also be able to demonstrate their determination to implement such a policy by their present actions. Moreover, in many instances, although not always, the incumbent enjoys certain natural advantages in communicating with the citizenry. However, in other political environments, incumbency may

6
well be a ball and chain on the leg of the candidate and the announcement of such a patronage policy may, far from being an advantage, seal his political doom. Indeed, it may be the challenger who can attract workers with the promise that, once elected, he will continue to seek the help of those who have supported him. We do not believe, therefore, that the plaintiffs can assert, with the certainty required by the case-and-controversy requirement, that the injury they assert is "fairly traceable" to the actions of the defendants that form the basis of their complaint.
Id. at 1397. Our holding, however, did not encompass all voter challenges of anypatronage practices; it was limited to
plaintiff's standing to attack the constitutionality of the defendants' hiring practices. Our holding d[id] not address the substantially different question of whether the plaintiffs would have standing to attack the constitutionality of the coerced political work demanded of those already employed by the government as a condition of continued employment.
Id. at 1399 (emphasis in original).
6. Other Considerations
Several years after our decision in Shakman II, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 110 S.Ct. 2729, 111 L.Ed.2d 52 (1990), in which it addressed 851*851 "whether the First Amendment's proscription of patronage dismissals recognized in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), and Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), extends to promotion, transfer, recall, or hiring decisions involving public employment positions for which party affiliation is not an appropriate requirement." Rutan, 497 U.S. at 68, 110 S.Ct. 2729 (parallel citations omitted). Rutan did not speak to standing requirements but made clear that basing hiring decisions on political patronage was impermissible. The Court held "that promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs based on political affiliation or support are an impermissible infringement on the First Amendment rights of public employees." Id. at 75, 110 S.Ct. 2729. The Court determined that "[u]nder [its] sustained precedent, conditioning hiring decisions on political belief and association plainly constitutes an unconstitutional condition, unless the government has a vital interest in doing so." Id. at 78, 110 S.Ct. 2729.
In the wake of Rutan, the plaintiffs moved to reinstate the district court's April 4, 1983 judgment against the non-settling defendants. In response, the non-settling Cook County

7
defendants[1] eventually entered into a consent judgment similar to that which the City had entered — the 1983 Consent Decree — and also filed similar plans of compliance.
B. Present Litigation and District Court Proceedings
This appeal consists of two consolidated complaints filed by Chicago police lieutenants against the City of Chicago. In their complaint, the plaintiffs described the action as a "civil action to enforce the judgment in Shakman vs. Democratic Party of Cook County, Civil Action No. 69 C 2145." R.55, ¶ 1. They alleged that they were "registered voters, residents of the City of Chicago who were police lieutenants who applied for the position of Captain and who met the eligibility requirements for selection as captain." Id., ¶ 15. The plaintiffs further claimed that they were denied promotion to captain as a result of the City's violation of the 1983 Consent Decree through the City's failure to comply with the requirements of the DHP. The plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including: (1) the issuance of a rule to show cause "why defendant ought not be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with the terms of the Shakman Decree, Plan and Principles"; (2) a directive to the City to "adhere to the provisions of the Shakman Decree, Principles and Plan in all future selections for nonexempt positions"; and (3) "relief to plaintiff and other persons who are found to have sustained injury and damages as a result of the violations." Id. at 9.
The City moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground that the plaintiffs "fail[ed] to allege any injury to their associational rights as voters and thus, lack Article III standing." R.58 at 6. Specifically, the City maintained that, "[a]lthough plaintiffs allege[d] that they are registered voters, their claims [we]re subject to dismissal because they d[id] not plead notice of an injury to their First Amendment associational rights that is fairly traceable to the captain's promotions at issue in this case." Id.
The district court agreed with the City. In its order granting the motion to dismiss, the court first reviewed the history of the Shakman litigation, the 1983 Consent Decree, the PPC and the DHP. The 852*852 district court then turned to the plaintiffs' allegations, which it described as follows:
Plaintiffs allege that as a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendant, Plaintiffs sustained injury, including lost wages and benefits because they were not promoted to captain. In Count II, Plaintiffs seek a petition for rule to show cause why Defendant ought not be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the Shakman Decree, the [PPC], and the DHP.

8
R.64 at 4. The district court next addressed the City's contention that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court noted that the 1983 Consent Decree grants standing to enforce the decree to any registered voter. In addition, the court noted that a party seeking to enforce the decree also must show "an injury in fact, a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and that its injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." R.64 at 5 (citing Plotkin v. Ryan, 239 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir.2001)). The court further noted that "[p]laintiffs have the burden of establishing standing, and each element of standing must be supported `by more than unadorned speculation.' Plotkin, 239 F.3d at 885." Id. The court then determined that the plaintiffs had not met this burden; it explained:
In the instant case, Plaintiffs alleged that they are registered voters who met the eligibility requirements for selection as a captain in December 2000 and January 2001 but were not selected for such promotions. They allege that the promotion process was in violation of the Shakman Decree, the [PPC], and the DHP.
"Shakman prohibits only political considerations which effect [sic] voter and candidate rights." Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County,356 F.Supp. 1241, 1248 (N.D.Ill.1972); see also Herron v. City of Chicago, 619 F.Supp. 767, 773 (N.D.Ill.1985) (Shakman judgment "enjoins the defendants from hiring or refusing to hire employees based on political considerations"). In the instant case, Plaintiffs have not pled that the challenged promotion practice adversely affected their rights as voters or candidates. Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not allege that political considerations were at the heart of the promotion process. Instead, the Plaintiffs allege that they were denied a promotion because certain procedures were not followed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish an injury in fact to their rights as voters to bring an action to enforce the Shakman Decree.
Id. at 5-6. Because the plaintiffs did not establish standing to enforce the action, the district court granted the City's motion to dismiss.[2]
853*853 II
ANALYSIS
In this appeal, the plaintiffs submit that the district court erred in determining that they lacked standing to enforce the 1983 Consent Decree. They maintain that the issue of voter standing had been fully litigated when the City agreed to the 1983 Consent Decree; because the City took no further action to challenge the standing of voters, the City cannot

9
now attack that decree for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The City argues, however, that before the plaintiffs can pursue their enforcement action, they must establish that they meet constitutional standing requirements. The City maintains that Shakman II makes it clear that voters do not have standing to challenge patronage hiring and promotional claims such as those that are the subject of the 1983 Consent Decree. Consequently, the City maintains, the plaintiffs do not have the necessary standing to invoke the power of the district court.
A. Standing
The power of the judiciary is confined by Article III of the Constitution of the United States to "cases" and "controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; see, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). As the Supreme Court has explained, through the pen of Chief Justice Warren in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968), this case and controversy requirement is often referred to as the concept of justiciability. Justiciability thus sets apart "cases" and "controversies" — disputes that "are appropriately resolved through the judicial process" — from those situations that are not properly resolved through the exercise of judicial authority. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990).
Standing is an aspect of justiciability. "The `gist of the question of standing' is whether the party seeking relief has `alleged such a personal stake in the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.'" Flast, 392 U.S. at 99, 88 S.Ct. 1942 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962)). When determining standing, the emphasis "is on whether the party invoking federal court jurisdiction has `a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,' and whether the dispute touches upon the `legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests.'" Id. at 101, 88 S.Ct. 1942 (quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 204, 82 S.Ct. 691; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth,300 U.S. 227, 240-41, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937)).
"Though some of its elements express merely prudential considerations that are part of judicial self-government, 854*854 the core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Any plaintiff seeking to invoke the power of a federal court bears the burden of demonstrating: (1) an "injury in fact — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or

10
hypothetical"; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, that is, the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, not the result of "the independent action of some third party not before the court"; and (3) a favorable decision likely will redress the injury. Id. at 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal quotation marks, citations and footnotes omitted).
In addition to constitutional standing requirements, the [s]tanding doctrine embraces several judicially imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). In other contexts, the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals have noted that prudential standing considerations often are especially important when individuals come to the federal courts to challenge the actions of a State. In those cases, federal courts have the added responsibility to ensure that their actions do not strain unnecessarily the principles of federalism. Cf. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 75, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (stating that "[w]hen anticipatory relief is sought in federal court against a state statute, respect for the place of the States in our federal system calls for close consideration of that core question" — "[i]s this conflict really necessary?"). For instance, concerns for federalism have been articulated frequently when state taxpayers have challenged an expenditure by the State. One of our sister circuits has explained that, in these situations, the separation of powers concern that animates the bar to generalized taxpayer suits
has a counterpoint which should be considered when a state taxpayer seeks to have a federal court enjoin the appropriation and spending activities of a state government. Considerations of federalism should signal the same caution in these circumstances as concern for preservation of the proper separation of powers in an "all federal" action.
Taub v. Kentucky, 842 F.2d 912, 919 (6th Cir.1988). In short, before permitting a plaintiff to challenge state governmental activity, the federal court has a duty to ensure, with careful attention, that the parties before it have the requisite concrete adverseness that will ensure full presentation of the issues and avoid unnecessary intrusion into state governmental processes.

11
"Together, the constitutional and prudential components of standing ensure that plaintiffs possess `such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.'" Oregon Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir.2003)(quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 204, 82 S.Ct. 691).
Recent cases illustrate how the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals have applied the concept of standing to 855*855 ensure that the adversarial system works at its optimal level. In Lujan, for instance, members of wildlife conservation organizations challenged the Secretary of the Interior's promulgation of a regulation under the Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs' asserted injury was "that the lack of consultation with respect to certain funded activities abroad `increase[ed] the rate of extinction of endangered and threatened species.'" Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (quoting the plaintiffs' complaint). The Supreme Court held that, in order to establish standing, it was not enough for the organizations' members to have a "special interest" in wildlife conservation; instead, the challenged regulation had to affect "directly" one of the organization's members, apart from the stated special interest. Id. at 563, 112 S.Ct. 2130. The Court stated that "[i]t goes beyond the limit, however, and into pure speculation and fantasy, to say that anyone who observes or works with an endangered species, anywhere in the world, is appreciably harmed by a single project affecting some portion of that species with which he has no more specific connection." Id. at 567, 112 S.Ct. 2130. The Court also held that the provision of the Endangered Species Act that allowed for citizen enforcement was not a substitute for constitutional standing requirements: "We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy." Id. at 573-74, 112 S.Ct. 2130.
The Court also has addressed voter standing to challenge governmental actions that impact the political process. In United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995), for example, voters in Louisiana brought an equal protection challenge to the State's redistricting plan. Before it could address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, the Court was required to consider the plaintiffs' standing. The Court noted that, in light of the principles set forth in Lujan,"we have repeatedly refused to recognize a generalized grievance against allegedly illegal governmental conduct as sufficient for standing to invoke the federal judicial power" and that this rule applies "with as much force in the equal protection context as in any other." Id. at 743, 115 S.Ct. 2431. The Court explained that only those individuals who claimed that they were "personally denied equal treatment" were in a

12
position to challenge allegedly unconstitutional governmental action. Id. at 744, 115 S.Ct. 2431 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Consequently, the Court had to "reject appellees' position that anybody in the State has a claim" if racial gerrymandering allegedly has occurred. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Instead, the Court looked to whether the plaintiff had endured an individualized harm related to racial classification:
Where a plaintiff resides in a racially gerrymandered district, ... the plaintiff has been denied equal treatment because of the legislature's reliance on racial criteria, and therefore has standing to challenge the legislature's action. Voters in such districts may suffer the special representational harms racial classifications can cause in the voting context. On the other hand, where a plaintiff does not live in such a district, he or she does not suffer those special harms, and any inference that the plaintiff has personally been subjected to a racial classification would not be justified absent specific evidence tending to856*856 support that inference. Unless such evidence is present, that plaintiff would be asserting only a generalized grievance against governmental conduct of which he or she does not approve.
Id. at 744-45, 115 S.Ct. 2431 (citations omitted). Thus, both Lujan and Haysemphasize that individuals challenging governmental actions must have suffered a direct injury as a result of the allegedly unconstitutional action.
Our own cases examining voter standing in political patronage cases illustrate the other requirements set forth in Lujan — that the injury be fairly traceable to the allegedly illegal action and that the courts be able to redress the claimed injury. As we noted earlier, in Shakman II this court confronted the claim by Cook County officials that voters did not have standing to challenge political hiring decisions. When we evaluated the connection between the injury asserted by the voters — the dilution of their voting strength — to the asserted illegal conduct — political patronage hiring — we concluded that the injury was not fairly traceable to the illegal conduct. We explained:
For each citizen, many factors, many not capable of articulation, will determine the nature and extent of that person's political activity. For those recruiting such political workers, political incumbency has advantages and disadvantages. In some political environments, a patronage hiring policy by the incumbents may enjoy a good deal of credibility with potential workers. Not only may the incumbents be able to point to a successful political track record, but they may also be able to demonstrate their determination to implement such a policy by their present actions. Moreover, in many instances, although not always, the incumbent enjoys certain natural advantages in communicating with the citizenry. However, in other political environments, incumbency may

13
well be a ball and chain on the leg of the candidate and the announcement of such a patronage policy may, far from being an advantage, seal his political doom. Indeed, it may be the challenger who can attract workers with the promise that, once elected, he will continue to seek the help of those who have supported him. We do not believe, therefore, that the plaintiffs can assert, with the certainty required by the case-and-controversy requirement, that the injury they assert is "fairly traceable" to the actions of the defendants that form the basis of their complaint.
Shakman II, 829 F.2d at 1397.
Later, in Plotkin, this court determined that voters did not have standing to pursue an injunction to bar governmental officials from receiving bribes that funded political campaigns. We stated:
The alleged injury-in-fact for these claims is that defendants' illegal conduct skewed the election results in favor of George Ryan and, in the process, diluted the impact of their votes. Plaintiffs concede that they cannot have the results of the 1998 gubernatorial election set aside by this suit, but ask for injunctive relief, findings of contempt, and the imposition of fines....
... Plaintiffs make no allegations that the bribes-for-commercial drivers'-licenses scheme is continuing under Secretary White's administration, contending only that "[t]here exists in the Secretary of State's office a deep-seated culture and policy or custom of intertwining and requiring coerced partisan political work together with the official duties of the office," and as a result, "[t]here is a substantial likelihood that without remedial steps being taken that such or similar unlawful conduct will 857*857continue." These allegations are purely speculative.
Plotkin, 239 F.3d at 884-85 (internal citations omitted).
At its constitutional core, therefore, standing requires that the parties before the court must allege injury fairly traceable to the alleged illegal conduct of the defendant that the court may redress. This requirement necessitates an inquiry into the nature of the plaintiffs' injury, the connection between the injury and the complained-of actions and the scope of remedies available to the court.
Moreover, from a prudential standpoint, courts must pay particularly close attention to these requirements when they are asked to restrain the action of a public entity. When a plaintiff seeks to enjoin state governmental activity, "[c]ase-or-controversy considerations ... `obviously shade into those determining whether the complaint states a sound basis for

14
equitable relief.' The latter set of considerations should therefore inform our judgment about whether [the plaintiffs] have standing." Allen, 468 U.S. at 760-61, 104 S.Ct. 3315 (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 499, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)). And, voters, taxpayers or residents voicing generalized complaints are not sufficient to justify the federal courts' intrusion into the workings of the States.
B. Finality
The plaintiffs in the present action acknowledge the requirements for standing. They maintain, however, that these standards are largely irrelevant to their action because standing for this action is provided by the 1983 Consent Decree. In their view, the City's failure to challenge the jurisdictional determination of the district court on which the 1983 Consent Decree was based is fatal to the City's current claim that the court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the decree. The plaintiffs' argument rests largely on a line of cases originating with Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311, 48 S.Ct. 311, 72 L.Ed. 587 (1928) ("Swift I"), in which the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals have refused to permit collateral attacks on the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
One of the first cases to speak to attempts to relitigate subject matter jurisdiction in a collateral proceeding, as noted above, was Swift I. In Swift I, the Government had instituted an antitrust action against five leading meat-packing companies. In their answers, the defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint. Along with the answers, the defendants filed a stipulation "which provided that the court might, without finding any fact, enter the proposed decree therein set forth." Id. at 320, 48 S.Ct. 311. "The decree declared among other things, that the court had jurisdiction of the persons and the subject-matter, and `that the allegations of the petitioner state a cause of action against the defendants under the provisions of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and supplementary legislation.'" Id. (quoting the proposed decree). The court entered the proposed decree. Only two years later, parties to the decree moved to vacate the consent decree on the ground that it was void for reasons including the district court's lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the defendants contended that there was "no case or controversy within the meaning of section 2 of article 3 of the Constitution." Id. at 325, 48 S.Ct. 311. The Court rejected this argument:
The defendants concede that there was a case at the time when the government filed its petition and the defendants their answers; but they insist that the controversy had ceased before the decree was entered.... The argument ignores the fact that a suit for an 858*858 injunction deals primarily, not with past violations, but with threatened future

15
ones; and that an injunction may issue to prevent future wrong, although no right has yet been violated. Moreover, the objection is one which is not open on a motion to vacate. The court had jurisdiction both of the general subject-matter-enforcement of the Anti-Trust Act — and of the parties. If it erred in deciding that there was a case or controversy, the error is one which could have been corrected only by an appeal or by a bill of review. On a motion to vacate, the determination by the Supreme Court of the District that a case or controversy existed is not open to attack.
Id. at 326, 48 S.Ct. 311 (citations omitted).
Two other Supreme Court cases followed closely on the heels of Swift I and, although arising in different factual contexts, reiterated Swift I's general holding. InStoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104 (1938), the Court rejected a collateral attack on the district court's jurisdiction in adjudicating a bankruptcy. At issue in Stoll was the validity of a release of a guarantee granted by the district court acting pursuant to the authority of the Bankruptcy Act of 1934. The release later was challenged and, eventually, upheld by the Supreme Court against attack. The Court stated:
Where adversary parties appear, a court must have the power to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction of the person of a litigant, or whether its geographical jurisdiction covers the place of the occurrence under consideration.... An erroneous affirmative conclusion as to the jurisdiction does not in any proper sense enlarge the jurisdiction of the court until passed upon by the court of last resort, and even then the jurisdiction becomes enlarged only from the necessity of having a judicial determination of the jurisdiction over the subject matter. When an erroneous judgment, whether from the court of first instance or from the court of final resort, is pleaded in another court or another jurisdiction the question is whether the former judgment is res judicata. After a Federal court has decided the question of the jurisdiction over the parties as a contested issue, the court in which the plea of res judicata is made has not the power to inquire again into that jurisdictional fact. We see no reason why a court in the absence of an allegation of fraud in obtaining the judgment, should examine again the question whether the court making the earlier determination on an actual contest over jurisdiction between the parties, did have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the litigation. In this case the order upon the petition to vacate the confirmation settled the contest over jurisdiction.
Id. at 171-72, 59 S.Ct. 134 (footnotes omitted).
Similarly, in Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 60 S.Ct. 317, 84 L.Ed. 329 (1940), a holder of a municipal bond sought to challenge a reorganization

16
decree on the ground that the decree was issued pursuant to a statute that later was declared invalid by another district court. The Supreme Court characterized the bondholders' jurisdictional argument as "untenable." Id. at 376, 60 S.Ct. 317. The Court explained:
The argument is pressed that the District Court was sitting as a court of bankruptcy, with the limited jurisdiction conferred by statute, and that, as the statute was later declared to be invalid, the District Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding and hence its decree is open to collateral 859*859 attack. We think the argument untenable. The lower federal courts are all courts of limited jurisdiction, that is, with only the jurisdiction which Congress has prescribed. But none the less they are courts with authority, when parties are brought before them in accordance with the requirements of due process, to determine whether or not they have jurisdiction to entertain the cause and for this purpose to construe and apply the statute under which they are asked to act. Their determinations of such questions, while open to direct review, may not be assailed collaterally.
... The court has the authority to pass upon its own jurisdiction and its decree sustaining jurisdiction against attack, while open to direct review, is res judicata in a collateral action.
Id. at 376-77, 60 S.Ct. 317 (citations omitted).
Summarizing these, and other more recent cases, one treatise has concluded that "it seems clear that a federal court judgment is binding notwithstanding a simple lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without regard to whether the jurisdictional question was litigated or appealed." 18A Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4428 at 23 (2d ed.2002). Our own court has phrased the rule accordingly: "After a case has become final by exhaustion of all appellate remedies, only an egregious want of jurisdiction will allow the judgment to be undone by someone who, having participated in the case, cannot complain that his rights were infringed without his knowledge." In re Factor VIII, 159 F.3d 1016, 1019 (7th Cir.1998).
C. Modification of the Decree
The City's argument, however, encompasses more than simply an attack on the district court's subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs at the time the 1983 decree was entered. The City primarily argues that it is not"attacking the 1983 decree but rather the plaintiffs' ability to invoke federal jurisdiction," Appellee's Br. at 36-37, specifically, the plaintiffs' lack of standing to bring this enforcement action. In support of this argument, the

17
City draws upon cases discussing the nature of, or proposed modifications to, consent decrees. We review these cases below.
One of the cases on which the City relies most heavily is Local Number 93, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986). In that case, the union representing Cleveland firefighters objected to a consent decree that obligated the City of Cleveland to adopt race-conscious measures to correct past discrimination. The Supreme Court concluded that the "voluntary adoption in a consent decree of race-conscious relief that may benefit nonvictims" did not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. at 525, 106 S.Ct. 3063. Similarly, the Court rejected the notion that there was some "independent judicial canon or `common law' of consent decrees" that prevented courts from entering a consent decree that a court itself could not order had the matter gone to trial. Id. The Court explained that
a federal court is more than "a recorder of contracts" from whom parties can purchase injunctions; it is "an organ of government constituted to make judicial decisions...." 1B J. Moore, J. Lucas, & T. Currier, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.409[5], p. 331 (1984).... Accordingly, a consent decree must spring from and serve to resolve a dispute within the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, consistent with this requirement, the consent decree must "com[e] within the general scope of the case 860*860 made by the pleadings," Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum, 11 Otto 289, 297, 101 U.S. 289, 297, 25 L.Ed. 932 (1879), and must further the objectives of the law upon which the complaint was based. However, in addition to the law which forms the basis of the claim, the parties' consent animates the legal force of a consent decree.... Therefore, a federal court is not necessarily barred from entering a consent decree merely because the decree provides broader relief than the court could have awarded after a trial.
Id. at 525, 106 S.Ct. 3063 (citations omitted).
In support of its argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the City also draws upon cases involving the modification of consent decrees. We begin our discussion by focusing on an opinion that concerned the continuation of the decree at issue in Swift I. After unsuccessfully attempting to vacate the consent decree to which the defendant meatpackers voluntarily had entered, a few of the defendants moved to modify the decree. See United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 112, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932) ("Swift II"). The Supreme Court, although it had been firm in its discussion of the ability to relitigate jurisdiction, readily acknowledged the power of the courts to modify a decree: "We are not doubtful of the power of a court of equity to modify an injunction in adaptation to changed conditions, though it was entered by consent." Id. at 114, 52 S.Ct.

18
460. Indeed, "[p]ower to modify the decree was reserved by its very terms, and so from the beginning went hand in hand with its restraints. If the reservation had been omitted, power there still would be by force of principles inherent in the jurisdiction of the chancery." Id. The critical consideration for the Court was whether need for a change existed:
A continuing decree of injunction directed to events to come is subject always to adaptation as events may shape the need. The distinction is between restraints that give protection to rights fully accrued upon facts so nearly permanent as to be substantially impervious to change, and those that involve the supervision of changing conduct or conditions and are thus provisional and tentative. The result is all one whether the decree has been entered after litigation or by consent. In either event, a court does not abdicate its power to revoke or modify its mandate, if satisfied that what it has been doing has been turned through changing circumstances into an instrument of wrong. We reject the argument for the interveners that a decree entered upon consent is to be treated as a contract and not as a judicial act.... The consent is to be read as directed toward events as they then were. It was not an abandonment of the right to exact revision in the future, if revision should become necessary in adaptation to events to be.
Id. at 114-15, 52 S.Ct. 460 (citations omitted). Despite this reference to flexibility, however, the Court concluded that "[n]othing less than a clear showing of grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions should lead us to change what was decreed after years of litigation with the consent of all concerned." Id. at 119, 52 S.Ct. 460.
Later cases, however, have warned that this rather intransigent language must be read in the broader factual context presented by the Swift II case: "Our decisions since Swift [II] reinforce the conclusion that the `grievous wrong' language of Swift [II]was not intended to take on a talismanic quality, warding off virtually all efforts to modify consent decrees." Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk 861*861 County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 380, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992). Swift II, the Court explained, "pointedly distinguished the facts of that case from one in which genuine changes required modification of a consent decree." Id. at 379, 112 S.Ct. 748. Indeed, in Rufothe Court noted that the standard for modification of consent decrees, now set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), is a "flexible" one.[3] It further explained why such flexibility was necessary:
The upsurge in institutional reform litigation since Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), has made the ability of a district court to modify a decree in response to changed circumstances all the more important. Because such decrees often remain in place for extended periods of time, the likelihood of significant changes occurring during the life of the decree is increased.

19
Id. at 380, 112 S.Ct. 748. Furthermore, the Court noted that "the public interest is a particularly significant reason for applying a flexible modification standard in institutional reform litigation because such decrees `reach beyond the parties involved directly in the suit and impact on the public's right to the sound and efficient operation of its institutions.'" Id. at 381, 112 S.Ct. 748 (quoting Heath v. DeCourcy,888 F.2d 1105, 1109 (6th Cir.1989)). Thus, a party seeking modification of a consent decree does not have to prove a "grievous" wrong of the kind required in Swift; the party only "bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree." Id. at 383, 112 S.Ct. 748.
This initial burden may be met "by showing either a significant change either in factual conditions or in law." Id. at 384, 112 S.Ct. 748. "While a decision that clarifies the law will not, in and of itself, provide a basis for modifying a decree, it could constitute a change in circumstances that would support modification if the parties had based their agreement on a misunderstanding of the governing law." Id. at 390, 112 S.Ct. 748.
If the moving party meets this standard, a district court should consider whether the proposed modification is "suitably tailored to the changed circumstance." Id. at 383, 112 S.Ct. 748. A proposed modification, the Court stated, "must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation." Id. at 391, 112 S.Ct. 748. However, neither should a court "strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it conforms to the constitutional floor"; instead, "the focus should be on whether the proposed modification is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in circumstances." Id. Within these constraints, due deference must be given to the local bodies that implement the decree as well as administer the laws for the common good:
[T]he public interest and "[c]onsiderations based on the allocation of powers within our federal system," [Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991)], require that the district court defer to local government administrators, who have the "primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving" the problems of institutional reform, to resolve 862*862 the intricacies of implementing a decree modification.Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955). Although state and local officers in charge of institutional litigation may agree to do more than that which is minimally required by the Constitution to settle a case and avoid further litigation, a court should surely keep the public interest in mind in ruling on a request to modify based on a change in conditions making it substantially more onerous to abide by the decree. To refuse modification of a decree is to bind all future officers of the State, regardless of their view of the necessity of

20
relief from one or more provisions of a decree that might not have been entered had the matter been litigated to its conclusion.... Financial constraints may not be used to justify the creation or perpetuation of constitutional violations, but they are a legitimate concern of government defendants in institutional reform litigation and therefore are appropriately considered in tailoring a consent decree modification.
Id. at 392-93, 112 S.Ct. 748 (citations, parallel citations and footnote omitted).
The Court then summarized its holding:
[T]he Swift"grievous wrong" standard does not apply to requests to modify consent decrees stemming from institutional reform litigation. Under the flexible standard we adopt today, a party seeking modification of a consent decree must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance....
Id. at 393, 112 S.Ct. 748.[4]
We have had occasion to apply the standards set forth in Rufo to cases that have come before this court. In Evans v. City of Chicago, 10 F.3d 474 (7th Cir.1993) (en banc), we considered a consent decree that required the City of Chicago to pay its tort judgments in a particular sequence. The City moved to vacate that decree pursuant to Rule 60(b). A plurality of the en banc court believed that the outcome of the case was dictated by the public nature of the litigation. The plurality explained that, when courts are asked to modify a consent decree involving a governmental entity, they
are bound by principles of federalism (and by the fundamental differences between 863*863 judicial and political branches of government) to preserve the maximum lee-way for democratic governance. Over the last decade a series of decisions in this circuit has emphasized the district court's responsibility to identify the rule of federal law supporting a consent decree binding the political arms of government, and the corresponding obligation to permit new public officials to set their own policy within the limits established by federal law.
Id. at 479. The plurality then concluded that
[a]ll of these cases illustrate the principle we recognize today: entry and continued enforcement of a consent decree regulating the operation of a governmental body depend on the existence of a substantial claim under federal law. Unless there is such a claim, the

21
consent decree is no more than a contract, whose enforcement cannot be supported by the diversity jurisdiction and that has in court no more force than it would have outside the court.
Id. at 480.[5]
Not long after Evans, we decided two other cases pertinent to the present discussion — Komyatti v. Bayh, 96 F.3d 955 (7th Cir.1996), and David B. v. McDonald, 116 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir.1997). In Komyatti, Indiana prisoners filed a class action against state prison officials in which they alleged that certain conditions of their confinement violated the Constitution. The parties negotiated a settlement, "which, by incorporating an Indiana statutory provision, accord[ed] prisoners ... certain procedural protections, including the availability of a `lay advocate,' during the disciplinary process." Komyatti, 96 F.3d at 956. Two years later, prisoners filed a motion to hold the state in contempt for violating the decree. The district court refused to enforce the provisions of the consent decree because it believed that the decree required the State to comply with state law in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. Id.
This court disagreed with the district court that enforcement of the decree created an Eleventh Amendment problem. Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that "[t]here may indeed be instances when significant factual or legal changes make it inequitable for a court to continue to enforce a settlement decree. When such circumstances occur, the parties may ... seek an alteration in the terms of the consent decree pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)." Id. at 962 (footnote omitted). We identified the specific errors made by the district court and gave it detailed instructions to be followed on remand:
The district court erred in several respects. First, it should not have held that the proper course for the state officials was to ignore the provision with impunity. The appropriate course ... would have been to seek an alteration of the decree from the district court. Secondly, the district court assumed that the court could not retain, and enforce through its contempt power, any provision of the consent decree that could not be characterized as required by the Constitution itself. In this respect, it failed 864*864 to recognize that a federal consent decree can contain a provision not explicitly required by the Constitution as long as the criteria set forth in Firefighters are met. The mere congruence of the selected terms with a provision of state law does not, standing alone, render the consent decree beyond the authority of the federal court. Rather, the selection of that term must be measured against the criteria ofFirefighters."If a federal court can validly enter a consent decree, it can surely enforce that decree." If intervening legal or factual changes make enforcement inequitable, Rule 60 provides an effective remedy.

22
Id. at 963-64 (quoting Kozlowski v. Coughlin, 871 F.2d 241, 244 (2d Cir.1989); internal citations and footnote omitted).
Finally, in David B., this court again discussed the standard for modifying a consent decree. In that case, the heads of three Illinois agencies had signed a consent decree promising to provide "appropriate" services to the state's youth that were in need of "specialized services." David B., 116 F.3d at 1147. Over a decade later, "the legislature of Illinois enacted a statute curtailing" the authority of one of the agencies "to provide services to children over the age of 13 who ha[d] been adjudicated `delinquent.'" Id. The agency perceived these as inconsistent obligations and petitioned the court "to be relieved of any duty to provide services to delinquents over the age of 13." Id. The district court refused to modify the decree on the ground that there had not been a change in federal law that rendered the decree inequitable. We reversed.
We noted initially that it might be possible to reconcile the decree and the statute. However, assuming that the decree required the agency "to take custody of some persons over the age of 13 who have been adjudicated delinquent," "[t]hen the decree should be modified to eliminate the conflict between its requirements and the new statute." Id. at 1148-49. We stated that, in Rufo, on which the district court had relied, "[t]he Court did not distinguish between legal and factual circumstances, or between state and federal law; change in any of these things may justify a modification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5)." Id. at 1149. Thus, the change in state law certainly could justify the modification sought.
We then turned to the task of the district court on remand. We noted that our past cases had emphasized that consent decrees must be based on substantial federal claims, and, although the lack of such a claim "does not permit a party to disregard the decree, ... it does justify modification or vacatur." Id. at 1150 (citing Komyatti, 96 F.3d at 962-63). The court instructed the district court that
[i]t must either construe or modify the decree forthwith to permit Illinois to reallocate tasks among its agencies and to reduce the services offered to persons adjudicated delinquent. Then it must determine whether a substantial federal claim supports the decree as a whole; if not, the entire decree must be lifted and the task of shaping public policy be restored to persons today holding political office — subject only to whatever limitations federal law and the Supremacy Clause now place on the operation of the state's socialwelfare system.
Id.

23
Our discussion of modification and enforcement of consent decrees would not be complete without mention of Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 124 S.Ct. 899, 157 L.Ed.2d 855 (2004), handed down after arguments were heard in the present case. InFrew, the Court considered "whether the Eleventh Amendment bars enforcement of a federal consent decree entered into by state officials." 124 S.Ct. at 901 865*865(emphasis added). Specifically, state officials argued that "a federal court should not enforce a consent decree arising from an Ex parte Young suit unless the court first identifies, at the enforcement stage, a violation of federal law." Id. at 904. The Court rejected this argument and held that the Eleventh Amendment does not act as a bar to an enforcement action to a consent decree the initial entry of which was consistent with Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), andFirefighters. The Court also commented on the state officials' fear "that enforcement of consent decrees c[ould] undermine the sovereign interests and accountability of state governments." Id. at 905. The Court acknowledged that
[i]f not limited to reasonable and necessary implementations of federal law, remedies outlined in consent decrees involving state officeholders may improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers. They may also lead to federal court oversight of state programs for long periods of time even absent an ongoing violation of federal law.
Id. In such circumstances, the Court stated, the States are not without remedy; it explained:
When a suit under Ex parte Young requires a detailed order to ensure compliance with a decree for prospective relief, and the decree in effect mandates the State, through its named officials, to administer a significant federal program, principles of federalism require that state officials with front-line responsibility for administering the program be given latitude and substantial discretion.
The federal court must exercise its equitable powers to ensure that when the objects of the decree have been attained, responsibility for discharging the State's obligations is returned promptly to the State and its officials. As public servants, the officials of the State must be presumed to have a high degree of competence in deciding how best to discharge their governmental responsibilities. A State, in the ordinary course, depends upon successor officials, both appointed and elected, to bring new insights and solutions to problems of allocating revenues and resources. The basic obligations of federal law may remain the same, but the precise manner of their discharge may not. If the State establishes reason to modify the decree, the court should make the necessary changes; where it has not done so, however, the decree should be enforced according to its terms.
Id. at 906 (emphasis added).

24
From these cases, it is clear that there are important differences between a consent decree involving a one-time adjudication among private parties and one that includes an injunction restricting the ability of a State or local government to meet its responsibilities. In the latter case, there is a need to ensure that changes in factual or legal circumstances do not transform a once-just result into one that is unjust, illegal or overly burdensome and do not unnecessarily hinder a State in providing for the welfare of its citizenry. Although changes in the factual or legal predicates on which a consent decree is based are not grounds for ignoring or defying the decree, seeFrew, 124 S.Ct. at 906; Komyatti, 96 F.3d at 963 ("[W]e believe that the court expressed the usual course ... when it wrote that a `continuing respect for the valid decrees of a court commands that they be obeyed until changed.'" (quoting Kindred v. Duckworth, 9 F.3d 638, 644 (7th Cir.1993))), Rule 60(b) does provide an avenue for modification of a consent decree. As articulated by the Court in Rufo, Rule 866*86660(b) is a "flexible standard" according to which "a party seeking modification of a consent decree must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance." 502 U.S. at 393, 112 S.Ct. 748.[6]
D. Application
As we noted earlier, the parties each emphasize a different line of cases in presenting their arguments. The plaintiffs maintain that the district court erred in addressing the question of standing because relitigation of the standing issue is barred by Swift I. There is no question that Swift I has some application here. In theShakman litigation that led to the 1983 Consent Decree, the City maintained that the voters lacked constitutional standing to challenge hiring and promotional practices, but the district court determined that, adhering to our decision in Shakman I, the plaintiffs had standing. See Shakman, 481 F.Supp. at 1328-29. The City took no appeal from this ruling. Under such circumstances, when a federal court "has decided the question of the jurisdiction over the parties as a contested issue, the court in which the plea of res judicata is made has not the power to inquire again into that jurisdictional fact." Stoll, 305 U.S. at 172, 59 S.Ct. 134. Thus, as this court has stated, only "an egregious want of jurisdiction" will justify reconsideration of the standing issue. In re Factor VIII, 159 F.3d at 1018.
The City does not argue that there was an "egregious want of jurisdiction" in 1979, when the district court, adhering to our ruling in Shakman I, found that the Shakmanplaintiffs had standing to pursue their hiring claims. Nor does the City argue that there was an egregious want of jurisdiction when the 1983 Consent Decree was entered. It does, however, point to language in Firefighters that, "at a minimum, `a consent decree must spring from and serve

25
to resolve a dispute within the court's subject matter jurisdiction.' "Appellee's Br. at 20 (quoting Firefighters, 478 U.S. at 525, 106 S.Ct. 3063). Furthermore, the City contends that, because Shakman II"makes plain [that] there was no case or controversy within the district court's jurisdiction when it entered the 1983 decree," "the decree is itself without jurisdictional support." Id.[7]
Contrary to the City's contention, this court in Shakman II did not determine that the district court's 1979 standing ruling misapplied the law of standing as the concept was understood in 1979. Instead, we explained that
we are confronted with a significantly different legal landscape than the one that confronted the district court at the time the complaint was originally filed in 1969, at the time of the first appeal to this court in 1970, or at the time that the district court made the ruling now before us in 1979. During these intervening years, the Supreme Court has engaged in a thorough examination of "justiciability," the limitations imposed on federal courts by the "case-and-controversy" provision of article III.
Shakman II, 829 F.2d at 1393 (emphasis in original). Furthermore, it was not because of any initial error by the district court, but because of "these changes" that867*867 we were not "able to regard the earlier holding of a panel of this court ... as having the precedential effect that we would normally accord such an earlier ruling of this court in the same litigation." Id. at 1393 (emphasis added).[8] Thus, at the time that the district court issued its 1979 order (on which the 1983 Consent Decree was based) the voter-plaintiffs had standing, and the "dispute [was] within the court's subject matter jurisdiction." Firefighters, 478 U.S. at 525, 106 S.Ct. 3063.
The crux of the City's argument is that the same changes that required our reconsideration of standing in Shakman II bar the present action by voters to enforce the 1983 Consent Decree. Namely, the courts have articulated, with new clarity, the requirement that, in order to have standing, the plaintiffs must articulate a direct and palpable injury, different from any injuries suffered by a member of the general public, which is directly traceable to the defendants' illegal conduct. As applied to political patronage cases, we have held that a voter's diminished political voice is not directly traceable to political patronage hiring such that constitutional standing requirements are met; in Shakman II, we stated:
In this case, we find the line of causation between the appellants' activity and the appellees' asserted injury to be particularly attenuated. As in the foregoing cases, the line of causation depends upon countless individual decisions. Moreover, those countless individual decisions must depend upon, according to the appellees' own theory of the case,

26
countless individual political assessments that those who are in power will stay in power. It is not the hiring policy itself which creates any advantage for the incumbents. Any other candidate is entirely free to assert that, if elected, he will follow the same policy. Any advantage obtained by the incumbent is obtained only if potential workers make an independent evaluation that the incumbent, and not the opposition, will win. The plaintiffs will be at a disadvantage if — and only if — a significant number of individuals seeking political job opportunities determines the "ins" will remain the "ins."
Shakman II, 829 F.2d at 1397. Because "[f]or each citizen, many factors, many not capable of articulation, will determine the nature and extent of the person's political activity" — only one of which is the potential for future employment or promotion, we concluded in Shakman II that voters could not assert "with the certainty required by the case-and-controversy requirement" that the injury to their political voice was" `fairly traceable' to the actions of the defendants that form the basis of their complaint." Id. Given these holdings, the City maintains that the present plaintiffs do not have standing to enforce the present action.
The problem with the City's present position is that it ignores the procedural posture of this case. The present plaintiffs brought an action to enforce the 1983 Consent Decree, and the district court had the power to enforce that decree:" `[F]ederal courts are not reduced to approving consent decrees and hoping for compliance. Once entered, a consent decree may be enforced.'" Frew, 124 868*868 S.Ct. at 905 (quotingHutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978)). A party may not simply ignore the decree because it believes that factual or legal changes since the decree's entry renders continued enforcement illegal or inequitable. Rather, Rule 60(b)provides an avenue to seek relief from some or all of the requirements of the original decree.
It should be clear, therefore, from the above discussion, that we believe that the district court's judgment in this case must be reversed. The decision suffers from some of the same infirmities found in the judgment of the district court that we reversed in Komyatti. There, a district court had refused to enforce a consent decree based on constitutional decisions handed down after the initial entry of the decree. InKomyatti, we explained that the state defendants could not simply ignore the consent decree but should seek modification of the decree pursuant to Rule 60. We believe the same course should be followed here.
On remand, assuming the City wishes to pursue the issue, the focus of the district court shall be not on the law of standing as a jurisdictional concept but on the equitable standards embodied in Rule 60(b)(5). Cf. Frew, 124 S.Ct. at 906 (holding that the equitable standards of Rule 60, not the rule of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714, govern the modification of a consent decree). The district court should consider

27
critically whether changes in the legal landscape since 1983 require modification or vacatur of that decree pursuant to Rule 60(b). Specifically, the cases outlined above reveal two important developments that should guide the district court's analysis. First, Rufo and circuit court decisions in its wake emphasize the need for district courts to take a flexible approach to proposed modifications of consent decrees that bind public entities: "[T]he public interest and `[c]onsiderations based on the allocation of powers within our federal system' require that the district court defer to local government administrators who have the `primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving' the problems of institutional reform, to resolve the intricacies of implementing a decree modification." Rufo, 502 U.S. at 392, 112 S.Ct. 748 (quoting Dowell, 498 U.S. at 248, 111 S.Ct. 630; Brown, 349 U.S. at 299, 75 S.Ct. 753). In short, concerns of federalism should factor strongly into the court's analysis.
Second, the court must consider the significant changes in the law of voter standing since the entry of the 1983 Consent Decree. As Shakman II makes clear, we have serious concerns whether the plaintiffs as voters bring to the litigation the sort of concrete adverseness to fulfill the mandate of Lujan. The court should consider whether the class of voters has the "incentive to vigorously litigate and present the matter [of political patronage] to the court in the manner best suited for judicial resolution." Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 2.3.2 (2003). Even given the vitality of Swift and its progeny, a decree fashioned in litigation in which one of the litigants did not have a sufficient concrete stake in the outcome might contain provisions that are not worthy of continued enforcement by a federal court. If the City "establishes reason to modify the decree, the court should make the necessary changes; where it has not done so, however, the decree shall be enforced according to its terms." Frew, 124 S.Ct. at 906.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings 869*869 consistent with this opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal.
REVERSED and REMANDED
[1] See supra part I.A.5.
[2] The court also noted that "the selection process that the Plaintiffs dispute is contained in the [Collective Bargaining Agreement]," which set forth a grievance and arbitration process. Consequently, a civil enforcement action was an improper method of resolving the dispute. R.64 at 6. With the exception of this statement, the district court opinions disposing of the consolidated cases, 02 C 4300 and 01 C 0861, were the same.

28
The plaintiffs set forth three shortcomings with respect to the district court's determination that the plaintiffs' claims are governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Specifically, the plaintiffs demonstrate that this agreement could, at most, cover the claims of Plaintiff O'Sullivan, that it is questionable whether the agreement covers O'Sullivan given that the agreement does not appear to be retroactive, and that the court failed to consider whether the agreement bars the City from complying with the 1983 Consent Decree. The City does not present any serious counter-arguments in its brief in support of the district court's determination. In the absence of argument by the City, and of any detailed explanation by the district court as to the basis of its determination, we remand this portion of the district court's judgment as well.
In separate litigation arising in 1995, individuals challenged the City's hiring of employees in violation of the 1983 Consent Decree. The plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the court to address the threshold issue of whether the 1983 Consent Decree applied to personal service contract workers and temporary workers. After the court found the practice violated the 1983 Consent Decree, the City moved to vacate this ruling based on the decision in Shakman II. After oral argument in this case, the district court issued its order denying the motion to vacate. See Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook County, 2004 WL 691782 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 30, 2004). The City appealed, and the case is now pending in this court. See Shakman v. City of Chicago, No. 04-2105.
[3] Rule 60(b) provides, in relevant part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application....
[4] The plaintiffs suggest that the Supreme Court's decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), somehow increases a party's burden in seeking modification of a consent decree pursuant to Rule 60(b). We disagree.Kokkonen concerned an attempt to enforce a settlement agreement between two private parties. The terms of the agreement were not entered as part of a consent decree:
[T]he only order here was that the suit be dismissed, a disposition that is in no way flouted or imperiled by the alleged breach of the settlement agreement. The situation would be quite different if the parties' obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal — either by separate provision (such as a provision "retaining jurisdiction" over the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order. In that event a breach of the agreement would be a violation of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement would therefore exist. That, however, was not the case here. The judge's mere awareness and approval of the terms of the settlement agreement do not suffice to make them part of his order.
Id. at 380-81, 114 S.Ct. 1673. Unlike the situation in Kokkonen, the 1983 Consent Decree was entered as the judgment of the court and also specifically provided for continuing enforcement jurisdiction for the district court.
[5] One member of the court, concurring in the judgment, stated that,
[f]or the present, it is sufficient to conclude that this court's decision in Evans v. City of Chicago, 873 F.2d 1007 (7th Cir.1989) (Evans II), changed the prevailing law to such a degree as to make further enforcement of the consent decree by the district court inappropriate under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail....
Evans v. City of Chicago, 10 F.3d 474, 483 (1993) (Ripple, J., concurring).
[6] A district court need not wait for the parties explicitly to request such changes; "the court can on its own motion vacate" — or modify — "the decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5)." United States v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago, 799 F.2d 281, 297 (7th Cir.1986).
[7] The City also attempts to distinguish Swift on its facts. See Appellees' Br. at 37 n. 10.
[8] As explained in detail earlier in this opinion, our decision in Shakman II was a result of an appeal taken by Cook County defendants in the ongoing Shakman litigation. Thus, although our decision inShakman II required us to

29
confront the law-of-the-case doctrine, namely the deference owed to a prior decision of a court in the same litigation, in Shakman II we did not have to consider — as we do in the present action — the preclusive effect of a judgment in a prior, completed litigation.

 
 Exhibit III.D
ACCORD CLAIM PROCEDURES
Pursuant to the
AGREED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND ACCORD (“ACCORD”)
Entered in Shakman, et al. v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, et al. (the “Shakman Case”)
COMPLETED ACCORD CLAIM FORMS (Form 2) AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF CHICAGO FORMS (Form 3) MUST
BE RECEIVED BY THE SHAKMAN DECREE MONITOR BY SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
If you believe that you have been subjected to unlawful political discrimination in connection with hiring, promotion, overtime or any other aspect of employment with the City of Chicago between January 1, 2000 and May 31, 2007 (the date of final approval of the Accord), you may submit a completed Accord Claim Form (Form 2) to the Shakman Decree Monitor to be considered for possible money damages.
Completed Accord Claim Forms (Form 2) and Release of Claims Against the City of Chicago Forms (Form 3) must be received by the Shakman Decree Monitor by September 28, 2007 (the “Claim Deadline”).
Send completed Accord Claim Forms and a signed Release of Claims Against the City of Chicago to:
Noelle Brennan Shakman Decree Monitor Brennan & Monte, Ltd. 20 S. Clark Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603
Submitting an Accord Claim Form does not guarantee a monetary award.
I. Am I Eligible to File an Accord Claim?
You may submit an Accord Claim Form (Form 2) if (1) you applied for a job or had a job with the City of Chicago and (2) you believe that you were subjected to unlawful political discrimination in connection with any employment decision by the City of Chicago that occurred between January 1, 2000 and May 31, 2007.
“Employment decision” includes, but is not limited to, any decision involving hiring, firing, promotion, job assignment, transfer, disciplinary action and overtime.
1

“Unlawful political discrimination” means the making of any employment decision by the City because of any political reason or factor such as an individual’s political affiliation, political support or activity, political financial contributions, promises of such political support, activity or financial contributions, or political sponsorship or recommendations.
If you have already released any claim(s) against the City of Chicago for alleged unlawful political discrimination that occurred between January 1, 2000 and May 31, 2007, through either litigation or settlement, then you are not eligible for relief through this process for any released claim.
Important Notes: If your Claim involves alleged unlawful political discrimination that took place before January 1, 2000, do not use this Accord Claim Form. If you wish to pursue a claim against the City of Chicago based on conduct occurring before January 1, 2000, you must submit an Opt-Out Request Form (Form 1) to the Shakman Decree Monitor before September 28, 2007 and pursue whatever rights you may have in court. Opt-Out Request Forms are available at www.shakmanmonitor.com.
If your Claim involves alleged unlawful political discrimination that took place after May 31, 2007, do not use this Claim Form. Please consult www.shakmanmonitor.com and the Accord Complaint Procedures for further information about your rights under the Accord for violations occurring after May 31, 2007 (the date of final approval of the Accord).
Relief under the Claim Process is limited to monetary awards. No injunctive relief, such as reinstatement or promotion, is available through the Accord Claim Process. Such injunctive relief may be available through a legal action filed in a court of law. If you would like to pursue injunctive relief, you must submit an Opt-Out Request Form (Form 1) to the Shakman Decree Monitor before September 28, 2007.
II. Filing an Accord Claim
If you would like to submit an Accord Claim Form and to be considered for a monetary award you must complete both an Accord Claim Form (Form 2) and Release of Claims Against the City of Chicago Form (Form 3). The Shakman Decree Monitor will deny your claim if you do not submit both Form 2 and Form 3.
Accord Claim Forms should include as much detail as possible showing the evidence supporting your claim that you were subjected to unlawful political discrimination in connection with any aspect of employment with the City of Chicago.
You must attach any supporting documentation in your possession to your Accord Claim Form. This includes documentation supporting any damage claim. If you do not have any documents in your possession, the Claim will still be evaluated on its merits. Documents may be submitted at a later date but only with permission from the Shakman Decree Monitor for good cause.
You may only submit one Accord Claim Form, but may allege facts supporting more than one Claim on your Accord Claim Form. The Shakman Decree Monitor will evaluate all of the claims included in the Accord Claim Form. You cannot receive an award of more than $100,000 total, regardless of the number of claims.
2

These statements should not be construed as legal advice. You may consult with a lawyer of your choice about what decisions to make in this area. Neither the Shakman Decree Monitor nor Class Counsel in the Shakman Case (that is, the lawyers who represent the named plaintiffs and classes of plaintiffs in this case) are able to provide legal advice about whether an individual should pursue any remedies under the Accord or in a court of law.
Class Counsel recommend that you send your completed Accord Claim Form and Release of Claims Against the City of Chicago Form to the Shakman Decree Monitor via certified mail, return receipt requested, and keep a copy of the Forms and of any documents that are sent with them.
III. What Happens Once I File an Accord Claim Form?
For details regarding the Accord Claim process, please review Section III of the Accord, which is posted on the Shakman Decree Monitor’s website www.shakmanmonitor.com. A summary of the Accord Claim process is set out below.
The Shakman Decree Monitor and her staff will review all timely Accord Claim Forms to determine whether you are entitled to a damage award. As part of her review, the Shakman Decree Monitor may request additional information from you to help her identify valid claims and eliminate those that are not. During the claims review process, you must provide any information and documents reasonably requested by the Shakman Decree Monitor.
Within 90 days of the September 28, 2007 Claim Deadline (the “Claim Review Period”), the Shakman Decree Monitor, in her sole discretion and after consideration of all of the evidence, will determine whether you are eligible for recovery and, if so, will assign a monetary award to you based on the relevant information presented to the Shakman Decree Monitor. You should provide all evidence, information, and documents known to you in as much detail as possible in your Accord Claim Forms to assist the Shakman Decree Monitor in assessing you claim.
If the Shakman Decree Monitor needs additional time beyond September 28, 2007 to evaluate the merits of your claim, the Shakman Decree Monitor will inform you of the need for additional time and the date by which the review will be completed.
The Shakman Decree Monitor will notify you of her decision with respect to your claim by sending a Notice of Determination to you by December 27, 2007. The Notice of Determination will tell you whether you are entitled to a damage award and, if so, the amount of the award.
The Shakman Decree Monitor’s decision is final, and not subject to appeal.
Within 30 days of the Shakman Decree Monitor’s final determination of all claims, the Shakman Decree Monitor shall provide the City of Chicago’s Law Department with a list of Claimants eligible for an award, each Claimant’s last known mailing address, the social security number of any non-employee, and the amount of each award.
Within 60 days of receipt of the Shakman Decree Monitor’s list of Claimants and awards, the City of Chicago will mail a check in the amount of the award to each Claimant who has received an award at her or his last known mailing address.
3

By submitting an Accord Claim Form you thereby agree to have your claim for damages resulting from alleged political discrimination in connection with employment with the City of Chicago decided by the Shakman Decree Monitor. By submitting an Accord Claim Form, you agree to waive you right to file you own lawsuit and to have you claims decided by a court.

Submitting an Accord Complaint Form does not guarantee you any relief.

Important Dates:

May 31, 2007

Court Hearing for Final Approval of the Agreed Settlement Order and Accord

September 28, 2007

Opt-Out Deadline (The “Opt-Out Deadline” is the date by which a person who believes she or he has a claim against the City of Chicago for political discrimination must inform the Court in the Shakman Case in writing that she or he elects to be excluded from the settlement and claims procedure described in this document.)

September 28, 2007 Accord Claim Form Deadline

December 27 , 2007 Shakman Decree Monitor Sends Notice of Determination to Claimants

March 26, 2008

Deadline for the City of Chicago to Pay Claim Awards

4

ACCORD FORM 2

ACCORD CLAIM FORM

AGREED SETTLEMENT ORDER AND ACCORD (“ACCORD”)
Entered in Shakman, et al. v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, et al. (the “Shakman Case”)

COMPLETED ACCORD CLAIM FORMS AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF CHICAGO FORMS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE
SHAKMAN DECREE MONITOR BY SEPTEMBER 28, 2007

Date: ________________________________

To: Noelle C. Brennan Shakman Decree Monitor Brennan & Monte, Ltd. 20 S. Clark, Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603

I, _______________________________________, hereby declare, under penalty of

perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States, as follows:

1. Address: ________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

2. Telephone:

______________________

3. Social Security Number: ___________________

4. Date of Alleged Violation(s): __________________________________________________

5. What Job(s) or Job-Related Benefit(s) Were You Seeking When You Believe You Were Subjected to Political Discrimination: (For example, the job title of the position you applied for, the number of overtime hours you should have received but for the alleged discrimination, job assignment, suspension, bad review, etc.)

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

6. City of Chicago Department or Agency Involved: _______________________________

1

ACCORD FORM 2
7. Facts Supporting Claim(s): (Provide a narrative description of your claim of political discrimination in connection with your employment or application for employment with the City of Chicago. Include as much detail as possible. The following are examples of the kind of detail you should include if applicable: when you applied for a job or promotion, whether you were interviewed for the job, the names of the interviewers, the date of the interview, conversations you had with people about political sponsorship of the successful applicant, the name of any person who asked you to perform political work in exchange for favorable treatment at work, the name of any person who threatened to retaliate against you if you did not perform political work, etc. Please copy this page and attach additional pages if necessary.) _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
2

ACCORD FORM 2
8. What Damages Do You Claim?: (Include as much detail as possible about your damages and the amount you believe you are entitled to recover. For example, the following are examples of the sort of damages that might be applicable: lost wages, lost overtime, increased time and expense caused by being reassigned to a new location, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 9. Amount of Money Damages Sought: $_____________________ (No Claimant will receive more than $100,000 total, regardless of the number of claims.) 10. Documents that Support Your Claim: (Identify any documents you believe support your claim of political discrimination and attach copies if the documents are in your possession. You do not have to have documents to be considered for an award. Additional documents may be submitted at a later date, but only with permission from the Shakman Decree Monitor for good cause.) _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
3

ACCORD FORM 2 11. Have you filed a claim, grievance or lawsuit about any of these events in any court, administrative agency or before any other entity? If yes, please explain including case number, court or agency. Also state the outcome of the claim, grievance or lawsuit. _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________ (Signature of Claimant)
4

ACCORD FORM 3
RELEASE OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF CHICAGO FORM
COMPLETED RELEASE FORMS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ACCORD CLAIM FORMS (FORM 2)AND
MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE SHAKMAN DECREE MONITOR BY SEPTEMBER 28 , 2007
By submitting this claim, I, _________________________________________, hereby agree to have my claim(s) for political discrimination in connection with any aspect of governmental employment with the City of Chicago decided by the Shakman Decree Monitor as part of the Claim Procedure for Alleged Pre-Accord Violations contained in the Agreed Settlement Order and Accord. Subject to the terms of the Agreed Settlement Order and Accord, I release the City of Chicago, its Mayor, and all of its employees, agents, advisors, and attorneys, and their heirs, executors, administrators, personal or legal representatives, successors, transferees and assigns from any and all claims, causes of action, rights, actions, suits, obligations, debts, demands, judgments, agreements, promises, liabilities, controversies, costs, expenses or attorneys’ fees, of every nature and description whatsoever that have been or could have been asserted in Shakman, et al. v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, et al., 69 C 2145, and whether now known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising out of employment decisions of any kind (including, but not limited to, hiring, promotion, termination, assignments, disciplinary decisions, overtime and the like) made by the City of Chicago with respect to Class Members prior to the final approval of the Agreed Settlement Order and Accord by the Court and based on the claim that those employment decisions were impermissibly motivated by political considerations. I understand and agree that these claims are released regardless of whether I receive a cash award though the Claim Procedure.
___________________________________ (Signature of Claimant)
Dated: _____________________

 
 · POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR USE OF ACTING UP
A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS The City and the Hiring Monitor have worked to create a process to.guide departments in
administering acting up into Shakman-protected titles. Acting Up is the Exception, not the Rule. Acting up for temporary periods is sometimes unavoidable. However it should never be the option of first resort and departments are expected to take every reasonable step to ensure that vacancies are filled in a timely and appropriate fashion.
These guidelines relate to Shakman-protected titles. Because of this, it is never appropriate for political considerations to play any part in determining whether an employee will act up.
Please note that no individual is permitted to act up in any position or positions, for more than520 hours in any calendar year, unless they have received an approved waiver from the Commissioner of the Department ofHuman Resources. See section G below.
Each department must also maintain a copy of this documentation in accord with its document retention policy. Copies of all documentation described in this policy should also be submitted to the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Law Compliance and Internal Audit Division.
These guidelines and instructions are by necessity general. It is each department's responsibility to disclose any operational problems with implementing this policy and seek guidance and approval before taking any action not in compliance with this policy. Any such requests must be made to: Theresa Hill, Asst. Commissioner Department of Human Resources, Division of Workforce Compliance

Approved 8/07/07

1

City Hall, Room 1100 (312) 747-8961
Theresa.HHI@cityofchicago.org

B. DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this acting up policy, the following terms have the meaning noted below:

Acting Up - Acting up is where an employee is directed to, and does perform, or is held accountable for, substantially all of the responsibilities of a higher-level Shakman-protected title.

Bargaining Unit employee - A bargaining unit employee is any employee whose terms and conditions of employment are governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the City and a labor union.

Hour - An hour is any incident of acting up regardless of duration within a working hour, whether paid or unpaid. For instance, acting up in a 30 minute increment would count as an hour under this policy.

Hiring Official - A hiring official is the manager who has final authority to select which employee shall act up.

Relevant Pool- A relevant pool is a list of employees and their seniority dates in a bargaining unit who are eligible to act up in a higher rated title. Generally, this includes all employees in the title directly below the acting up title. However, please consult any applicable collective bargaining agreements in determining which employees must be included in a relevant pool.

Screening and Eligibility List - A Screening and Eligibility List is a listing of all employees who expressed interest in acting up and it describes which employees are actually eligible to act up in the higher rated title.

Shakman Certification - A Shakman Certification is a certification that political considerations

played no role in the decision to act up.

.

C. USE OF ACTING UP FOR NON-BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES

If the employee is in a Shakman-protected position, which is not in a bargaining unit:

1) If an employee will act up for a period of 168 hours or less, the hiring official may select an employee to act up in the position at hislher discretion. Departments MUST report all acting up, including those who will act up less than 168 hours.

2) If an employee will act up for a period of greater than 168 hours but less than 520 hours, the hiring official must do the following:

a) Inform all employees eligible to act up in the higher position of the opportunity to act up in writing. The notice must include the criteria used to evaluate applicants

Approved 8/07/07

2

for-a pennanent position. The notice must also include a date certain for submitting materials and the amount of time the eligibility list will be active, which is not to exceed one calendar year. The notice must request that interested employees submit a resume and a statement of their interest in the position. Save a copy ofthe notice. b) The-notice ofthe opportunity to act up should be communicated electronically to employees within the hiring department who have a City email account via the City's email system when feasible. In addition, the notice must be posted in a conspicuous and accessible place in or about the workplace where all eligible employees perfonn their duties. c) Collect the materials from interested employees. Employees must be screened to detennine ifthey have the present ability to do thejob without further training. The screening must be based on criteria previously approved by the Department ofHuman Resources. Save a copy of all materials submitted by employees and all records ofthe screening. d) Record the results of the screening on the attached fonn entitled, "Employees Acting Up in Higher Position - Screening and Eligibility List" (see Attachment A). Any person who did screening must also complete a "Shakman Certification Employee Acting Up in Higher Position" fonn (see Attachment B). Save copies of all documents relating to the screening. e) Interview those employees whom, based on the screening, have the present ability to do the job without further training. Record that the employee has been interviewed on the "Employees Acting Up in Higher Position - Screeningand Eligibility List" fonn (see Attachment A). In addition, each interviewer must complete a Shakman Certification - Employee Acting Up in a Higher Position" fonn (see Attachment B). Save copies of all documents relating to the interview process. f) The hiring official may select from a candidate from the "Employees Acting Up in Higher Position - Screening and Eligibility List" for the acting up position. The hiring official must prepare a memo to their Department Head and the Department ofHuman Resources that explains why the candidate was chosen. (see Attachment C) Once the decision is made, complete the Checklist to Accompany Shakman Certifications (see Attachment D) and send it and-all other selection documentation to the Department of Human Resources Division of Workforce Compliance.
3) As an alternative to the process described in subsection 2 above, the hiring official may use the bargaining unit process described in Section D below. If the hiring official elects to use this alternative, "seniority" shall mean the continuous service date of the employees. Also, in the case of a non-bargaining acting up, relevant pools may and often will consist ofmore than one job classification. Where a relevant pool consists of more than one job classification, the hiring official must describe in the explanatory narrative that accompanies the relevant pool how the rotation among the multiple job classifications will occur. Based on a review ofthe relevant pool and explanatory narrative, the Department of Human Resources Workforce Compliance Division may require changes to the relevant pool or require that the hiring official use the standard non-bargaining unit process.

Approved 8/07/07

3

D. ACTING UP FOR BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES
If the employee is in a Shakman-protected position that is in a bargaining unit:
1) If the collective bargaining agreement contains specific provisions detailing the use of acting up, follow those procedures. That means that any specified process or limitation in that contract controls. For example, certain agreements (e.g. AFSCME, Laborers) require rotation of acting up opportunities among those qualified. However, if the contract does not prescribe a particular approach or is otherwise silent, the following procedures must be followed.
2) If the collective bargaining agreement is·silent:
a) If an employee will act up for a period less than 520 hours, the hiring official must do the following:
at) Identify all those employees who would be eligible to act up in the higher position. Normally this will be the classification immediately below the title where the employee will be acting up. Compile the names and the dates of seniority for each employee listed into a relevant pool. The hiring official may restrict the relevant pool by shift and geographic subdivision.
a2) The hiring official must attach to the relevant pool an explanatory narrative stating how the hiring official selected which employees make up the relevant pool. The narrative must also state how the hiring official intends to rotate the acting up opportunity and under what circumstances he/she nonnally uses actors. Save a copy of the relevant pool and explanatory narrative.
a3) The hiring official must send the relevant pool to hislher departmental personnel liaison. The departmental personnel liaison must then forward the relevant pool to the Department of Human Resources Workforce Compliance Division for approval. Upon approval, the relevant pool is
. valid until all names on the list have been exhausted or one year has passed since the list was cre",ted whichever comes later. Any necessary edits to the relevant pOol because employees have began or ended their employment or assignment must be submitted to the Department of Human Resources Workforce Compliance Division for approval.
a4) Eligible employees should be reviewed on the basis of seniority. If a position is filled with the most senior employee in the relevant pool, then no further justification is necessary.
as) If the hiring official selects an employee other than the most senior employee, the hiring official must provide to the Department Head a memorandum justifying the decision which includes providing the reasons

Approved 8/07/07

4

for not selecting each employee in the relevant pool who is more senior to the selected employee. The department head must concur with the hiring official's decision and sign the memorandum noting his or her· approval. A sample memorandum is attached (see Attachment E). Save a copy of the memorandum.
b) Once the decision is made, the person who created the relevant pool and, if applicable the hiring official who selected a person not the most senior for the position, must complete a Shakman Certification - Employee Acting Up in a Higher Position" form (see Attachment B) and send it and all other selection documentation to the Department ofHuman Resources Division ofWorkforce Compliance. The person selected to act up should complete an Attachment Bas well.
b 1) A separate attachment B must be completed by the department head attesting that no political considerations factored into the creation of the relevant pool. When preparing the department head's attachment B, the employee name and employee job title fields should be left blank and " ~ relevant pool" should be placed after the name ofthe acting title.
b2) A separate attachment B must be completed by the employee acting up each time the employee is selected to act up.
3) As an alternative to the process described in subsection 2 above, the hiring official may use any preexisting hiring list for the acting up position to select a member to act up. The hiring list must have been created pursuant toa Department of Human Resources approved hiring or promotional process. A referral list or other pre-selection list is not sufficient. If the hiring official elects to use this alternative, the department must seek approval from the Department of Human Resources Workforce Compliance Division to use the preexisting hiring list as its relevant pool. The hiring official must attach an explanatory narrative as with a relevant pool.
For example, certain departments (e.g. Fire Department) maintain promotional lists for positions where there is a need to act up. In those situations, the department may select individuals to act up from that list without further screening; however, the department must make the selection in order of seniority and rotate the opportunity in order of seniority as with a relevant pool. If a selection is made using this alternative, send a copy of the promotional list and all applicable Shakman Certifications (Attachment B) to the Department of Human Resources Division of Workforce Compliance.
E. REPORTING OF ACTING UP
All acting up into Shakman protected titles MUST be reported, regardless of duration or whether it was paid. For example, if an individual acts up for one hour in a given month, that individual must be included on the department's monthly report of acting up.

Approved 8/07/07

5

Onthe 6th of each month (or the next week day after the 6th) submit to the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Law Compliance and Internal Audit Division, the attached "Report of Employees Acting Up in Higher Position" form (see Attachment F) or your department's PRE-APPROVED modification. This form must be submitted by all departments irrespective of whether any employees have acted up within the last month.
Departments may modify acting up reporting forms to ADD information relevant to your operational needs. Departments shall not SUBTRACT anything from the acting up reporting forms, nor shall departments modify the Shakman certification.
F. ROTATION OF ACTING UP OPPORTUNITIES
In general, Acting Up opportunities must be offered to other qualified employees after the first selected employee has served 520 hours in the acting up position. If the department has compiled an eligibility list or relevant pool list for acting up, a hiring official may select the next qualified·person from either a non-bargaining unit eligibility list or the next most senior person on a bargaining unit relevant pool list without further justification. In those cases, all persons who participated in the process of acting up any such employee shall complete a Shakman Certification - Employee Acting Up in a Higher Position" form (see Attachment B) and send it to the Department of Human Resources Division of Workforce Compliance and the Department of Law Compliance and Internal Audit Division.
In addition, departments may and are encouraged to rotate acting up opportunities in increments of less than 520 hours (for example 168 hours), where appropriate.
After being rotated out, employees must be allowed to return to the work location, assignment and shift that they would have held had they not acted up into the higher title.
G. ACTING UP OVER 520 HOURS
Occasionally, it may be necessary fora department to have an employee act up in excess of 520 hours. Departments should allow all qualified and willing employees an opportunity to act up prior to allowing any employee to act up in excess of 520 hours in a calendar year. The prohibition against acting up for 520 hours applies to acting up hours worked both consecutively and incrementally. This prohibition is a limitation to the employee, not the job title, which means that an employee may not act up in excess of 520 hours in ANY job title or combination ofjob titles. However, this prohibition applies only within a particular department and an employee who is permanently transferred to another department within a calendar year may act up within the new department.
No employee may serve in an acting up position in excess of 520 hours in any calendar year unless:

Approved 8/07/07

6

1) The department demonstrates that an employee is the only employee eligible to act up. The department must submitdocumentation in support AND provide the department's plans for filling the position permanently; or
2) The department has offered every employee on a prior approved relevant pool an opportunity to act up for at least 520 hours andthe relevant pool is less than one year old. Upon approval by the Department of Human Resources, the hiring department may then start the rotation again with the most senior employee; or
3) The department head submits a written justification for why the appointment should continue, and the Department ofHuman Resources approves the request.
A department MAY NOT allow an employee to act up until they have received written approval from the Department of Human Resources Workforce Compliance Division. If a department has not received approval, then the acting up must ceaSe before the employee is allowed to act up in excess of 520 hours. Documentation supporting an extension of acting up must be submitted no less than 10 business days prior to the day the employee will act up for 520 hours. Please save a copy of all justifications of employees acting up in excess of 520 hours.
The Hiring Monitor shall he provided copies of all documentation and justification requests by Department of Human Resources and/or the Law Department Compliance and Internal Audit Division.
H. RESOURCES
You can get answers to your questions about the Acting Up policy by contacting:
Torrick Ward,. Compliance Attorney Department.of Law 30 N. LaSalle, Suite 1020 312-742-6579 nvard@cityofchicago.org

Approved 8/07/07

7

ATTACHMENT A

CITY OF CHICAGO Department of Human Resources Employees Acting Up in Higher Position - Screening and Eligibility List (NON-BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES)

This form is to be completed for each title where the department may have non-bargaining unit employees acting up in a higher position. Each employee who submits their name for consideration to act up in a higher position must be screened to determine if they have the then present ability to perform the job duties of the acting up title without further trainIng. Any employee who possesses the. required qualifications,and thus is eligible to act up, should be interviewed for the position. Use additional forms if required.

Acting Title

Department ________________________________________

Name

Employee # Title

Screener

Screening date

Eligible to
act up?
(yIN)

Interviewed?
(YIN)

Department Personnel Liaison - Signature

Print Name: Page

of_..:-.-~

Date:

ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF CHICAGO Department of Human Resources - Shakman Certification
Employee Acting Up in Higher Position Bargaining Unit and Non-Bargaining Unit Employees

Employee Name

Department

Employee's Job Title

Acting Up Title

With respect to all City jobs that are not exempt from the Shakman decrees, all City employees are strictly prohibited for directly or indirectly:

1. Conditioning, basing, or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of City employment of an existing City employee, upon or because of any political factor or reason; 2. Affecting the hiring of any individual as a City employee because of any political reason or factor; and 3. Knowingly inducing, aiding, abetting, participating in, cooperating with or encouraging the commission of any act which is proscribed by the Shakman decrees.

Political considerations may not enter, in any manner whatsoever, into personnel decisions for Shakman covered positions in the City of Chicago. I certify that I am aware of and am in full compliance with the above stated prohibitions regarding personnel decisions by the City of Chicago. I certify, under penalty of perjury, as provided by law, that, to the best of my knowledge, political considerations did not enter into the employment actions documented here. I understand that failure to comply with the above prohibitions andlor failure to submit an accurate Shakman certification form may result in disciplinary action up to and including immediate termination.

Check the role(s) that you performed in the hiring process, initial each checked box and sign at the bottom. (Each person who participated in the'

0
Init
0
Init

Screened Interviewed

-----

0
Init
0
Init

Created Eligibility List Commissioner

0
Init
0
Init

Employee Acting Up Created relevant pool list

Signature

Print Name:

Date:

Attachment C

CITY OF CHICAGO
MEMORANDUM

To: From: Subject: Date:

.(Department Head] (Manager] (non-bargaining unit employee acting up] [date]

I have selected [employee name] to act up in the position of [acting up position]. [employee name] currently holds the permanent position of [permanent position of acting up employee].
I selected [employee name] to act up because:
[Describe how the selected employee's knowledge, skills and experience are suited to the Acting Up position. The description must conform to the qualifications and criteria set for the in the applicable hiring A form, if there is one, or the job description~]
The following employees are also qualified to act up, but were not selected: [list of employees not selected]. These employees remain eligible to act up if our future needs make it necessary.

ATTACHMENT D
CHECKLIST TO ACCOMPANY SHAKMAN CERTIFICATION Employee Acting Up in Higher Position in excess of 168 hours NON-BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES
Complete this checklist for any non-bargaining unit employee in your department who acts up for a period in excess of 168 hours and submit it to the Department ,of Human Resources, Division of Workforce Compliance together with Shakman certifications of all persons involved in the Acting Up process including the employee acting up.
o Written Notice provided to eligible employees of opportunity to act up. (Attach a copy of the notice)
o Written Statement of employee showing interest in acting up and employee's resume. (Attach a copy of employee's submission)
o Current Screening and Eligibility list of candidates seeking to act up in the higher position. (Attach a copy of the list)
o Memorandum providing reasons for selection of acting up .employee to Department Head and DHR.

Department Personnel Liaison - Signature

Print Name:

Date:

Department Head or Designee - Signature

Print Name:

Date:

Attachment E

CITY OF CHICAGO·
MEMORANDUM

To: From: Subject: Date:

[Department Head] [Manager] [Bargaining unit employee acting up - not most senior] [date]

I have selected [employee name] to act up in the position of [acting up position]. [employee name] currently holds the pennanent position of [pennanent position of acting up employee]. [Acting up title] is a position covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the [name of bargaining unit].
[Employee name] is not the most senior person in the relevant pool of employees for the position of [acting up title]. I selected [employee name] because:
[Describe how the selected employee's knowledge, skills and experience are suited to the Acting Up position. The description must conform to the qualifications and criteria set for the in the applicable hiring A fonn, if there is one, or the job description. The hiring official MAY NOT add or subtract qualifications.]
The following employees, although more senior than [selected employee name] were not selected: [list of employees not selected and more senior than selected employee].
[Most senior non-selected employee} was not selected to act up because, [describe why employee was not selected].
[Second most senior non-selected employee] was not selected to act up because, [describe why employee was not selected].
[Repeat until you have provided a justification for not selecting all employees senior to the selected employee.].
Approved: Commissioner or Department Head

ATTACHMENT F

CITY OF CHICAGO Department of Human Resources Report of Employees Acting Up in Shakman Covered Higher Position

This form is to be submitted at the beginning of each month to the Department of Human Resources, Division of Workforce Compliance. This form must be submitted by all departments irrespective of whether any employees have acted up within the last month. Ifno employees have acted up during the last month, write (,'None") on the first line under Name and sign the form. Use additional forms if needed.

D tt Name

Employee # Title

For Month of Acting Title

Hours

Hours

Certification

Acting Up Acting Up Submitted?
this month year to date {YIN) * I

* Shakman certification to be submitted for any employee acting up.

Department Personnel Liaison - Signature

Print Name:

Department Head or Designee - Signature

Print Name: Page

of _--.--.-_

Date: Date:

 
 6/23/11

CITY OF CHICAGO

HIRING

PLAN

Table of Contents

CHAPTER I GOALS AND PRICIPLES ........................................................................4

A. Organization of this Hiring Plan........ ................... .......................... .............4

B. Definitions....................................................................................................5

C. Deparment of Human Resources ................................................................8

D. Office of

the Inspector General...................................................................9

CHAPTER II EMPLOYEE DUTY TO REPORT, TRANSPARENCY OF CITY HIRING, AND GOVERNING RULES ................................................................10

A. Employee Duty to Report ............. .................... ....................... ..... ...... ........ 1 0

B. Transparency of City Hiring ................... ...... ....................... ........ ........ .....10

C. Rules Governing All Hires Made Pursuant to the General Hiring Process 1 1

CHAPTER III GENERAL HIRING PROCESS -INITIAL STEPS .................................13

CHAPTER IV GENERAL HIRIG PROCESS - NON-INTERVIEWED POSITIONS1S

A. Applicability.................................................................................. ............ 1 5

B. Process.... ........ ....... ... .......... ... ........ .... ....... ... .... ..... .... ........ ... ........ ........ ......15

CHAPTER V GENERAL HIRIG PROCESS - POSITIONS REQUIRING AN INTERVIEW ..........................................................................................................18

A. Applicability.......................................... ............................................... ...... 1 8

B. Process........................... ... ......... ......... ...... .......................... ...... ........ .... ..... 1 8

CHAPTER VI GENERAL HIRIG PROCESS - SENIOR MANAGERS ....................21

A. Applicability.................... ............................ ........................ ...... .......... ......21

B. General Process for Hiring Senior Managers ................ ...... .....................2 1

C. Record-keeping ................ .......... ........................... ............. ................... .....23

CHAPTER VII CONDITIONAL OFFERS AT CAREER EVENTS ..............................24

A. Applicability and Principles.......................................................................24

B. General Process..........................................................................................24

CHAPTER VIII EXEMPT POSITION HIRING PROCESS ...........................................25

A. Applicability and Principles.......................................................................2S

B. Modifications to the Exempt List ..............................................................25

C. Process............................ ...... ..................................................... ............... .25

D. Removal .....................................................................................................26

1

6/23/11

E. Maintenance of Exempt Position Status ......... ...........................................26 CHAPTER ix PRIV ATE SECRETARIES OR ASSISTANTS AND SECURITY
SPECIALISTS .. ... ............ ..... .......... ... ....... .................. .............. ........... ....... ....... ....27
A. Applicability and Principles.......................................................................27 B. Process .......................................................................................................27

C. Removal .....................................................................................................27

CHAPTER X VOLUNTEER WORKERS .......................................................................28 A. Applicability................................................ ............................................. .28

B. General Selection Process........................................................................ ..28

CHAPTER XI ACTING UP .............................................................................................30 A. General Considerations ...........................................................................30

B. Exceptions..................................................................................................31

CHAPTER XII COMPLIANCE AND GOVERNANCE.................................................32 A. Complaints .................................................................................................32 B. Escalations by Recruiters and Analysts .....................................................32

C. Reviews and Audits of Hiring Data...... ............ .............. ........ ...... ............ .34

D. IGO Hiring Oversight Monitoring and IGO Investigation of

Hiring

Processes ....................................................................................................35

E. Reporting Requirements ............................................................................35

CHAPTER XIII APPLICABILITY TO OTHER EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS NOT DETAILED IN THIS HIRIG PLAN ..................................................................36

A. Assignments ...............................................................................................36

B. Terminations ..............................................................................................36

C. Layoff

Lists............................................................................

....................36

D. Reinstatement.............................................................................................36

E. Duty Disability............................................................................ ..... ..........36 F. Transfers ....................................................................................................36

G. Demotion....................................................................................................36 H. Reclassifications ........................................................................................36 1. Promotions and Career Progressions .........................................................36

J. Reasonable Accommodations....................................................................36

K. Return of Seasonal Employees ..................................................................36 L. Approved City Training Programs.............................................................36

2

6/23/11

M. City Affirmative Action Plans ........... ............ ........ ......... ...........................36

N. Veterans Preference ...................................................................................36

O. Line of

Duty Preference.............................................................................36

P. Emergency Appointments..........................................................................36

Q. Settlements, Awards, Judgments, and Decisions.......................................36

3

CHAPTER

I

GOALS AND PRINCIPLES

6/23/11
r

The City of Chicago is committed to hiring practices that:

. Base employee selection on a Candidate's knowledge, skils and ability to perform effectively on the job;
. Provide equal employment opportunity to all qualified Applicants;
. Prohibit the entry of Political Reasons or Factors and other Improper considerations into
any stage of the selection and hiring processes for Covered Positions;
. Provide the Hiring Authority with maximum lawfl discretion in making selection
decisions; and
. Create a transparent hiring system that minimizes the ability to manipulate employment
decisions.

This Hiring Plan was developed by the City of Chicago as required under section LF. of the Settlement Order and Accord in case number 69 C. 2145 captioned Shakman et. al. v. City of Chicago, et. al., before Judge Wayne R. Andersen in the United States District Court for the Northern District. of Ilinois ("the Accord").

This Hiring Plan sets forth the general principles which wil govern hiring in the City of Chicago
(the "City"). The principles presented here apply equally to Candidates who are external or
internal job Applicants and Candidates for promotion.

Violations of this Hiring Plan may result in disciplinary action, up to and including discharge and ineligibility for future hire.

A. Organization of this Hiring Plan

This Hiring Plan sets out the principles and procedures for all City Hiring, with the exception of sworn and uniformed titles in the Chicago Police and Fire Deparments, the Deparment of Law, and the Inspector General's Office. The Department of Law's and the Inspector General's Office's hiring plans are attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively. The Chicago Police and Fire Department's hiring plans for sworn and uniformed titles will be submitted to the Court. All hiring of City employees in non-excepted departments and non-sworn and non-uniformed titles in the Chicago Police and Fire Deparments shall be done pursuant to the General Hiring Process except for hiring for Exempt Positions, which are covered by Chapter VIII, and hirings effected through Other Employment Actions, which are covered by Chapter XIII.

Additionally, the City has created a separate policy governing the use of contractors and other

non-City employees ("Use of

Non-City Employees to Perform Services for the City"), which is

attached as Exhibit C and wil be made publicly available as detailed in Chapter II of this Hiring

Plan.

This Hiring Plan is not an exhaustive document and cannot contemplate every variation that could occur in hiring. This Hiring Plan is intended to provide a framework for City hiring that

4

6/23/11

wil survive changes in collective bargaining agreements, technology, management practice and
law. The principles ofthis Hiring Plan should be construed broadly.

The City may modify this Hiring Plan so long as the modifications are not contrar to applicable law. Prior to the effective date of any modification of this Hiring Plan, the Commissioner of the Deparent of Human Resources ("DHR") shall give thirt (30) days' public notice in one or more newspapers of general circulation. Such public notice shall include information concerning
where the rules can be reviewed and where comments may be directed. The City wil also post on its publicly available internet site any modifications to this Hiring Plan.

In addition, prior to sunset of the Accord, thirty (30) days' advance written notice of any

modifications of this Hiring Plan shall be given to the Shakman Plaintiffs and the court appointed

Monitor. The Shakman Plaintiffs and the Monitor may comment on the modifications and make

written objections. Impasses shall be resolved as provided in Section ILD. of

the Accord.

B. Definitions

Acting Up - Acting Up is where an employee is directed to, and does perform, or is held
accountable for, substantially all of the respon.sibilities of a higher-graded, covered Class.

Applicant - An Applicant is an individual who completes an application for a specific open City Position.

Application - An Application is an electronic or paper document that is completed by a
prospective Applicant or Bidder to apply for an open Position. The Application contains
information about the prospective Applicant or Bidder, such as his or her education, previous
employment history, and other relevant information to be considered for employment with the
City.

Bid Announcement - A Bid Announcement is posted on the Recruiting Management System
("RMS") and according to applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") terms, gives notice of an open Position for which CBA-covered employees can exercise their bidding rights. A Bid Anouncement shall include the job duties and predefined minimum qualifications from the Class Specification, predefined screening criteria, and predefined minimum testing score when applicable, whether or not an interview and/or test wil be conducted, and any other relevant information.

Bidder - A Bidder is an individual who is covered by a CBA and exercises his or her contractual right to bid when applying for a specific open City Position.

Candidate - A Candidate is an Applicant or Bidder who meets the minimum qualifications of the job for which he or she applied and is eligible to be referred.

Career Event - A Career Event is an assembly of job seekers and prospective employers, such as job fairs and conferences.

5

6/23/11

Class of Positions - A Class of Positions is a category of Position(s), each of which is suffciently similar in respect to duties and responsibilties such that the same word(s) may be used to designate each Position in the group, the same salary range may be equitably applied, the same qualifications required, and the same examination used to select qualified employees. A Class of Positions is equivalent to a job title.
Class Specifications - Class Specifications are descriptions of the duties and responsibilities of
a Class of Positions that distinguish one Class from another. They are, in effect, the general descriptions utilzed to determine the proper level to which a Position should be assigned, and they include the general job duties and minimum qualifications of the Position. Class Specifications shall include sufficient detail so as to accurately reflect the job duties
Conditional Offer - A Conditional Offer refers to an offer of employment that is contingent
upon satisfying the requirements of Chapter VII of this Hiring Plan. .
Consensus Meeting - A Consensus Meeting is a discussion that is led by the Recruiter held at the conclusion of the interview process. During the Consensus Meeting, the interviewers and the Hiring Manager review their respective interview results and any other relevant information to arive at a hiring recommendation.
Covered Position - A Covered Position is any City Position other than an Exempt Position as listed on the Exempt List, which wil be submitted to the Cour.

Eligible Candidates - An Eligible Candidate is a Candidate who has successfully completed the
requirements for a Non-Interview Position and thus eligible for hire.

Escalation Procedure - The Escalation Procedure is a process that requires a DHR Recruiter or
Analyst involved in a hiring process who has reason to believe that any individual involved in a hiring sequence may have committed a violation of this Hiring Plan or may have allowed Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations to influence the hiring process to suspend the process and immediately notify IGO Hiring Oversight and the DHR Commissioner
for fuher review and action.

Exempt Position - An Exempt Position is a City Position that is excepted from the requirements governing Covered Positions and is listed on the Exempt List, which wil be submitted to the Court.

Hiring Authority - The Hiring Authority is the individual who has the ultimate responsibility and authority for the hiring of a Candidate. This role wil typically be held by a Deparment
Head.

Hire Certifcation - The Hire Certification is a form filled out by (1) selected Candidates and

(2) all City employees involved in any hiring process, other than for Exempt Positions. This

form shall certify under penalty of

perjury, that no Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper

considerations were considered in the action taken. DHR, with notice to IGO Hiring Oversight,

may modify the form from time to time.

6

6/23/11
Hiring Criteria - The Hiring Criteria are factors which elicit job-related knowledge, skils and abilities, identified in the Intake Meeting, that are used to evaluate Candidates to determine which Candidates wil be offered the Position.
Hiring Manager - The Hiring Manager is responsible for managing the selection process for Positions requiring an interview. This individual wil typically be the manager to whom the new hire wil report, but may be a higher level manager in the deparment reporting structure.
Improper - Improper describes a consideration constituting preferential treatment which is not job related.
Intake Meeting - An Intake Meeting is a meeting where DHR shall work with the hiring
deparment to establish Screening and Hiring Criteria for the Position and create a Notice of Job Opportunity or Bid Announcement (for those Positions covered by a CBA).
Notice of Job Opportunity - The Notice of Job Opportunity, which is posted on the RMS, shall
include the Position's job duties and minimum qualifications from the Class Specification, the predefined screening criteria, the predefined minimum testing score when applicable, whether or
not an interview andlor test wil be conducted, whether or not the Position wil be. filled through random selection, and any other relevant information.
Other Employment Action - An Other Employment Action is any change in the terms and conditions of employment in addition to those detailed in this Hiring Plan and includes, but is not limited to: hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, lay-off, reinstatement, reemployment, transfer, reclassification, granting overtime, assignment, withholding of any job benefit and imposition of
any employment sanction or detriment.
Political Reasons or Factors - Where this Hiring Plan refers to Political Reasons or Factors this shall include:
1. Recommendations for hiring, promotion or any other employment term for
specific persons from public offce holders (and/or their staffs) or political par officials that are not based on actual knowledge of the person's work skils, work experience or
other job-related qualifications.
2. Recommendations for hiring, promotion or any other employment term based on the fact that the person worked in a political campaign or belongs to a political organization or political pary; or the fact that the person chose not to work in a political campaign or to belong to a political organization or a political pary. The mere fact that a person worked for a political campaign for elective office does not prohibit consideration of a recommendation related to that person insofar as the basis for that recommendation relates to the person's relevant work experience.
3. Recommendations for hiring, promotion or any other employment term based on the fact that the person contributed money, raised money, or provided something else of
7

6/23/11
value to a candidate for public offce or a political organization; or the fact that the person chose not to contribute or raise money for a candidate for public offce or a political organization.
4. Recommendations for hiring, promotion or any other employment term based on the fact that a person is a Democrat or a Republican or a member of any other political pary or group; or the fact that the Applicant is not a member.
S. Recommendations for hiring, promotion or any other employment term based on
the fact that the person expressed views or beliefs on political matters such as what candidates or elected offcials he or she favored or opposed, what public policy issues he or she favored or opposed, or what views on government actions or failures to act he or
she expressed.
Position - A Position is a job to be performed by the full or part time employment of one
individuaL. A Position exists whether it is filled or unfilled.
Pre-Qualified Candidate - A Pre-Qualified Candidate is an Applicant who meets the minimum qualifications and Hiring Criteria, is found to be suitable for the Position, and would have been hired as the result of a hiring sequence but for the lack of a vacancy.
Promotion - A Promotion is the appointment of a current City employee to a higher paid andlor graded Position than their current Position.
Recruitng Management System ("RMS") - The RMS is an electronic system that selects or sorts Applicant data according to designated criteria and otherwise processes and presents information for the hiring process.
Requisition Form - A Requisition Form is an electronic document requesting approval to hire
for a paricular Position which describes relevant information about the Position including
minimum qualifications, Screening and Hiring Criteria.
Screening Criteria - Screening Criteria are' factors that a hiring deparment may use to screen minimally qualified Candidates to determine which Candidates wil be further considered. They consist of the preferred qualifications and are identified in the Intake Meeting.
C. Department of Human Resources
This Hiring Plan depends on a robust DHR which shall act as the gatekeeper to the City's
processes governing actions covered by this Hiring Plan and Other Employment Actions.
Although the responsibilty for hiring decisions rests with the hiring deparment, DHR's
Employment Services Division ("Employment Services") shall be responsible for facilitating
City hiring. In addition, DHR, in conjunction with outside consultants, as needed, shall
periodically analyze existing Classes to determine minimum qualifications, testing requirements, and appropriateness of Class Specifications.
8

6/23/11
The DHR Commissioner has the authority to act on recommendations made by IGO Hiring Oversight or on his or her own initiative to impose remedial actions as they relate to a hiring sequence, which can include, but are not limited to the following: suspending a hiring sequence, terminating the hiring sequence andlor ordering that the hiring sequence be restarted. Also, DHR Recruiters and Analysts have the authority to suspend a requisition at any point in the hiring process pursuant to the Escalation procedures detailed in Chapter XII. In implementing this Hiring Plan, the City shall also ensure that all Applicants have equal employment opportities and shall use all resources at its disposal to fulfill its commitment to diversity as an equal employment opportunity employer. In fuherance of this goal, DHR shall file quarerly reports with the City Council Committee on Budget and Governent Operations identifying the race, ethnicity and gender of the City's hires during the quarer and the current workforce. Nothing in this paragraph authorizes deviations from the provisions of this Hiring
Plan.
D. Office of the Inspector General The City's Office of the Inspector General ("IGO") shall be responsible for overseeing,
monitoring, and auditing City hiring. The IGO has established a Hiring Oversight Section ("IGO Hiring Oversight") which shall oversee this Hiring Plan's Compliance and Governance system as outlined in Chapter XII.
9

6/23/11

CHAPTER

II

EMPLOYEE DUTY TO REPORT, TRANSPARENCY OF CITY HIRING, AND

GOVERNING RULES

A. Employee Duty to Report

Any City employee who knows or should know that a Hiring Manager, Hiring Authority, or other City employee may have allowed Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations to influence any term or aspect of employment shall report the incident to IGO Hiring Oversight directly and without delay. Any employee who knowingly fails to report such a potential violation to IGO Hiring Oversight may be subjected to discipline, up to and including termination.

B. Transparency of City Hiring
1. DHR
In order to promote transparency, DHR shall post quarerly reports on the City's website
detailing: (1) the total number of hireslpromotions for all Covered Positions; (2) the department where the hire(s) occurred; and (3) the ward where the hiredlpromoted employee(s) reside(s).
DHR shall also post the following information on the City's publicly available website for the
public to review:

a. The Class Specification for each Class, including the minimum qualifications.
b. A list of all Classes for which interviews are not required prior to hire.

c. A list of all Classes for which interviews are required prior to hire.
d. A list of all Classes for which testing is required prior to hire.

e. A list of all Classes that may be filled using the Senior Manager Hiring Process.

f. A list of all Classes that may be filled using the Exempt Position Hiring Process.

g. All of the City's policies governing actions covered by this Hiring Plan and Other
Employment Actions.
This information shall be updated on a quarterly basis.

2. IGO Hiring Oversight
IGO Hiring Oversight shall post the following on its website, which shall be linked to the City's website, and wil be made available for the public to review:

10

6/23/11

a. Quarerly reports as detailed in Chapter XIL

b. The Use of

Non-City Employees to Perform Services for the City Policy.

c. The Acting Up Policy.

C. Rules Governing All Hires Made Pursuant to the General Hiring Process
1. Contacts by Hiring Departments. Hiring departments shall not contact DHR to lobby for or advocate on behalf of actual or potential Applicants or Bidders for Covered Positions, nor may hiring deparments request that specific individuals be added to any referral or eligibilty list except as permitted ill this Hiring Plan. Hiring deparments may contact DHR to inquire about the status of selected Candidates. Any DHR employee receiving a contact violating this section shall report it to the DHR Commissioner and IGO Hiring Oversight within forty-eight (48) hours.

2. Non-Political and Impartial Actions. For actions covered under this Hiring Plan and
Other Employment Actions concerning all Covered Positions, Political Reasons or Factors or other considerations otherwise prohibited by law or the City's Personnel Rules may not be considered. No CBA or other agreement shall provide otherwise.

3. Recommendations from Elected and Appointed Officials. Nothing in this Hiring Plan shall limit the right of any citizen, including elected officials, to make recommendations not based on Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations to personnel

involved in making employment decisions on behalf of

the City. In the case of

hiring for

Covered Positions, recommendations from public office holders or political pary

officials that are based on their personal knowledge of

the person's work experience, skil

or other job-related qualifications are permitted and may be considered, to the extent that

the department considers any recommendations for a paricular Position.

4. Reporting of Contacts by Elected and Appointed Officials. All contacts, whether in person, in writing, by telephone, by facsimile, bye-mail, or any other means from any elected or appointed official of any political party or any agent acting on behalf of an elected or appointed official, political pary, or political organization, attempting to affect any hiring for any Covered Position or Other Employment Actions shall be reported to IGO Hiring Oversight within 48 hours. IGO Hiring Oversight shall maintain a fie
documenting all such contacts.

S. Internal Candidates Attendance and Disciplinary Policy. The City shall require internal Candidates to meet certain attendance and disciplinary criteria at the time of selection, to the extent such a requirement does not violate the terms of any applicable CBA. The City must apply any such attendance and disciplinary criteria uniformly. The City shall post its attendance and disciplinar policy on the City's website. The City may modify such attendance and disciplinary criteria as necessary as long as such criteria are applied uniformly and are posted on the City's website. If an internal Candidate is passed over for selection based solely on the application of the attendance and disciplinary criteria

11

6/23/11
referred to above, such Candidate shall remain in the Pre-Qualified pool, and may be considered for later vacancies if the Candidate then meets the attendance and disciplinary
criteria.
6. Internal Candidate Performance Evaluations as Par of Hiring Criteria. Written
performance evaluations of internal Candidates shall be used as par of the Hiring Criteria to the extent required by the terms of any CBA, and also in all cases where all internal Applicants/Bidders in the hiring sequence have been subject to a uniform performance evaluation system. 7. Consistency of Interviewers. The same individuals should interview all Candidates for any interview Position, including Senior Manager Positions. If an interviewer must
change during the hiring process, the hiring department must provide advance
notification to DHR, which shall forward the information to IGO Hiring Oversight. 8. Advance Notice of Hiring Activity to IGO Hiring Oversight. To facilitate IGO Hiring
Oversight's monitoring of hiring processes, hiring deparments shall provide the
scheduled time and locations of Intake Meetings, tests, non-Senior Manager interviews, and Consensus Meetings to IGO Hiring Oversight at least seven (7) business days in advance of the activity. Hiring departments shall provide IGO Hiring Oversight four (4) days' notice for all Senior Manager intake meetings and interviews.
9. Notifications to the Monitor. Until termination of the Accord, IGO Hiring Oversight
shall promptly forward all notifications and other information it receives pursuant to this Hiring Plan to the Shakman Monitor.
12

6/23/11

CHAPTER

III

GENERAL HIRING PROCESS - INITIAL STEPS

The initial steps in the hiring process detailed in this chapter apply to all hires made pursuant to the General Hiring Process. Once these steps have been completed, the hiring process wil differ, depending on the Position being filled.

The subsequent three chapters, which layout the rest of the General Hiring Process, are
organized as follows: (1) Positions for which an interview is not required prior to hire (Chapter
IV); (2) Positions requiring an interview (Chapter V); and (3) Positions designated Senior
Managers (Chapter VI).

INITIAL STEPS IN THE GENERAL HIRING PROCESS

1. Requesting approval to start the Hiring Process. The hiring deparment shall submit a request to the City's Office of Budget and Management ("OBM") identifying the
Position and the number of vacancies to be filled. A Requisition Form for the
Position shall be submitted to DHR.

2. Intake Meeting. DHR and the hiring department shall review any previously used Screening and Hiring Criteria for the Position and work together to create a Notice of Job Opportunity or Bid Announcement (for those Positions covered by a CBA) which
shall include the Position's predefined Class Specification, predefined minimum qualifications, Hiring Criteria, predefined minimum testing score when applicable and interview requirements, whether or not an interview wil be conducted, whether
or not the Position wil be filled through random selection, and any other relevant
information. If there are no preexisting Screening or Hiring Criteria, or if the hiring
deparment wishes to modify the existing Screeriing or Hiring Criteria, the Recruiter
or Analyst wil work with the hiring department to create or modify them (unless, in
the case of no preexisting Screening Criteria, the hiring deparent chooses not to use
them). In addition, the Recruiterl Analyst wil determine whether a classification
review is needed. Any changes to the minimum qualifications or Class Specification
shall promptly be sent to IGO Hiring Oversight before posting, and any changes to Screening and Hiring Criteria, including the justifications, shall be documented in the
hiring fie.

3. Posting the Notice of Job OpportunitylBid Announcement. All Positions filled through the General Hiring Process require the Position be posted, except in cases where a Position wil be filled from a list of Pre-Qualified Candidates as described in
this Hiring Plan. DHR shall post the Notice of Job Opportunity or Bid
Anouncement for at least foureen (14) business days, or at least seven (7) business days for Senior Manager Positions, on the City's publicly available internet job site and any other sites where the City chooses to post such Notice of Job Opportunity or
as required by the terms of a CBA.

13

6/23/11
4. Notices of Openings. For all Covered Positions, DHR shall post and advertise open Positions in a manner designed to maximize the pool of Applicants.
S. Applications. Interested Applicants andlor Bidders shall submit their Applications
and/or bids for the Position electronically to the RMS within the applicable period listed in the Notice of Job Opportunity or Bid Announcement. Applications shall remain active for twelve (12) months from the expiration date of the posting, unless (1) otherwise required by the terms of a CBA or (2) if the Position is re-posted. 6. Notice of Meeting Minimum Qualifications. Once an Application or bid is submitted electronically, the Applicant or Bidder shall receive prompt electronic notification of whether or not he or she meets the minimum qualifications based on their selfassessment for the Position for which he or she applied or bid. From this point forward, the General Hiring Process wil differ based upon whether the Position requires an interview and whether the Position is a Senior Manager.
14

6/23/11

CHAPTER

IV

GENERAL HIRING PROCESS - NON-INTERVIEWED POSITIONS

A. Applicabilty
DHR has identified Positions for which interviews are not required prior to hire. Instead, an Applicant may be required to pass a test in order to be eligible for hire, or the Position may be filled by random selection.

B. Process

1. Minimum Qualification Screening and Certification. DHR wil verify that
Applicants/Bidders meet the predetermined minimum qualifications for the Position. If there are no additional criteria, a list of minimally qualified Candidates shall be created in random order by DHR, unless otherwise required by the applicable terms of a CBA. If additional criteria are applied, DHR shall include Candidates on the list of Candidates to
be tested or selected based on the Candidates' match to the additional criteria, unless otherwise required by the applicable terms of a CBA.

2. Testing. If testing is to be done for the Position, DHR shall determine the number of Candidates that shall proceed to the testing phase based on providing a good range of choice for the selecting pary and the number of vacancies to be filled. DHR shall work with the hiring department to schedule testing of those Candidates in the order they appear on the list described in Paragraph 1 above, unless otherwise required by the applicable terms of a CBA.

3. Determination of Eligible Candidates. If the test is a passlfail test, DHR shall remove those Candidates who have not passed the test from the list described in paragraph 1 above. Those Candidates remaining on the list shall be Eligible Candidates.

4. Offers to Eligible Candidates Taking PasslFail Tests. As Positions using a passlfail test
become available for hire, offers of employment shall be made to the Eligible
Candidates in the order they appear on the random list described in paragraph 3 above, unless otherwise required by the terms of a CBA.

s. Raning Results Lists from Ran-Ordered Tests. For Positions using a rank-ordered test,

DHR shall prepare a list in descending ran order of

Eligible Candidates.

6. Offers to Raned Candidates. As Positions using a ran-ordered test become available for hire, offers of employment shall be made to Eligible Candidates in the order in which they appear on the rank-ordered list described in paragraph 5 above, unless
otherwise required by the terms of a CBA.

7. Test Scores Availability and Useful Life; Retesting. Test scores shall be made
available to individual Candidates when a final eligibility list is completed. Test scores shall be valid during the time an application remains active. (Candidates may only test

15

6/23/11

one time during a twelve (12) month period for a Position, unless otherwise required by the terms of a CBA. This limitation does not apply to skils assessments.)

8. Pre-Qualified Candidates as Eligible Candidates for Limited Vacancies. DHR shall place Eligible Candidates who were not selected for employment due solely to limited

vacancies available at the time on a list of Pre-Qualified Candidates in the order they
appeared on the list of Eligible Candidates created above. The Pre-Qualified Candidates
shall remain on the Pre-Qualified list as long as their applications have not been

withdrawn but not to exceed twelve (12) months from the date of

the application, unless

otherwise required by the terms of a CBA. However, a Pre-Qualified Candidate list

shall be retired and thus considered inactive when a new eligible list for the same

Position is created as described above.

9. Priority for Pre-Qualified Applicants/Bidders. If a department chooses to use an active Pre-Qualified Candidate list for a particular vacancy, the Position shall not be
reposted, and the Pre-Qualified Candidates wil be hired in order of their respective rankings on a ranked list while their applications remain active, subject to the terms of aCBA.
10. Extension of Pre-Qualified Candidate List. The DHR Commissioner may extend a PreQualified Candidate list for one additional twelve (12) month period, unless otherwise required by the terms of a CBA, and wil prepare in writing a justification for the extension that shall be sent to IGO Hiring Oversight.
Certification form. '- 11. Hire Certification Forms. Every person who participated in the selection process shall execute a Hire Certification form. The successful Candidate( s) shall also execute a Hire
12. Predetermined Testing Requirements. Pre-determined minimum testing
requirements shall be developed for all non-interviewed Positions to be tested. DHR
shall design, select or approve tests created by vendors and shall be responsible for ensuring that such tests are fairly administered and scored.
13. Test Proctoring and Certification. A DHR Testing Administrator shall proctor as many tests as possible, prioritizing the proctoring of tests for Positions regarding which complaints have arisen. A DHR Testing Administrator who proctors the tests shall certify that the testing process has been followed. In the event proctoring and certification by a DHR Testing Administrator is not possible, the hiring department shall designate a proctor and such individual shall serve as a substitute and have the same responsibilities and obligations as the DHR Testing Administrator.
14. Wiling and Able. When a Position's minimum qualifications only require an interested Applicant to be wiling and able to perform the duties of the Position, DHR shall refer all Applicants who successfully applied in random order. Candidates must complete a Wiling and Able Questionnaire developed by the hiring department and DHR. In order

16

6/23/11 to be offered the Position, Candidates must answer all questions in the affirmative on the
Wiling and Able Questionnaire. .
17

6/23/11

CHAPTER

V

GENERAL HIRING PROCESS - POSITIONS REQUIRING AN INTERVIEW

A. Applicabilty

DHR has identified Positions for which interviews are required prior to hire. Candidates may also be required to take and pass a test as part of the selection process. DHR may modify the list and shall provide prompt notification to IGO Hiring Oversight of any modifications.

For Positions that require an interview prior to hire, the following steps shall be
undertaken:

B. Process
1. Certification of Minimum Qualifications. DHR wil verify that Applicants/Bidders meet the predetermined minimum qualifications for the Position. If there are no additional criteria, a list of minimally qualified Candidates shall be created in random order by DHR, unless otherwise required by the applicable terms of a CBA.
2. Screening for non-tested Positions. For interviewed Positions not requiring testing prior
to hire, DHR shall include Candidates on the interview list based on the Candidates'
relative match to Screening Criteria, unless otherwise required by the terms of a CBA, or unless the list of all minimally qualified Candidates has been created in random order by DHR as described in paragraph 1 above. The hiring department shall offer interviews to Candidates in the order they appear on the interview list and shall notify DHR and IGO
Hiring Oversight of the interview schedule no later than seven (7) days before the
interviews begin.

3. Testing. If the Position requires a test and an interview, DHR shall determine the
number of Candidates that shall proceed to the testing phase based on providing a good range of choice for the selecting party and the number of vacancies to be filled. DHR shall work with the hiring department to schedule testing of those Candidates in the order they appear on the list described in paragraphs 1 or 2 above, unless otherwise
required by the terms of a CBA.
4. Screening for tested Positions. For interviewed Positions requiring testing prior to
hire, DHR shall include Candidates on the list of Candidates to be tested based on their match to the Screening Criteria. DHR shall then create an interview list of . everyone who passed the test in the case of passlfail tests or, in the case of ranked order tests, of everyone who meets a predefined minimum threshold score, unless otherwise required by the terms of a CBA. The hiring department shall offer interviews to Candidates in the order they appear on the interview list and shall notify DHR and IGO Hiring Oversight of the interview schedule no later than seven (7) days
before the interviews begin.

18

6/23/11

S. Interview Questions. Interview questions shall be developed by DHR and the hiring deparment from job-specific content related to the Hiring Criteria for the vacant Position. Interviews shall be designed to assess the Candidates' match to the Hiring
Criteria.

. 6. Conduct of Interviews. Candidates for the same Position shall be asked the same core
interview questions. Follow-up questions are permitted so long as they relate to previous questions asked to draw out more detailed information from the Candidate.
7. Interview Training. Interviewers shall be trained by DHR on proper
interviewing procedures prior to conducting interviews.

8. Interviewers; Evaluations. At least two City employees from the hiring deparment who are familar with the Position's requirements shall interview each Candidate. Each
interviewer shall independently and personally complete an evaluation form for the
Candidate at the conclusion of the interview. There shall be no discussion between the interviewers regarding the Candidates until the Consensus Meeting.

9. Interview Notes. Interview notes shall be recorded on each interviewer's

evaluation form (and attached pages if

necessar) and preserved and provided to DHR

at the conclusion of

the interviews.

10. Interviewer Recommendations and Documentation. Immediately following the

interview, each interviewer shall independently and personally identify on the evaluation form whether or not the Candidate shall be subject to further

consideration in the hiring process. Each interviewer shall provide all documentation

from the interview to DHR. Interview

evaluation forms shall not be altered or revised

once completed. However, omissions or errors of a clerical nature which are not

substantive may be corrected with written

justification from the interviewer.

11. Consensus Meetings; Selection; Creation of Pre Qualified Candidate List. After the
interviews for the vacancy are completed, the selection process for interviewed
Positions shall be based on a Consensus Meeting led by a DHR Recruiter and attended by all interviewers, along with the Hiring Manager for the Position. The participants in
the Consensus Meeting shall make a selection decision at the meeting and shall create a ranked list of those interviewed Candidates (i) who are determined to be suitable for
the vacancy and (ii) who would have been selected but for the lack of a
vacancy (Pre-Qualified Candidate list). If no selection consensus can be
reached, the Hiring Manager shall make the final selection decision and shall provide written rationale for the selection decision for review and approval by the DHR
Commissioner before extending an offer of employment. The DHR Recruiter facilitating the hiring process shall take detailed notes of the discussion at the
meeting which shall be added to the Hire Packet. If the interviewers decide that more information is needed before they can make a successful decision, they may choose to conduct second interviews with all or some of the Candidates who were interviewed in

19

6/23/11
the first round. The second round of interviews shall proceed per the requirements of this Chapter. 12. DHR Monitoring of Selection Process; Records. The DHR Recruiter shall ensure
that the selection is based on the Hiring Criteria, the interviewers' evaluation
forms, test results, the applicable terms of a CBA, if any, and other relevant factors and not on any Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations. The DHR Recruiter shall maintain the notes of Consensus Meeting discussions and
decisions in accordance with the record keeping requirements of the Local Records
Act.
13. Pre-Qualified Candidates as Eligible Candidates. The Pre-Qualified Candidates shall remain on the Pre-Qualified list created under Paragraph 1 1 above as. long as their applications have not been withdrawn but not to exceed twelve (12) months from the date of the application, unless otherwise required by the terms of a CBA. However, a
Pre-Qualified Candidate list shall be retired and thus considered inactive when a new eligible list for the same Position is created as described above. 14. Priority for. Pre-Qualified Candidates. If a hiring department chooses to utilize an
active Pre-Qualified Candidate list, the Position wil not be reposted, and the PreQualified Candidates wil be hired in order of their respective ranking on the list while their applications remain active, subject to the terms of a CBA.
15. Extension of Pre-Qualified Candidate Lists. The DHR Commissioner may extend a PreQualified Candidate list for one additional twelve (12) month period, unless otherwise
required by the terms of a CBA and wil prepare in writing a justification for the
extension that shall be sent to IGO Hiring Oversight. 16. Hire Certification Forms. Every person who participated in the selection process shall
execute a Hire Certification form. The successful Candidate(s) shall also execute a Hire Certification form.
20

6/23/11

CHAPTER

VI

GENERAL HIRING PROCESS - SENIOR MANAGERS

A. Applicabilty

1. Senior Managers Definition. Senior Manager Classes are (1) not covered by a
CBA; (2) not career service Positions (i.e. they are employees-at-wil); (3) not Exempt; and (4) involve significant managerial responsibilities.

2. Class Specifications and Minimum Qualifications. Senior Manager Positions
must have Class Specifications, which wil include minimum qualifications, on file with DHR.
3. Senior Manager List Maintenance. DHR shall maintain a list of Classes where use of the process detailed in this chapter is allowed. DHR must review the list
anually to ensure that the selected Classes are appropriate for use with this
process. The Senior Manager List shall specify the identifying code for each Senior Manager Class and in which deparment each Senior Manager Position is located.

4. Senior Manager List Modifications. Modifications to the Senior Manager List
shall be made by the DHR Commissioner, who shall provide fourteen (14) days'
prior written notification to the affected deparment and IGO Hiring Oversight.
Where a Class does not meet the requirements listed above, that Class must be hired using the procedures detailed in Chapter iv or V supra.

B. General Process for Hiring Senior Managers

1. Certification of Minimum Qualifications. DHR wil verify that all Applicants meet the predetermined minimum qualifications for the Position.

2. Referral of Minimally Qualified Applicants. DHR shall refer all Applicants who meet the predefined minimum qualifications for the Position to the hiring deparment. The hiring department may forward an application to DHR, and if DHR determines such Applicant meets the minimum qualifications for the Position, DHR shall add the Candidate to the list.

3. Option for DHR Screening of Applicants. The hiring department may elect to have applications screened by DHR. If DHR screens Candidates, DHR shall refer Candidates

to the hiring department based on the Candidates' relative match to the Screening

Criteria if any exist. If Screening Criteria do not exist, the hiring department may elect to

work with DHR to create them for the purose of

utilizing this option.

4. Interview Selection. The hiring deparment shall review the submissions and may
schedule and conduct interviews for the Position for those Candidates, if any, who, in the sole discretion of the hiring department, should be interviewed. The hiring department

21

6/23/11

shall forward DHR and IGO Hiring Oversight a list of those Candidates who wil be offered an interview at least four (4) days before the first interview. The hiring department may begin interviewing such Candidates upon receipt of the Candidates' documents from DHR and need not wait for the expiration of the applicable advertising period before initiating interviews.
S. Rejection of All Referrals by Hiring Department. The hiring departent may reject all
Candidates forwarded by DHR with or without conducting interviews. The hiring deparment must submit a justification for the decision to reject all Candidates to the DHR Commissioner, who shall promptly provide the justification to IGO Hiring Oversìght. If all Candidates are rejected by the hiring department, DHR shall purge the
applications and post the Notice of Job Opportunity again.

6. Interviews; Number of Candidates. Subject to the presence of enough Candidates
meeting the minimum qualifications, the hiring deparment shall interview at least one more Candidate than open Positions for three or fewer openings, two more Candidates than open Positions for four or five openings and three more Candidates than open Positions for greater than five openings.
7. Interviews; Number ofInterviewers. Every Candidate selected for an interview must be interviewed by at least two interviewers who are familiar with the Position's requirements. Candidates for the same Position shall be asked the same core interview questions. Follow-up questions are permitted as long as they relate to previous questions asked to draw out more detailed information from the Candidate. If necessary, a second round of interviews may be conducted by different interviewers.

8. Assessment Forms. Each interviewer shall independently and personally complete an

assessment form for the Candidate immediately following the interview. Interview

evaluation forms shall not be altered or revised once completed. However, omissions or

errors of a clerical nature which are not substantive may be the subject of a supplement

to the original assessment forms with written

justification from the interviewer.

9. Selection. The Hiring Manager shall collect the assessment forms and documents
submitted by the Candidates and forward the materials to the Deparment Head, who shall make a selection. The Deparment Head may solicit the recommendations of the
Hiring Manager if desired. The Department Head may choose to reject all of the
Candidates submitted for consideration pursuant to paragraph 5 above.
10. Interview by Deparment Head. Prior to extending an offer of employment, the Deparment Head of the hiring department may (if he or she has not done so already)
interview the selected Candidate.
1 1. Reasons for Hire Letter. Prior to extending an offer of employment, the Department Head of the hiring department shall review all of the evaluation forms prepared by the interviewers of the Candidate whose hire is being recommended, prepare in writing the reasons for selecting the successful Candidate ("Reasons for Hire"), and shall complete and sign the Hire Certification form. In addition to explaining the rationale for selecting
22

6/23/11

a Candidate, the justification letter shall detail how the selected Candidate's experience meets the Screening and Hiring Criteria for the Position.

12. Hire Certification Forms. Every person who participated in the selection process shall create a Hire Certification form for each Candidate. The successful Candidate(s) shall also execute a Hire Certification form.

c. Record-keeping

The name, Position, and deparment of each Senior Manager hire shall be posted on the City's

publicly available website within fourteen (14) days of the hire date and remain posted for a

period of

three (3) years from the date of

hire.

23

6/23/11

CHAPTER

VII

CONDITIONAL OFFERS OF EMPLOYMENT AT CAREER EVENTS

A. Applicabilty and Principles
In very limited circumstances, and only with the prior approval of DHR, deparments may use Career Events to make Conditional Offers of employment for a Covered Position. DHR wil determine whether a Class is appropriate to be filled pursuant to this chapter, and such Classes shall be limited to those that have historically had a small pool of Candidates and have been difficult to fill through traditional means.
B. General Process
If a hiring department wishes to use a career event to potentially make a Conditional Offer of employment, it must receive DHR approval at least one month prior to the Career Event.
Every City employee who paricipates in a Career Event that results in a Conditional Offer shall complete a Hire Certification form. Any Candidate(s) extended a Conditional Offer shall also execute a Hire Certification form.
Within 48 hours of the Career Event, the hiring deparment wil forward all materials relating to the Conditional Offer to the DHR Commissioner, who wil immediately provide notification to IGO Hiring Oversight. The DHR Commissioner must approve the Conditional Offer for the selected Candidate to be hired. If the DHR Commissioner does not approve the Conditional Offer, the department wil rescind it.

24

CHAPTER VIII EXEMPT POSITION HIRING PROCESS

6/23/11

A. Applicabilty and Principles

Exempt Positions are those where any factor may be considered in actions covered by this Hiring Plan and Other Employment Actions, unless otherwise prohibited by law, and are listed on the Exempt List, which wil be submitted to the Cour.

B. Modifcations to the Exempt List

DHR shall maintain a list of Classes where use of the process detailed in this chapter is allowed. The City may from time to time add or delete Positions from the list of Schedule G Positions on

the Exempt List so long as the total number of Positions in any of the six categories within the

Schedule G list (VIII-XIII) does not increase by more than 10% of in each category, as established in Exhibit II.G of

the Accord.

the initial number of

Positions

Written notice of any proposed addition to or deletion from the Exempt List shall be submitted to the DHR Commissioner with supporting documentation including, but not limited to: (1) the Class of the Exempt Position, and (2) a description of the basis on which the Exempt status of the Position should be changed. Copies shall simultaneously be provided to IGO Hiring
Oversight. If a proposed addition to the Exempt List involves adding a Class not previously
included on the Exempt List, the Class must meet the requirements for exempt status under
applicable law.

The DHR Commissioner wil respond with his or her approval or denial (including the reasons for the approval or denial) within thirt (30) days and copy IGO Hiring Oversight on the response. If IGO Hiring Oversight disagrees with the DHR Commissioner's decision, it may submit a written objection to the DHR Commissioner, who must respond in writing within ten
(10) days. The DHR Commissioner's decision wil not be final until this response is submitted to IGO Hiring Oversight. The DHR Commissioner's initial justification for the decisio"n, IGO Hiring Oversight's objection, the DHR Commissioner's response to IGO Hiring Oversight's objection, and the DHR Commissioner's final decision shall be posted on the IGO's website.

C. Process

1. Documentation. The department must submit the following documentation to DHR: a) electronic A-Form; b) Personnel Form - 14; and c) an organizational chart highlighting the reporting structure of the requested Position.

2. No specific selection process required. The employing department or official is not required to use any specific selection process in fillng a Position using this
process and may consider any factor in making its decision, so long as it is not an
ilegal factor.

25

6/23/11
D. Removal
An Exempt employee may be terminated or subject to any action covered by this Hiring Plan or Other Employment Actions for any reason or without reason, so long as it is not an ilegal reason.
E. Maintenance of Exempt Position Status
Any employee who is appointed to an Exempt Position shall retain Exempt status, even if subsequently placed into a Covered Position pursuant to an Other Employment Action, and that Exempt status shall not change unless he or she is subsequently hired into a Covered Position that is filled through the General Hiring Process.
26

6/23/11

CHAPTER

IX

PRIVATE SECRETARIES OR ASSISTANTS AND SECURITY SPECIALISTS

A. Applicabilty and Principles

Some hires by their nature require greater management discretion in selection. These include Private Secretaries or Assistants assigned to Exempt Employees and Security Specialists assigned to elected officials. DHR shall maintain a list of Classes covered by this chapter, and each Class shall have a Class Specification, which wil include minimum qualifications, on file withDHR.

B. Process

1. Documentation. The department must submit the following documentation to
DHR: a) electronic A-Form; b) Personnel Form - 14; and c) an organizational char highlighting the reporting structure of the requested Position.
2. No Specific Selection Process Required. The employing department or official is not required to use any specific selection process in fillng a Position using this process. The hiring department or official must not, however, take into account Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations when evaluating or
selecting a Candidate.

3. Hire Certification Forms. Every person who paricipated in the selection process
shall create a Hire Certification form for each Candidate. Thé successful
Candidate(s) shall also execute a Hire Certification form.

4. Security Specialists. Thirty (30) Security Specialists may be appointed pursuant
to this process and the employing official does not need to provide an A-Form or an organizational chart when selecting a sworn member of the Chicago Police Department to serve as a security specialist.

S. Certification by Department or Department Designee. Prior to appointment, the
Commissioner of the hiring department or the Commissioner's designee must certify that the requested Position wil be utilized as represented in the submitted documentation.
C. Removal
A secretary or assistant assigned to an Exempt employee may be terminated at the discretion of the Exempt employee supervising the secretary or assistant or the Department Head, so long as the termination is not for Political Reasons or Factors or Improper considerations or other ilegal reasons.

27

6/23/11

CHAPTER

X

VOLUNTEER WORKRS

A. Applicabilty
A volunteer worker is any worker, including a student, who is not paid a wage or a salary by the City of Chicago and who works for the City of Chicago.

B. General Selection Process for Volunteer Workers
The following principles apply to volunteers working pursuant to this chapter:
1. No Political Considerations. Departments may not take into account Political Reasons or
Factors or other Improper considerations in allowing a person to hold a volunteer
appointment.
2. Identification of Need. When a department identifies a need or an opportunity for
volunteer worker(s), the department shall notify DHR.

3. Unsolicited Offers. If a deparment receives an unsolicited offer from an individual
desiring to volunteer their time to the City, the deparment must give seven (7) days' advance written notice to DHR and IGO Hiring Oversight before accepting the offer. DHR must give approval for the deparment to accept the offer and wil provide prompt written notification of its decision to IGO Hiring Oversight.

4. Documentation. The deparment wil provide to DHR copies of any documentation
concerning the volunteer opportunity including but not limited to: program descriptions; externintern applications; recommendations; or proposals for the placement of a
volunteer worker.
S. Procedure. DHR shall work with the department to define the procedures for using
volunteer workers. These procedures may (but are not required to) include the following: a Notice of Job Opportunity; the predefined Class Specification, predefined minimum qualifications, and predefined Hiring Criteria if applicable; whether or not an interview wil be conducted; who wil make the selection; and any other relevant information.
6. Notice to IGO Hiring Oversight. DHR shall forward the procedures for using volunteer workers to IGO Hiring Oversight at least thirty (30) days prior to implementation.
7. Experience Gained as a Volunteer. The experience gained by any volunteer worker may be used to meet the minimum qualifications for any Position with the City. The City may consider the experience when evaluating between otherwise qualified Candidates, as long as the process outlined in this chapter is followed.

/

28

6/23/11

8. No Transfer or Detailing of

Volunteers from Legislative Offces. Volunteers working for

City legislative offices canot be transferred or detailed to any office in the City's

executive branch.

9. Hire Certification Form. All individuals involved in the process to use a volunteer worker
must execute a Hire Certification form stating that Political Reasons or Factors or other
Improper considerations did not play a part in allowing the Volunteer to work for the
City. The Volunteer shall also execute a Hire Certification form.

29

6/23/11

CHAPTER

XI

ACTING UP

A. General Considerations

1. Acting Up Is the Exception, Not the Rule. Acting Up for temporary periods is
sometimes unavoidable. However, it should never be the option of first resort and departments are expected to take every reasonable step to ensure that vacancies are filled in a timely and appropriate fashion. Violating the Acting Up Policy can lead to discipline, up to and including termination.

2. No Political Considerations. The Acting Up Policy relates to Covered Positions. Because of this, it is never appropriate for Political Reasons or Factors or other
Improper considerations to play any part in determining whether an employee wil act
up.

3. Implementation Procedures. DHR shall create implementing procedures for the use of

Acting Up. DHR may modify these implementing procedures as necessar so long as

the modifications are not contrary to the provisions of

this Hiring Plan. DHR wil post

on the City's publicly available internet site the Acting Up implementing procedures

and any updates to the procedures.

4. Time Limit. Acting Up is a temporary appointment. The implementation procedures
for Acting Up shall set a specified time limitation for an acting appointment that shall not exceed ninety (90) continuous days in a calendar year.

S. Waivers. In limited circumstances, a Deparment Head may seek an extension
allowing an employee to continue in an acting appointment beyond the time limit set forth in the policy. DHR must approve all requests for waivers,. which must be submitted prior to an employee reaching the time limit.
6. Rotation. The Acting Up Policy shall set forth requirements for the rotation of Acting Up opportunities among eligible employees.

7. Violations of Law or Rules and Regulations. No person may be selected to act up to
the extent that the selection would violate any City ordinance, rule, or regulation,
including the Governental Ethics Ordinance. For example, no person may be
selected to act up if selecting that employee would cause them to exercise supervisory authority with respect to a relative.

8. Reporting. All departments must fully report all acting up into covered Classes on a
monthly basis to DHR.

30

6/23/11 B. Exceptions 1. Exempt Positions. The Acting Up Policy does not apply to Exempt Positions. Acting
into existing Exempt Positions is at the discretion of the Deparment Head or his/her designee.
2. Collective Bargaining Agreement Employees. If a CBA contains specific provisions
detailing the use of Acting Up, the deparment shall use those procedures and adhere to any limitations as long as the deparment does not take Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations into account. If the CBA is silent with respect to any specific acting up rule or procedure, the specific provisions of this chapter and of the Acting Up Policy must be followed.
31

6/23/11

CHAPTER

XII

COMPLIANCE AND GOVERNANCE

A strong and effective compliance and governance system is critical to the success of this Hiring

Plan. This Hiring Plan grants oversight to the City's Office of

the Inspector General (IGO). The

IGO has established a Hiring Oversight Section which shall oversee this Hiring Plan's

compliance and governance system. IGO Hiring Oversight shall work collaboratively with the

Deparment of

Law and DHR to redress any and all issues regarding City hiring.

IGO Hiring Oversight reviews, monitors, and audits key processes in this Hiring Plan and

receives complaints regarding the hiring process, including allegations of unlawfl political

discrimination and retaliation and other Improper influence in connection with any aspect of City

employment. IGO Hiring Oversight shall, when appropriate, refer complaints and other

instances of

non-compliance to the Investigations Section of

the IGO.

A. Complaints

The City shall designate a telephone number complainants may call to register complaints

regarding the hiring process (the "Complaint Line"). The Complaint Line shall be staffed during

normal City business hours and shall either be staffed during non-business hours or the City shall

provide for voice

mail

recording. The IGO or a City vendor may staff

the Complaint Line.

Calls to the Complaint Line shall be logged (the "Complaint Log") by IGO Hiring Oversight. The Complaint Lòg shall contain the caller's name (or noted as anonymous should the caller elect not to provide his or her name), the Class of the Position for which the complaint is being registered, the department in which the Position is located, the nature of the complaint, the approximate date the alleged violation took place, the identity(ies) of any pary(ies) alleged to have caused or to have knowledge of the violation, contact information for the complainant if
provided, any other relevant information, and the resolution of the complaint. Confidential
information that may relate to official IGO investigations shall be protected pursuant to Section 2-56- 1 10 of the Chicago Municipal Code.

Any City employee who knows or should know that Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations may have influenced any term or aspect of City employment shall report the incident to IGO Hiring Oversight directly and without delay. Any employee who knowingly fails to report such a potential violation to IGO Hiring Oversight may be subjected to
discipline, up to and including termination.

B. Escalations By Recruiters and Analysts
As the gatekeepers of the hiring process, Recruiters and Analysts in DHR have a special responsibility to report any actual or potential violations of this Hiring Plan or the possible influence of any Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations by a Hiring Manager, Hiring Authority or other City employee and escalate those concerns to IGO Hiring
Oversight for resolution. The Recruiter or Analyst shall suspend a requisition at any point in the hiring process when he or she has reason to believe that a Hiring Manager, Hiring Authority or

32

6/23/11

other City employee may have committed a violation of this Hiring Plan or may have allowed Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations to influence the hiring process. The escalation shall proceed in the following maner:
1. Initiating Escalation. Upon suspending a requisition, the Recruiter or Analyst shall immediately notify IGO Hiring Oversight and the DHR Commissioner of the suspension
and the reasons for the escalation.

2. Review of Escalation. IGO Hiring Oversight shall evaluate the circumstances

surrounding the escalation and may do one or more of the following: investigate the

matter, conduct a review of the hiring sequence, refer the matter to the DHR

Commissioner or appropriate Deparment Head for resolution, and/or refer the matter to

the Investigations Section of

the IGO.

3. Escalation Log. Escalations shall be logged (the "Escalation Log") by IGO Hiring Oversight. The Escalation Log shall contain the name of the Recruiter or Analyst who
escalated the matter, the Class of the Position for which the escalation is being made, the deparment in which the Position is located, the nature of the violation, the approximate date any alleged violation took place, the identity(ies) of any party(ies) alleged to have caused or to have knowledge of the violation, any other relevant information, and the resolution of the escalation.

4. Release of Suspension of Hiring Process. During further review or inquiry by IGO
Hiring Oversight, the DHR Commissioner shall have the authority to continue the temporary suspension of the requisition until the review or inquiry is completed or to release the suspension and allow the hiring process to proceed. The DHR Commissioner may release any suspension notwithstanding the fact that such matter is being examined
by IGO Hiring Oversight.

S. Report by IGO Hiring Oversight. After review or inquiry, any findings and
recommendations of IGO Hiring Oversight shall be reported to the DHR Commissioner and, when appropriate, the Department Head. IGO Hiring Oversight shall maintain confidentiality as required by Sections 2-56-070 and 2-56- 110 of the Chicago Municipal
Code.

6. Report by the DHR Commissioner of Action Taken. The DHR Commissioner must

report to IGO Hiring Oversight within thirty (30) days of

the receipt of a recommendation

what action, if any, he or she took on the recommendation and provide a written
explanation of the reasons for the action taken if it is other than that recommended by
IGO Hiring Oversight. .

7. Notice to IGO Hiring Oversight of Self-Initiated Action Taken. If the DHR

Commissioner, on his or her own initiative, imposes remedial actions as they relate to a

hiring sequence, he or she wil provide immediate wrtten notification with justification

to IGO Hiring Oversight of

the action taken.

33

6/23/11

c. Reviews and Audits of Hiring Data

IGO Hiring Oversight shall perform quarterly reviews and audits of data regarding the hiring

processes. For the purpose of

this section:

Review means a check of all relevant documentation and data concerning a matter;

Audit means a check of a random sample or risk-based sample of
data concerning a hiring element.

the documentation and

Each quarter IGO Hiring Oversight shall conduct the following reviews:

1. Contacts by Hiring Departments. Review of all reported or discovered instances where hiring departments contacted DHR to lobby for or advocate on behalf of actual or
potential Applicants or Bidders for Covered Positions or to request that specific
individuals be added to any referral or eligibility list except as permitted in this Hiring
Plan.

2. Exemptions. Review of adherence to exemption requirements and Exempt Lists and
propriety of Exempt List modifications.

3. Senior Manager Hires. Review of hires using Chapter VI, the Senior Manager Hiring Process.

4. Written rationale. Review of any written rationale when no consensus selection was
reached during a Consensus Meeting.
S. Emergency Appointments. Review of circumstances and wrtten justifications for any emergency hires made pursuant to the Personnel Rules and Section 2-74-050(8) of the
Chicago Municipal Code.
Each quarter IGO Hiring Oversight shall conduct audits of the following matters to ensure
compliance with the hiring process:
1. Modifications to Class Specifications, Minimum Qualifications and Screening and Hiring Criteria. Modifications of Class Specifications, Minimum Qualifications, or Screening and Hiring Criteria.
2. Referral Lists. The lists of Applicants/Bidders who meet the predetermined minimum qualifications for the Position that are generated by DHR.

3. Testing. Test administration and scoring.
4. Selected Hiring Sequences. 10% in the aggregate ofin-process and completed (at least 5% of completed) hiring sequences from the following departments or their successors:

34

6/23/11

Streets and Sanitation, Water Management, Aviation, Transportation, Buildings, Fleet, and six other City deparments selected at the discretion ofIGO Hiring Oversight.
S. Hiring Certifications. The required certifications attesting that no Political Reasons or
Factors or other Improper considerations were taken into account in the applicable action.

6. Acting Up. Review of the City's compliance with Chapter XI and any implementing
procedures.

7. Arbitrations and Resolution of Grievances by Settlement. Audit of all arbitration decisions arising out of Accord complaints, as well as any other arbitration decisions and grievance settlement agreements that may impact the procedures under this Hiring Plan.

D. IGO Hiring Oversight Monitoring and IGO Investigation of Hiring Processes

If at any point IGO Hiring Oversight identifies any actual or potential violations of this Hiring

Plan or the possible influence of any Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper
considerations by a Hiring Manager, Hiring Authority or other City employee, IGO Hiring Oversight may refer the matter to the DHR Commissioner or make recommendations for appropriate corrective actions to the DHR Commissioner, the Deparment of Law, and/or any affected Deparment Head. IGO Hiring Oversight may also directly refer the matter to the Investigations Section of the IGO for the opening of an offcial IGO investigation. The IGO wil develop internal protocols for the referral of such matters by IGO Hiring Oversight to the

Investigations Section of

the IGO.

IGO Hiring Oversight shall regularly paricipate in random, in-person monitoring of Intake Meetings, tests, interviews, and Consensus Meetings. To facilitate such monitoring, the scheduled time and locations of all such activities shall be provided to IGO Hiring Oversight at least seven (7) days in advance of non-Senior Manager activity and four (4) days in advance of
Senior Manager activity, unless otherwise provided for by this Hiring Plan.

E. Reporting Requirements

IGO Hiring Oversight shall issue quarerly and annual reports that include statistics on the

number of escalations and complaints newly initiated, pending, closed with investigation, and

closed without investigation. The quarerly and

annual reports shall also include a description of

the outcomes, findings, recommendations, and actions taken on the recommendations of any

investigation of an escalation or complaint, and IGO Hiring Oversight's comments on the DHR

Commissioner's responses to action taken on IGO Hiring Oversight reports.

IGO Hiring Oversight shall redact any personal identifying information pnor to publicly disseminating such reports.

In addition, IGO Hiring Oversight shall report on the reviews and audits of hiring data and monitoring of hiring processes undertaken pursuant to Sections C and D of this Chapter.

35

6/23/11

CHAPTER XIII APPLICABILITY TO OTHER EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS NOT DETAILED IN
THIS HIRING PLAN
Other Employment Actions not detailed in this Hiring Plan, including those listed below,
shall not require the posting of Bids or Notices of Job Opportnities or screening
requirements described in Chapter III above, unless otherwise required by the terms of a CBA.
The City, however, shall not take into account Political Reasons or Factors or other
Improper considerations and shall adhere to the other Goals and Principles outlined in Chapter I in filling Positions pursuant to Other Employment Actions. The procedures for fillng Positions pursuant to Other Employment Actions not detailed in this Hiring Plan shall be codified in the Personnel Rules andlor applicable City policies and procedures, unless otherwise required by the terms of a CBA. Individuals employed under any such Other
Employment Action, including those listed below, must meet all minimum qualifications for the Positions in order to be given priority for hire over general Applicants/Bidders. IGO Hiring
Oversight shall be provided notice of the name, Position, and particular action for any person hired under any of the Other Employment Actions and shall monitor and audit these actions as it deems necessary to ensure compliance with this Hiring Plan. The Personnel Rules and applicable City policies and procedures shall not be contrary to the Goals and
Principles in Chapter I of this Hiring Plan.
In addition, prior to sunset of the Accord, thirty (30) days' advance written notice of any
substantive modifications of the Personnel Rules and/or applicable City policies and procedures that relate to Other Employment Actions shall be given to the Shakman Plaintiffs and the court appointed Monitor. The Shakman Plaintiffs and the Monitor may comment on the modifications and make written objections. Impasses shall be resolved as provided in Section II.D. of the Accord.

A. Assignments

B. Terminations
C. Layoff Lists

D. Reinstatement
E. Duty Disability

F. Transfers

G. Demotion
H. Reclassifications

1. Promotions and Career Progressions

J. Reasonable Accommodations
K. Return of Seasonal Employees

L. Approved City Training Programs
M. City Affirmative Action Plans

N. Veterans Preference

O. Line of

Duty Preference

P. Emergency Appointments

Q. Settlements, Awards, Judgments and Decisions

36

EXHIBIT A

DEPARTMENT OF LAW HIRING PROCESS

A. Applicabilty

1. Covered Positions. The Departent of Law Hiring Process shall be used
to hire for the following Classes of Positions when vacancies are not filled by internal transfer (provided, however, that the internal transfer of a member of the Department of Law cannot result in a promotion of that individual): (1) Assistant Corporation Counsel, (2) Assistant Corporation Counsel - SupervisorlSenior, (3) Special Litigation Counsel, (4) Chief
Assistant Corporation Counsel, and (5) Assistant Chief Labor CounseL.
This Hiring Process shall also be used to hire into Classes of Positions
created for the Departent of Law after its effective date.

The Department of Law Hiring Process is not an exhaustive document and
cannot contemplate every variation that could occur in hiring. The
Departent of Law's Hiring Process is intended to provide a framework for Law Department hiring that wil survive changes in technology, management practice and law. The principles of this Hiring Process
should be construed broadly.
The Law Department may modify this Hiring Process so long as the modifications are not contrary to applicable law. Prior to the effective date of any modification of this Hiring Process, the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources ("DHR") shall give thirt (30) days public notice in one or more newspapers of general circulation. Such public notice shall include information concerning where the rules can be reviewed and where comments may be directed. The City wil also post on its publicly available internet site any modifications to this Hiring
Process.!

Capitalized terms not

herein otherwise defined shall have the definitions

set forth in the City Hiring Plan.

2. Class Specifications and Minimum Qualifications. The above-specified
Classes of Positions shall have Class Specifications, which wil include
minimum qualifications, on file with DHR.

B. General Process

I. Notice of Job OpportnityBid Announcement. The Departent of Law
wil post Notices of Job Opportnities on the DHR website for at least
1 In addition, prior to the sunset of the Accord, thirt (30) days' advance written notice of any modifications of this Hiring Process shall be given to the Shakman Plaintiffs and the courtappointed Monitor, who may comment on the modifications and make written objections. Impasses shall be resolved as provided in Section n.D of the Accord.

seven (7) calendar days. In addition, the Department of Law may, at its discretion, post Notices of Job Opportnities through other means in order to increase the number of Candidates applying for Positions.

2. Screening and ReferraL. DHR shall refer all Applicants who meet the

predefined minimum qualifications for the Position to the Departent of

Law. The Departent of Law may refer an Applicant to DHR, and if

DHR determines such Applicant meets the minimum qualifications for the

Position, DHR shall add the Candidate to the referral

list. The Departent

of Law may elect to have Applications screened by DHR. If DHR screens

Applicants, DHR shall refer Candidates to the Department of Law in

random order or in the order of how close the Applicant matches the
Screening Criteria for the Position, developed by the Department of Law with advance notice to DHR and IGO Hiring Oversight.

3. Interview Selection. The Department of

Law shall review the submissions

and may schedule and conduct interviews for the Position for those

Candidates, if any, who in the sole discretion of the Departent of Law,

should be interviewed. The Department of Law shall forward DHR a list

of those Candidates who will be offered an interview at least two (2)

business days before the first interview. The Department of Law may

begin interviewing such Candidates upon receipt of the Candidates'
documents from DHR and need not wait for the expiration of the

applicable advertising period before initiating interviews.

4. Rejection of All Referrals by Department. The Department of Law may
reject all Applications forwarded by DHR with or without conducting
interviews. The Department of Law must submit a justification for the decision to reject all Applications to the DHR Commissioner, who shall
promptly provide the justification to IGO Hiring Oversight. If all
Applications are rejected by the Department of Law, DHR shall purge the Applications and post the Notice of Job OpportnitylBid Anouncement agam.

S. Interviews; Number of Candidates. Subject to the presence of enough
Candidates meeting the minimum qualifications, the Deparment of Law shall interview at least one more Candidate than open Positions for three or fewer openings, two more Candidates than open Positions for four or five openings and three more Candidates than open Positions for greater than five openings.

6. Interviews; Number of Interviewers. Every Candidate selected for an
interview must be interviewed by at least two interviewers who are
familiar with the Position's requirements. Applicants for the same
Position shall be asked the same core interview questions. Follow-up questions are permitted as long as they relate to previous questions asked

to draw out more detailed information from the Candidate. If necessary, a second round of interviews may be conducted by different interviewers.
7. Assessment Forms. Any member of the Department of Law who
interviews a Candidate for a Position in the Departent of Law shall independently and personally complete an assessment form for the Candidate immediately following the interview. Assessment forms shall not be altered or revised once completed. The assessment form shall be
accompanied by a Hire Certification Form signed by the interviewer.
8. Selection. The Hiring Manager shall collect the assessment forms
and documents submitted by the Candidates and forward the materials to the Corporation Counsel, who shall make a selection. The Corporation Counsel may solicit the recommendation of the
Hiring Manager, if desired. The Corporation Counsel may choose
to reject all of the Candidates submitted for consideration pursuant to paragraph 4, above.
9. Hire Certification Forms. Every person who participated in the selection
process shall execute a Hire Certification Form for each Candidate. The successful Candidate(s) shall also execute a Hire Certification Form.
10. Interview by Corporation CounseL. Prior to extending an offer of
employment, the Corporation Counsel may (if he or she has not done so already) interview the. selected Candidate.
1 1. Justification Letter. Prior to extending an offer of employment, the
Corporation Counsel shall review all of the evalúation forms prepared by
the interviewers of the Candidate whose hire is being recommended, prepare in writing the reasons for selecting the successful Candidate
("Reasons for Hire") and shall complete and sign a Hire Certification Form. In addition to explaining the rationale for selecting a Candidate, the justification letter shall detail how the selected Candidate's experience meets the Screening and Hiring Criteria for the Position.
12. Non-Political Actions. Political Reasons or Factors or other Irproper
Considerations may not be considered when hiring pursuant to this
process.
13. Qualified Lists. Qualified Candidates who were interviewed and
recommended for hire as a result of an initial posting may be extended
offers of employment, at the discretion of the Corporation Counsel, for
subsequent postings with the same minimum qualifications that occur within one year from the closing date of the initial posting.

EXHIBITB

INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE HIRING PROCEDURES Introduction
These Inspector General's Offce Hiring Procedures are an amendment to the City of Chicago Hiring Plan ("City Hiring Plan"), as amended, and provide for an alternative method of

recruitment and selection of employees of

the Inspector General's Offce.

These Hiring Procedures are intended to provide the Inspector General's Offce with a

method of hiring employees that maximizes the independence of the Inspector General's Office

and helps to ensure that its employees are nonpartisan and free from conflicts of interest.
The Inspector General's Office may modify these Hiring Procedures so long as the modifications are not contrary to applicable law. Prior to the effective date of any modification

of these Hiring Procedures, the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources shall give

thirt (30) days public notice in one or more newspapers of general circulation. Such public
notice shall include information concerning where the rules can be reviewed and where comments may be directed. The Inspector General's Office wil also post on its publicly

available internet site any modifications to these Hiring Procedures. !
A. Methods of Obtaining or Accepting Applications

1. Available positions with the Inspector General's Office shall be advertised and
posted at the location where other City of Chicago positions are posted, as well as either (a) on the Inspector General's Office website, (b) on the Department of Human Resources' website, or

( c) through another publicly-available website. The notice of available positions shall remain posted and the application period shall remain open for a minimum of 14 days. The notice shall

i In addition, prior to the sunset of the Accord, thirty (30) days' advance written notice of any
modifications of these Hiring Procedures shall be given to theShakman Plaintiffs and the cour-appointed
Monitor, who may comment on the modifications and make written objections. Impasses shall be
resolved as provided in Section II.D of the Accord.

list the minimum qualifications and a description of the job duties of the position and shall state that the Inspector General's Offce requires that its employees be nonpartisan and free from conflcts of interest.
2. The Inspector General's Office may recruit individuals to apply for available positions in order to attract the most highly-qualified, conflict-free candidates.

3. Applications for such positions shall be sent directly to the Inspector General's

Offce, as specified in the notice. Any applications for such positions received by the

Departent of

Human Resources shall be forwarded to the Inspector General's Offce.

4. All applicants shall submit a resume, transcripts from their educational
institution(s), a writing sample or essay if requested in the hiring advertisement, and any other requested information relevant to the position involved. All ápplication materials shall be made part of the Hiring File.

B. Screening and Interviewing Applications

1. At least two members of the Inspector General's Offce designated by the
Inspector General shall review the applications and select applicants for interview based on the minimum qualifications set for the applicable position and any additional criteria appropriate to the particular position to be filled. If there is disagreement between the Inspector General's Office members who are screening applications as to whether an applicant should be selected for interview, the Inspector General's Office Hiring Committee shall make the determination. The members of the Inspector General's Offce who screened the applications and the applicants

selected for interview shall be documented and made part of

the Hiring File.

2. Applicants selected for an interview shall be interviewed by at least three senior
or supervisory employees in the Inspector General's Office, each of whom shall fill out an

2

Evaluation Form prescribed by the Inspector General's Office. The Evaluation Forms shall be made part of the Hiring File. Advance notification of scheduled interviews shall be provided to the IGO's Hiring Oversight Section.2
3. The Inspector General's Office may ask questions of its applicants to determine
whether the applicants have ties to City offcials or City political figures or entities. The Inspector General's Offce shall create a written record of the information supplied by the
applicants on this subject, and may require applicants to provide such information in writing as
part of the application process. The documents containing this information shall be made part of
the Hiring File. In making its hiring decision, the Inspector General's Offce shall consider this information in determining whether the applicant would be able to pursue the mission of the Inspector General's Offce without any conflcts of interest.
4. The Inspector General's Offce shall retain applications for three years after
receipt and may contact applicants for the purpose of filling any position. The Inspector
General's Office may rely on its screening or may have the applicant re-screened.
C. The Hiring Decision
1. The Hiring File for each applicant who is submitted for consideration to the
Inspector General's Offce Hiring Committee shall be distrbuted to the Hiring Committee
members. The Hiring Committee shall consist of at least five other senior or supervisory employees in the Inspector General's Office selected by the Inspector General. The Hiring Committee shall meet to discuss the qualifications of the applicants interviewed. The Inspector
General's Office Hiring Oversight Section shall be given at least two (2) business days advance

2 Prior to sunset of

the Accord in case number 69 C 2145 captioned Shakman v. City of

Chicago, et. aL. in

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ilinois, the cour-appointed Monitor wil be

copied on all information provided to the IGO's Hiring Oversight Section and wil be allowed to monitor

employment actions taken by the Inspector General's Office as provided for in the Accord.

3

written e-mail notice of each such meeting. At each Hiring Committee meeting, a member of the
Inspector General's Offce Hiring Oversight Section may be present and may review all
documentation.

2. At the meeting, each member of the Hiring Committee shall state hislher views on
each interviewed applicant and shall state in writing his/her opinion as to whether each interviewed applicant is recommended or not recommended for hire. These written opinions

shall be made part of the Hiring File. If the Inspector General has not interviewed a selected
applicant at this point in the process, the Inspector General shall do so before making a decision on employment. The Inspector General shall make the final decision as to which action to take. The Inspector General may choose to participate in any other stage of the hiring process but is not required to do so.
.
3. For each applicant hired by the Inspector General's Offce, the Inspector General
shall complete a Hiring Decision Form stating the reasons for the hiring decision. This form shall be made part of the Hiring File.

4. As to each applicant hired by the Inspector General's Office, the applicant, the

Inspector General, and all Inspector General's Office employees who participated in the

evaluation or hiring process shall, under penalties of perjury and possible loss of employment,

sign an affdavit stating that, except for the consideration of political factors for the sole purpose

of addressing possible conflcts of interest, the evaluation of the applicant, the hiring decision

and the recommendations regarding the applicant were not based on or affected by political

considerations, including political sponsorship, affiliation, or support. Such affidavits shall be

made part of

the Hiring File.

4

S. Within one week of the hiring decision, the Hiring File shall be forwarded to the

Inspector General's Offce Hiring Oversight Section.

6. Within 30 days of

the applicant being hired by the Inspector General's Offce, the

Inspector General's Offce shall post on its website or the Department of Human Resources'

website the following information: (i) the number of people who applied for the position, (ii) the

number of people intervièwed, and (iii) whether at least two members of the Hiring Committee

did not recommend the applicant for the position. The information shall remain posted until

replaced with the annual data for categories (i) - (iii) along with (iv) a geographical breakdown

of the residences of the employees hired during the year by ward of residence for each year after

2005. Such annual information shall remain so posted for five years. In addition, each quarter,

the Inspector General's Offce shall post its website or Department of Human Resources'

website a geographical breakdown of the residences or its employees showing the number of

employees who live in ward.

7. For those applicants hired by the Inspector General's Office, the Hiring File wil

be maintained by the Inspector General's Offce for a period of 10 years unless otherwise
ordered by the Cour. For applicants interviewed but not hired, the Hiring File wil be maintained by the Inspector General's Office for a period of 5 years unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Hiring File and other hiring documentation shall remain confidential within the Inspector General's Office and shall not be disclosed. Nothing in this document shall make the Hiring File or other hiring documentation a public record.

D. Promotions 1. The Inspector General's Offce may promote internally, providing the position is
within the same classification series and is at least one level higher class grade than the current

5

position. Promotion to the next higher rated title shall be made on the basis of satisfactory

continuous service for at least the period specified in the particular classification.

2. Notice of

vacant positions within the Inspector General's Offce shall be provided

to Supervisors in the appropriate classification. Supervisors may recommend an employee under

his/her supervision for a promotion. Supervisors wil ensure that the employee meets the

minimum qualifications for the position and provide a current resume, two employment

assessments, and any existing annual employee performance evaluations to the Promotional

Committee. All employee materials shall be made part of

the Promotion File.

3. The Promotional Committee shall consist of the Inspector General plus at least

four other senior or supervisory employees in the Inspector General's Offce selected by the

Inspector General. The Promotional Committee shall review the employee's resume and
performance evaluations and discuss the qualifications of the recommended employee. The

recommending supervisor of the employee shall present to the Promotional Committee his/her

views on why he or she is recommending the employee for promotion.

4. At the Promotional Committee Meeting, each member of the Promotional

Committee shall state his/her views on each recommended employee and state in writing

whether the employee should be promoted to the vacant position. These written opinions shall

be made part of the Promotion File. The Inspector General shall make the final decision on who

will be promoted.

S. For each promotional decision made by the Inspector General's Offce, the
Inspector General shall complete a Promotional Decision Form stating the reasons for the

promotional decision. This form shall be made part of the Promotion File.

6

6. As to each promotional decision made by the Inspector General's Office, the
employee who has been promoted, the Inspector General, and all Inspector General's Office
employees who participated in the evaluation or promotional process shall, under penalties of perjur and possible loss of employment, sign an affidavit stating that, except for the consideration of political factors for the sole purpose of addressing possible conflicts of interest, the evaluation of the employee, the promotional decision and the recommendations regarding the employee were not based on or affected by political considerations, including political

sponsorship, affiiation, or support. Such affidavits shall be made part of

the Promotion File.

7. Within two (2) business days of the promotional decision, the Promotion File

shall be forwarded to the Inspector General's Offce Hiring Oversight Section.

8. The Promotion File and other promotional documentation shall remain
confidential within the Inspector General's Offce and shall not be disclosed. Nothing in this document shall make the Promotion File or other promotional documentation a public record.

7

EXHIBITC

USE OF NON-CITY EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM SERVICES FOR THE CITY

I. Purpose of Policy
A. The City's Hiring Plan and Executive Order No. 2009-3 prohibit the City from basing employment decisions, including hiring decisions, on political factors.

B. This prohibition applies not only to the formal hiring of City employees, but also
to the City's use of any non-City employee to work under the City's supervision and control, in an employee-like fashion.

C. In order to ensure compliance with this prohibition on improper political
influence in City hiring, and to also ensure compliance with City employment policies and personnel rules, IRS regulations, and any other laws applicable to City employees, all City Deparments must comply with the following rules and procedures with respect to the use of non-City employees to perform services for the City:

II. Rules and Procedures For The Use of

Non-City Employees

A. Individuals Retained Directly By the City

1. Personal Service Contractors

(a) Prior Approval for Retention. No City Department may retain an
individual to perform services as a non-City employee ("Personal Service Contractor") for the City without the prior wrtten approval of both the Deparment of Human Resources ("DHR") and the Office of Budget and Management ("OBM"). The form to be used to submit a request for such approval is attached as "Appendix A."i

(b) Independent Contractor Determination. The City may approve the use of
a Personal Service Contractor only if the individual to be retained is a true
independent contractor. The determination of what constitutes a true independent contractor depends on the specific circumstances of each case, and no one factor is determinative. DHR shall review each of the factors below and make a record of its reasons for approving each Personal Service Contractor. However, all ofthe following criteria wil be
examined for each request to assess whether aspects of the engagement are
truly independent contractor-like, and not employee-like:

(l) The extent to which City employees may exercise direction and
control over the work, and how the work wil be performed, as opposed to merely monitoring the end product to ensure that it
satisfies the requirements of the contract.

1 IGO Hiring Oversight shall be copied on all responses to requests submitted to DHR.

(2) The reasons the contractor is needed.

(3) The nature ofthe work to be performed.

(4) The extent to which the work is highly specialized or requires
paricular skils or expertise.

(5) The extent to which the contractor is uniquely skiled or qualified
to perform the work.

(6) The similarity of

the work to existing work normally performed by

City employees.

(7) The existence of a prior employment relationship between the
contractor and the City: prior position(s) held, period(s) of
employment, duration, nature of the work performed, and
similarity to the services to be performed.

(8) The similarity of the services to be performed to the services
performed by the contractor for non-City clients or customers as par of the contractor's business or professional practice.

(9) The extent to which the contractor wil be free to continue to
provide these services to clients or customers other than the City during the term of the contract.

(10) The location(s) of

the work to be performed.

(11) The extent to which the City wil be providing work space,
equipment, materials and staff support for the performance of the work, and conversely, the extent to which the contractor wil work from her/his own facilities, and provide her/his own equipment, materials and staff support.

(12) The anticipated duration of the contract, including relationship to
the completion of a specific project and length of a specified
contract period, if applicable.

(13) The basis for determining how many hours the contractor wil
work, and which hours the contractor wil work.

(14) The basis for determining the contractor's pay (e.g., flat fee due on completion of project, hourly rate based on a record of hours worked, or regular installments).

2

(c) Requirements for Approval. All approved Personal Service Contractors
must sign a written contract that includes: (1) the essential terms of their hire; (2) the "Boilerplate Shakman Language" (which is attached as "Appendix B"); and (3) the Personal Services Contractor's agreement to cooperate with any inquiries by IGO Hiring Oversight or the Shakman Monitor's Office related to the Personal Service Contract. The contract
must be approved by the Deparment of Procurement Services
("Procurement") and comply with applicable procurement laws and procedures. Prior to commencing work, the Personal Service Contractor
wil sign a certification that he or she is not aware of any Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper Considerations (see attached "Appendix C") influencing his or her selection.
(d) Anti-Retaliation. City employees and officials shall not retaliate, punish,
or penalize any Personal Service Contractor for cooperating with any
inquiries by IGO Hiring Oversight or the Shakman Monitor's Office.
(e) Non-Political Certifications. Prior to the signing of a Personal Service
Contract, any City employees who participated in the selection of the Personal Service Contractor shall sign a certification that no Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations influenced the
decision.
(f) Term. Unless otherwise required for the receipt of federal or state
fuding, no Personal Service Contractor engagement wil be approved for a term of more than one year. No Personal Service Contractor may be
used by any Department for any period of time beyond the term approved.
If a Department seeks to extend the use of a Personal Service Contractor,
the Deparment must obtain the prior approval of DHR and OBM, in
accordance with the procedures outlined above.
(g) DHR Quarerly Reporting. DHR shall post quarerly reports on Personal Service Contractor retention on its website. These reports shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) the name of the Personal Service
Contractor; (2) the contracting Department; and (3) the star date and duration of the contract.
(h) Personal Service Contractor Experience. Present or former Personal
Service Contractors who subsequently apply for City employment shall not be given any preference in screening or hiring because of their status as a present or former Personal Service Contractor.
2. Unpaid Volunteers
Any City Deparment wishing to utilize the services of any unpaid volunteer must contact DHR, and follow the relevant procedures in the Hiring Plan, prior to
3

assigning any work to the volunteer.
B. Individuals Employed By Organizations and Entities Providing Services for the City
1 . Approval of Temporary Agency Referrals
(a) Prior ApprovaL. No City Department may utilize the services of an
employee of a temporary employment agency ("Temporary Agency
Personnel") without the prior written approval of DHR and OBM. The form to be used to submit a request for such approval is attached as "Appendix D."

(b) Requirements for Retention. The use of Temporary Agency Personnel
wil be approved only if:
(1) the Temporary Agency Personnel are selected and referred by a temporary employment agency with whom the City has a signed
contract which has been approved by Procurement

(2) the duration of the engagement is intended to be temporary, and
not as a substitute for hiring a regular City employee; e.g., where a Department requires a temporary replacement for an employee on leave of absence, assistance in completing a specific project or temporary backlog of work, or to fill other, similar short-term, temporary staffing needs; and
(3) the maximum duration of the engagement is not to exceed the
stated claim of immediate need and in no event shall exceed one year.

(c) Additional Requirements for Work Generally Performed by AFSCME. In
addition to all the requirements of this Policy, because the City has a

written agreement with AFSCME pertaining to the use of temporary

personnel (see attached "Appendix E"), the terms of that agreement must

also be followed if

the Temporary Agency Personnel is to perform work of

the type normally performed by AFSCME-represented employees. Under

the agreement, the Department must provide AFSCME with the following

information:

(1) the job to be performed by the Temporary Agency Personnel;

(2) the reason for retaining Temporary
Agency Personnel;

(3) the date services are to begin, and expected date of

(4) the hourly rate of

pay; and

(5) the name of

the temporary employment agency.

termination;

4

This information should be provided to AFSCME by the Department only after the Deparment has received approval from DHR and OBM, and before the Temporary Agency Personnel begins working. Any questions regarding the agreement should be addressed to the Deparment of Law's ("DOL") Labor Relations section.
In any case where the Temporary Agency Personnel wil be performing work normally performed by City employees represented by any other union, both the Deparment's labor relations liaison and DOL's Labor
Relations section should be consulted to ensure compliance with
applicable union agreements.
2. Employees of Not-For-Profit Agencies, For-Profit Contractors and Other
Organizations and Entities

(a) Supervision of

Contractor's Employees. No City Deparment may use any

employee of a not-for-profit agency, for-profit contractor or any other

organization or entity to work under the City's direct supervision and

control. Any direct supervision and control of the employee's work must

be provided by supervisory or managerial representatives of the

employing organization or entity. However, nothing in this rule prohibits

the City from monitoring the services provided by the organization or

entity, and generally directing the organization or entity's supervisory and

managerial representatives, to ensure compliance with applicable

requirements of

the City's contract with the organization or entity.

(b) IGO Hiring Oversight Continuous Review of Proposed Contracts. Prior to offering any contract or other agreement terms to any not-for-profit agency, for-profit contractor or other organization or entity to provide services for the City, the requesting Department shall give IGO Hiring Oversight advance notification of the draft contract or other agreement
terms. Such notification shall consist of: (1) the name of the contractor,
and (2) a brief description of the services that wil be provided. IGO Hiring Oversight may choose to review the draft for the purpose of
assessing whether the draft contract or agreement terms are in compliance
with this Policy.

(c) Department Reports. Deparments shall anually report to IGO Hiring
Oversight the names of all not-for-profit agencies, for-profit contractors or any other organizations or entities providing services for the City on City premises. Such report shall include a brief description of the staffng and services provided and the start date and duration of the contract.

(d) Temporary City Supervision of Contractor Employees. DHR may, in its
discretion, grant an appropriate request by a City Deparment to utilize the services of an employee of a not-for-profit agency, for-profit contractor or

5

other organization or entity to temporarily work under the City's direct supervision and control, under the following circumstances:

(1) the services to be provided require the use of a worker with unique,
highly-specialized professional training and/or certification (e.g., medical doctors, nurses, architects, engineers and attorneys);

(2) the Department is able to demonstrate a compellng operational
need for the services;

(3) due to a shortage of available, qualified applicants, the Department
is unable to meet its needs for those services by hiring a City
employee;

(4) the City's exercise of direct supervision and control over the
worker is a necessity;

(5) utilization of such services is otherwise in compliance with this
Policy

(6) each individual who is approved to perform work under this
section shall be identified in the quarerly report referenced in
Section II.B.6; and

(7) any approval granted under this section shall be limited to a six
month period.

3. City Non-Involvement in Hiring Decisions of Organizations and Entities
Performing Services For the City

(a) City Influence of Contractor Hiring. No City employee or offcer, or

any

agent of the City, may paricipate in, or attempt to influence, the hiring

and assignment decisions of any temporary employment agency, not-for-

profit agency, for-profit contractor or other organization or entity either

performing, or engaged to perform, services for the City. However,
provided no Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations are involved, nothing in this rule shall prohibit (l) the establishment of

staffng levels, as well as general screening/hiring criteria and selection
standards that the organization's employees must meet in order to satisfy relevant City requirements with respect to the services to be performed;

(2) the City's exercise of its right to refuse to accept workers who do not meet such established criteria and standards, or whose work is otherwise
inconsistent with the organization or entity's obligations to the City; (3) an
individual City employee, officer or agent from providing a written job reference requested by any individual in support of an application for
employment with the organization or entity; or (4) the City from

6

complying with the terms of any applicable collective bargaining
agreement with respect to employees who would be laid off as the result of the City contracting work to a temporary employment agency, not-forprofit agency, for-profit contractor, or other organization or entity.
(b) City Directing Persons for Contractor Hiring/Retention. No City
employee or officer, or any agent of the City, may direct an individual to apply for a position, either as an employee or as a subcontractor, with any temporary employment agency, not-for-profit agency, for-profit contractor or other organization or entity either performing, or engaged to perform, services for the City. However, nothing in this rule shall prohibit a City Deparment from communicating to individuals the availabilty of any job
opportunities with such organizations or entities, provided such
communication is not based on Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations.
4. Boilerplate Shakman Language. All contracts and other agreements with
Temporary Employment Agencies, not-for-profit agencies, for-profit contractors and other organizations and entities providing services for the City shall include:
(1) the essential terms of the engagement; (2) the "Boilerplate Shakman
Language" (which is attached as "Appendix B"); and (3) the contractor's agreement to cooperate with any inquiries by IGO Hiring Oversight or the Shakman Monitor's Offce related to the contract. The contract must be approved by the Deparment of Procurement Services ("Procurement") and comply with applicable procurement laws and procedures.
S. Non-Political Certifications. Prior to the signing of such contracts or agreements,
(1) the Commissioner of the contracting department, (2) any other City signatories to the contract or agreement, (3) any City employees with Contract Management Authority over the contract or agreement as defined by the City's Ethics
Ordinance (Chapter 2-1S6-010(g) of the Chicago Municipal Code) who paricipated in the selection process, and (4) any other City employees who
directly participated in the final decision to select the contractor, agency or other organization shall sign a certification that no Political Reasons or Factors or other Improper considerations influenced the decision. Certifications shall not be
required for non-discretionar contracting decisions (for example, low-bid
contracts).
6. IGO Hiring Oversight Quarerly Reporting of City Contractor Agreements. IGO
Hiring Oversight shall post on its website quarterly reports on contracts and other agreements with Temporary Employment Agencies, not-for-profit agencies, forprofit contractors and other organizations and entities providing services to the City, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (l) the name of each contractor, agency, or other organization; (2) the contracting Department; and (3) the star date and duration of such contracts or agreements.
7

C. Other Restrictions on City Use of

Non-City Employees

1. Non-City Employees as Supervisors and Hiring Participants. No City Deparment
may utilize the services of any non-City employee to (a) supervise or discipline any City employee; or (b) paricipate in the decision-making process with respect to the hiring of any City employee.

2. Non-City Employees Holding Out as City Employees. City Deparments must
ensure that non-City employees do not in any way hold themselves out as

employees of

the City.

D. Union Agreements

In all cases, before utilizing the services of any non-City employee to perform work normally performed by City employees represented by a union, the Departent's labor relations liaison and DOL's Labor Relations section should be consulted to ensure compliance with applicable union agreements.

III. Compliance with this Policy

While IGO Hiring Oversight wil periodically review individual City Deparments'

compliance with the terms of

this Policy, it is also the responsibility of every City Deparment to

ensure that it is in continuing compliance with the terms of this Policy. Any questions, or any

concerns as to whether a Department is in compliance with this Policy should be addressed to

IGO Hiring Oversight.

8

APPENDIX

A

Submit to: Soo Choi, Commissioner, Department of Human Resources

REQUEST TO USE PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTOR

Requesting deparment:

Date:

Contact person and phone number:

A. Please provide the following information (attach additional sheets if needed):

1. Name of

the personal sérvices contractor.

2. Explain why the contractor's services are necessary.

3. Describe the nature of

the work to be performed.

4. Explain how the personal services contractor wil fuction as an independent
contractor and not function as employee-like (for guidance, please refer to
attached criteria).
S. Number of hours that the personal services contractor is expected to work per week:

6. Project(s) to which the personal services contractor wil be assigned:

7. The duration of

the assignment(s).

8. Fund#:

Dept. #

Org. #

Approp.:

Object:

B. Please attach a copy of the contract.

.............................................................................. .

Department Head:

Date:

........................ .......................................................

DHR: _Approved _Not Approved

Date:

OBM: _Approved _Not Approved

Date:

/fyou have any questions, please contact Christopher Owen, First Deputy, Department of Human Resources, at 312-744-8395

9

INEPENDENT CONTRACTOR VS EMPLOYEE CRITERI

Per the Policy On The Use of Non-City Emplòyees To Perform Services For The City, the City may

approve the use of a Personal Service Contractor only if the individual to be retained is a true independent

contractor. The determination of what constitutes a true independent contractor depends on the specific

circumstances of each case, and no one factor is determinative. However, all of

the following criteria wil

be examined for each request to assess whether the engagement is truly independent contractor-like, and

not employee-like:

1) The extent to which City employees may exercise direction and control over the work, and how the work wil be performed, as opposed to merely monitoring the end product to ensure that it satisfies the requirements of the contract;

2) The reasons the contractor is needed;

3) The nature of

the work to be performed;

4) The extent to which the work is highly specialized or requires particular skils or expertise;

5) The extent to which the contractor is uniquely skiled or qualified to perform the work;

6) The similarity of

the work to existing work normally performed by City employees;

7) The existence of a prior employment relationship between the contractor and the City: prior

position(s) held, period(s) of employment, duration, nature of

work performed, and similarity to

the services to be performed.

8) The similarity of the services to be performed to the services performed by the Contractor for

non-City clients or customers as part of

the contractor's business or professional practice;

9) The extent to which the contractor wil be free to continue to provide these services to clients or customers other than the City during the term of the contract;

10) The location(s) ofthe work to be performed;

11) The extent to which the City wil be providing work space, equipment, materials and staff support for the performance of the work and conversely, the extent to which the contractor wil work from her/his own facilities, and provide her/his own equipment, materials and staff support;

12) The anticipated duration of

the contract, including relationship to the completion of a specific

project and length of a specified contract peri?d, if applicable;

13) The basis for determining how many hours the contractor wil work, and which hours the contractor wil work;

14) The basis for determining the contractor's pay (e.g. flat fee due on completion of

rate based on a record of

hours worked, or regular installments).

project, hourly

If you have any questions, please contact Christopher Owen, First Deputy, Department of Human Resources, at 312-744-8395

10

APPENDIXB
"Boilerplate" Shakman Language
(c)SHAKMAN
(i) The City is subject to the May 31, 2007 Order entitled "Agreed Settlement Order and Accord" (the "Shakan Accord") and the August 1 6, 2007 "City of Chicago Hiring Plan" (the "City Hiring Plan") entered in Shakan v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, Case No 69 C 2145 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Ilinois). Among other things, the Shakman Accord and the City Hiring Plan prohibit the City from hiring persons as governental employees in non-exempt positions on the basis of political reasons or factors.
(ii) Consultant is aware that City policy prohibits City employees from directing any individual to apply for a position with Consultant, either as an employee or as a subcontractor, and from directing Consultant to hire an individual as an employee or as a
subcontractor. Accordingly, Consultant must follow its own hiring and contracting
procedures, without being influenced by City employees. Any and all personnel provided by Consultant under this Agreement are employees or subcontractors of Consultant, not
employees of the City of Chicago. This Agreement is not intended to and does not
constitute, create, give rise to, or otherwise recognize an employer-employee relationship of any kind between the City and any personnel provided by Consultant.
(iii) Consultant wil not condition, base, or knowingly prejudice or affect any term or
aspect of the employment of any personnel provided under thi~ Agreement, or offer employment to any individual to provide services under this Agreement, based upon or because of any political reason or factor, including, without limitation, any individual's political affiliation, membership in a political organization or part, political support or activity, political financial contributions, promises of such political support, activity or financial contributions, or such individual's political sponsorship or recommendation. For puroses of this Agreement, a political organization or par is an identifiable group or
entity that has as its primary purpose the support of or opposition to candidates for elected public offce. Individual political activities are the activities of individual persons
in support of or in opposition to political organizations or parties or candidates for elected public office.
(iv) In the event of any communication to Consultant by a City employee or City official in violation of Section 9.9(c)(ii) above, or advocating a violation of Section 9.9(c)(iii) above, Consultant wil, as soon as is reasonably practicable, report such communication to the Hiring Oversight Section of the City's Office of the Inspector General ("IGO Hiring Oversight"), and also to the head of the relevant City Department utilizing
services provided under this Agreement. Consultant wil also cooperate with any inquiries by IGO Hiring Oversight or the Shakman Monitor's Office related to the
contract.
11

APPENDIXC
Political Reasons or Factors:
1. Recommendations for selection from public office holders (and/or their staffs) or political pary officials that are not based on actual knowledge of the recommended person's, organization's, or its affiiates' work skils, work experience, or other job-related qualifications.
2. Recommendations for selection based on the fact that the recommended person or organization or its affiiates were involved or worked in a
political campaign or political organization or political pary; or the
recommended person, organization, or its affiiates chose not to be involved or work in a political campaign, political organization, or political pary. The mere fact of such involvement or work does not prohibit consideration of a recommendation related to the person or organization insofar as the basis for that recommendation relates to the
person's or organization's relevant work experience.
3. Recommendations for selection based on the fact that the recommended person, organization, or its affiliates contributed money, raised money or provided something else of value to a candidate for public offce or a
political organization; or the fact that the recommended person,
organization, or its affliates chose not to contribute or raise money for a candidate for public office or a political organization.
4. Recommendations for selection based on the fact that the recommended person, organization, or its affiliates are Democrats or Republicans or
members of any other political party or group; or the fact that they are not members.
S. Recommendations for selection based on the fact that the recommended person, organization, or its affiiates expressed views or beliefs on political matters such as what candidates or elected officials they favored or opposed, what public policy issues they favored or opposed, or what views on governent actions or failures to act they expressed.
Improper Considerations:
Considerations constituting preferential treatment which are not job-related.
12

APPENDIXD

Submit to: Soo Choi, Commissioner, Department of Human Resources

REQUEST TO USE TEMPORARY AGENCY PERSONNEL

Requesting deparment:

Date:

Contact person and phone number:

A. Please provide the following information (attach additional sheets if needed):

1. Name of

the temporary agency.

2. Contract number (if available).

3. Explain why the temporary services are necessary.

4. Describe the nature of

the work to be performed.

S. Number of

hours that the temporary personnel is expected to work per week:

6. Project(s) to which the temporary personnel wil be assigned:

7. The duration of

the assignment(s).

8.

Fund #:

Dept. #

Org. #

Approp.:

B. Please attach a copy of the scope of services of the contract.

Object:

.......................................................... .....................

Department Head:

Date:

........ ..................................... ............. .....................

DHR: _Approved _Not Approved

Date:

OBM: _Approved _Not Approved

Date:

/fyou have any questions, please contact Christopher Owen, First Deputy, Department of Human Resources, at 312-744-8395

13

APPENDIXE

Grievances:
Grievanes: .
£m¡;.Loye.r:
!ssues:

r-- City of Chicago (Erosion) No.
CLey of Chicago (Temp. Hil'eSj

96 and
N'p_J.d 4:

AF$CME No. 87-5-6613

AFSCME Local 2912, 2946

City of Chicago

Erosion of Bargaining Unit dnd
Tempe räry Hires .

, '~,i

S:t'ILEMN'l AGREEMT

WHEREAS, THE C:t1'Y OF CH:tCÁGO ("the City") and the A.10E1!CAN PEPERA'lION OF STATE. COUNT'! AND HONICIP\L EMPLOYEES ("AFSCME'" are paJ:ties to a collective bargainin'J agreement
(the "Contr~ct" I; and

WHER.EAS, pursuantt.ö said Contract AFSCME has filed

grievances í t.he "Grievances") designated a.s City of Chicago

Grievance No. 96, (EJ:osion) and Cit:y of Chicago Gri.evance

No. 184, AFSCME NO.

87.S-6613 (Temp. £tires); and

WHEREAS" the part:ies desire to amicably'

resolve their

di£feren~e$ and to avoid the expenses of arbitration;

THEREFORE, in full and complete resolution of the
Grievan~es and any dispute which has or might arise und',H'
their Contract. on 'Chis issue. the part:ies agree as follows:

1. . The Ci ty of Chicago Departments of Aging and

Disability and Aviation shall provide Af'SCME Council 31 with

a list of all

temporary employees employed by each

respect:lve department performing duties otherwise performed

by eirployees in posi tiona represented by AFSCME on a

quarterly basis. In thé eVent AFSCKE requests this

information from other City departments. the City will comply with suoh requests. each such list shall include thé
following infQ::ation:

a. the name Of. t. he employing department¡ Á i;
b. the temporary employeef' job ei de ,..-.
c. the reason for hiring the temporary employeef; t-fi"L)

d. the date of t.he. temporary employe~' employment lt~JJ '

and the expected date of his/her termination;
e. the hourly rate paid by the department for each

f. employee ;

and

the name of the temporary aqe.ncy utilized.

the C2i .tyToefmpCohraicraygoemsphlaolylebees

in any department or agency terminated prior to any

of

bargaining ",nit employees in that department or agency being
p I;; C'. ,

' \. '.. .. :, ,~1""I:¥,:I' ff=;, .

!:,~ - . ~ ::~:: ¡ '- .~

14

laid-off i provïded that the bargaining- unit employee subject.

to layoff nas the then-present ability to adequately

perform

the job J:eing perfomed by the t.emporary employee.

offered the temporary The bargaining unit. member being olaiod sition oniv after exhoafufstsih.naqn hbies/ber-
bumpir'9 rights. A bargaining Unit' member sha 11 onlÝ oe
offered a cemporary position if helshe has been unable to
bump upon layoff. The bargaining. I.mit. member ..ho accepts

the pOSition will only be retained

as long as t:he temporary

person would have been. ret.ained. The City shall noti.fy

AFSCM at: the bumping meetings of suoh temporary

opportuni.ties. AFSCME shall then notify the bargaining
unit member of any temporary opportunieies. 11' the

dtuation outlined above;. within 5 oalendar daY$of the
Cthietyb'asrgnaoitniifnigc:autinoitn mtoemAF.eSCrMsEhaofUtenmoptoifryarthyeoCppiotryt' u$ni0ti:ter.e$c,tor

. of E:mpl¡,yee Relations of his/her intentiOn to acee-pt any
temporary positiort.

3. If a Department determines t.hat i.e rea:uites temporary employees and bargaining unit members in that
departm.ei.it are on layoff who oan adequately perform the job
tò the $.atisf.actiol' of the employer; the bargaining unit.

members will be ofêered the position prior to

any temporary

employee. The City shall notify AFSCM! of such

opport..unities. AtSCME. .shall then notif~e...~.ç~,a.i~l!: u. nit

member otsuch temporary oppoi:tuni ties .~!W ñt.ulti.oi. /ij

outlined above, with.in 10 worJdng days of

the City's

.ootH ieation to APSCME o.f temporary opportunities, the
bargaining i.nit me.mershaU notify the Cit.y's Director of

Employee Relations of his/her intent.ion to accept any
temporary posi tion.

4. In the èvent tn.at. t.emporary employees are employed and are to be re'placed pursuant to paragraphs 2 or 3 aoove, it is agi:eed that any temporary employee shall remain on
dut:y until his/her position is actuaUy filled by a
bargaining iinl t einployee.

wwhoerrkeSct.eomnIntpinoariniaayrylldyeefmpcaptrr,tl~omyoenerteestoharraenapgteewrnfecoylrvmeoifn(iiti;)hoelêlolCrnii:tta:yihnsoi.nfganCuhniictago

"employer-detertirtd perman.ant vacancy" r,ithinthe mea.ning
of Aitiele 12.6, of the Contract eJd ts + Such position shaH

eíther be filled according

to the provisions of Article 12.6

or the use of åny temporary employee to. perform such

bargaining unit woi:k shall be terminated, unless otherwise

mutually agreed to by the parties.

6. Any bargaining unit member who

performs temporary

work shall receive the sáme rate of pay that a temporary

employee doing the same work

would receive.

15

7. Any bar9'aininq unit r:emberwho perfot's temporary
work shall reoeive ehe $äine benefits he/she was receivin'i or:
the latest date he/she was employed by the City as a
bar9'¡;iining !Jni 1: member.

8. tt more than one oarga ining uni t ~ember aQôlies for a tempo,o:ary Posi.tion,the member with the most" ~en ien ~y will receive the position.

s. Any time ser..ed by a bargaining unit: career service employee as a tempora.ry employee will accrue eor seniotity
pUrposes.
lO.NOthing in this agreement shall be construed as an padamrityss. ion of liability in a.ny manner whatsoever by either

11. The settlement of this gr:ievance shall not be

eonstrtied as a statement by

either party as to the validity

or invalidity -of any c:laimmade within ehe grievance.

wi.th p12re.juAdFiScCe.M:E wi thdraws grievance numbers 96 and i a 4,

..)
V:.t: £.b,4-¿(~
raa THE UNION 7

Qll'1"
..........4~.......
FOR 'l.ed:'l OF CHICAGO

,;.... .~"'-.(._;¡0Ó., p.
bATE

cX..:i7..r7
DATE

1./89

16

 
 Exempt Titles List

Effective March 1, 2012

I. All Elected Officials [Schedule A] (53)
II. One Private Secretary of Assistant for Each Elected Official [Schedule B] (53)
III. All Employees of the City Council [Schedule C] (423)
A. Administrative Assistant (3) B. Administrative Asst. of Committee (3) C. Administrative Secretary (1) D. Administrative Staff Investigator (2) E. Aldermanic Aide (35) F. Asst. Chief Administrative Officer (1) G. Asst. Council Committee Secretary (2) H. Asst. Sgt at Arms (4) I. Asst. to the Alderman (50) J. Chief Administrative Officer (2) K. Chief Investigator (1) L. Clerk of the City Council (25) M. Committee Secretary (3) N. Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (1) O. Director of Government Operations Review (1) P. Director of Workers Comp (1) Q. Disability Investigator (1) R. Investigator (6) S. Legislative Aide (107) T. Legislative Asst (3) U. Legislative Budget Analyst (2) V. Legislative Fiscal Analyst (2) W. Legislative Research Analyst (4) X. Manager of Information Services (1) Y. Manager of Legislative Preparation and Research (1) Z. Project Director (1) AA. Secretary to the Chairman (2) BB. Secretary to the Chairman I (2) CC. Secretary to the Chairman II (1) DD. Secretary of Committee on Finance (1) EE. Secretary to President Pro Term (2) FF. Sergeant at Arms (1) GG. Staff Asst. to the Alderman (100) HH. Student Interns (50) II. Traffic Investigator (1)

Exempt Titles List

Effective March 1, 2012

IV. All Department and Agency Heads [Schedule E] (31) A. Budget Director B. Chairperson- Commission of Human Relations C. Chief Administrator – Independent Police Review Authority D. Chief Information Officer E. Chief Procurement Officer/ Purchasing F. City Comptroller/ Finance G. Commissioner of Aviation H. Commissioner of Buildings I. Commissioner of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection J. Commissioner of Chicago Public Library K. Commissioner of Cultural Affairs and Special Events L. Commissioner of Family Support Services M. Commissioner of Fleet and Facility Management N. Commissioner of Health O. Commissioner of Housing and Economic Development P. Commissioner of Human Resources Q. Commissioner of Mayor’s Office of People with Disabilities R. Commissioner of Streets and Sanitation S. Commissioner of Transportation T. Commissioner of Water Management U. Corporation Counsel V. Director of 311 City Services W. Director of Administrative Hearings X. Executive Director- Animal Care and Control Y. Executive Director- Board of Ethics Z. Director of CAPS AA. Executive Director- Office of Emergency Management and Communications BB. Fire Commissioner CC. Inspector General DD. Superintendent of Police EE. Zoning Administrator

Exempt Titles List
V. All Employees of the Mayor’s Office [Schedule F] (102) A. Administrative Assistant (12) B. Admin Asst/ Office Administrator (1) C. Administrative Secretary (5) D. Assistant Administrative Secretary I (3) E. Assistant Administrative Secretary II (5) F. Assistant Administrative Secretary III (5) G. Assistant to the Mayor (8) H. Chief Financial Officer (1) I. Chief of Staff (1) J. Deputy Chief of Staff (3) K. First Deputy Chief of Staff (1) L. Scheduler (3) M. Mayor’s Press Office (15) 1. Press Aide I (1) 2. Press Aide II (2) 3. Photographer (2) 4. Press Secretary (1) 5. Deputy Press Secretary (1) 6. Asst. Press Secretary (5) 7. Asst. Admin. Secretary (1) 8. Administrative Asst. (2) N. Mayor’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (23) 1. Director of Intergovernmental Affairs (1) 2. Assistant to the Director of IGA (1) 3. Legislative Assistant (3) 4. Administrative Assistant (9) 5. Asst. to the Mayor (6) 6. Office Manager DC Office (1) 7. Assistant Administrative Secretary II (1) 8. Assistant Administrative Secretary III (1) O. Mayor’s Office of International Relations (6) 1. Administrative Assistant (3) 2. Asst. to the Mayor (3) P. Innovation Delivery Team (10) 1. Executive Director (1) 2. Deputy Director (2) 3. Analyst – Innovation Delivery Team (6) 4. Asst. to the Director – Innovation Delivery Team (1)

Effective March 1, 2012

Exempt Titles List

Effective March 1, 2012

VI. All Non-Career Service Employees of the City Clerk [New Schedule F1] (19) A. Assistant Director (1) B. Deputy Clerk (1) C. Deputy Managing Editor Council Journal (1) D. Director of Collection Processing (1) E. Director of License Administration (2) F. Director of License Issuance (SES) (1) G. Director of Program Operations (1) H. Information Coordinator (1) I. Managing Editor Council Journal (1) J. Office Administrator (1) K. Policy Analyst (1) L. Program Director (1) M. Project Coordinator (1) N. Project Manager (1) O. Projects Administrator (1) P. Supervising Investigator (1) Q. Deputy Director (2)
VII. All Non-Career Service Employees of the City Treasurer [New Schedule F2] (14) A. Assistant City Treasurer (4) B. Assistant Director of Finance (1) C. Asst. to the City Treasurer (2) D. Director of Accounting (1) E. Director of Public Affairs (1) F. Deputy City Treasurer (3) G. Portfolio Manager (2)

Exempt Titles List
SCHEDULE G POSITIONS (584)
VIII. All First Deputy Positions (33) A. First Assistant Corporation Counsel (1) B. First Deputy Budget Director (1) C. First Deputy Chief Administrator (1) D. First Deputy Chief Information Officer (1) E. First Deputy Commissioner (18) F. First Deputy Director (7) G. First Deputy Fire Commissioner (1) H. First Deputy Inspector General (1) I. First Deputy Procurement Officer (1) J. First Deputy Superintendent – Police (1)
IX. All Managing Deputy Positions (32) A. Managing Deputy Budget Director (3) B. Managing Deputy Chief Information Officer (1) C. Managing Deputy Commissioners (23) D. Managing Deputy Comptroller (2) E. Managing Deputy Director (2) F. Managing Deputy Procurement Officer (1)
X. All Deputy Commissioner Positions (202) A. Deputy Budget Director (5) B. Deputy Chief Administrator (3) C. IT Director (DoIT) (12) D. Deputy Commissioner (107) E. Deputy Comptroller (8) F. Deputy Corporation Counsel (16) G. Deputy Director (35) H. Deputy Director of Administrative Adjudication (1) I. Deputy Fire Commissioner (5) J. Deputy Inspector General (4) K. Deputy Procurement Officer (4) L. Deputy Procurement Officer/ Contract Compliance (1) M. Administrative Deputy (Law) (1)

Effective March 1, 2012

Exempt Titles List

Effective March 1, 2012

XI. All Public Affairs Titles (57) (including but not limited to Dir. of Public Affairs, Asst. Dir of Public Affairs, Dir. of Public Information, Public Information Officer, News Dir., Asst. News Dir., Public Rel. Coord., etc.)
XII. All Intergovernmental Affairs Liaisons (42)
XIII. Other Titles and Positions (218) A. Assistant Deputy Chief Paramedic (11) B. Assistant Deputy Fire Commissioner (4) C. Chief (Police) (13) D. Chief Administrative Officer (Fire) (1) E. Chief Compliance Officer (Compliance) (1) F. Chief Labor Negotiator (1) G. Chief of Staff (Police) (1) H. City Prosecutor (1) I. Commander (Police) (Title 9752) (53) J. Deputy Chief (Police) (15) K. Deputy District Chief (Fire) (27) L. Director of Community Liaison (Advisory Council) (8) M. Director of Finance (Police) (1) N. Director of Management/Labor Affairs (Police) (1) O. Director of Human Resources (Personnel Services) (Police) (1) P. Director of Professional Counseling Services (Police) (1) Q. Director of Program and Policy Review (Inspector General) (1) R. Director of Research and Planning (Fire, Police) (2) S. Director of Tourism (Cultural Affairs) (1) T. Director of Investigations (Inspector General) (1) U. District Chief (Title 8763) (Fire) (16) V. Division Superintendent (Streets and Sanitation) (5) W. Director of Special Events (1) X. General Counsel (Police) (1) Y. Ward Superintendent (50)
TOTAL EXEMPTIONS: 1279

 
 310 F.Supp. 1398 (1969)
Michael L. SHAKMAN and Paul M. Lurie, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. The DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK COUNTY, a corporation, et al., Defendants.
No. 69 C 2145. United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.
November 6, 1969.
1399
*1399 Robert Plotkin, C. Richard Johnson, and Roger R. Fross, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs. Raymond F. Simon, Corp. Counsel, Marvin E. Aspen, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., and George J. Schaller, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MAROVITZ, District Judge.
Plaintiffs' Preliminary Motions

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
This is a class action which alleges deprivations of freedoms of speech and association as well as due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and of certain civil rights statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, arising from an alleged political patronage system. Plaintiff Shakman is an independent (not endorsed by any political party) candidate for Delegate to the Illinois Constitutional Convention. Plaintiff Lurie is one of his supporters. Defendants are Democratic party organizations and various officials of those organizations, the City of Chicago, and various officials of the City and of Cook County, Illinois.
In this six count complaint, Counts I and IV are brought by Shakman as a candidate for public office, Counts II and V are brought by both plaintiffs as voters, and Counts III and VI are brought by both plaintiffs as taxpayers. Counts IV, V, and VI differ from Counts I, II, and III respectively in alleging conspiracy to commit the acts complained of in the lower numbered counts. The various counts are also brought on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief plus compensatory and exemplary damages.
All defendants have filed multifaceted motions to dismiss this complaint. Some of the reasons set forth by defendants are without merit. Plaintiffs
1400
*1400 have not inexcusably delayed instituting this action and are not barred by laches. Loverich v. Warner Co., 118 F.2d 690, 693

(3d Cir. 1941). Similarly, the complaint cannot be dismissed because the motion for preliminary injunction was not accompanied by a bond. Under the federal rules, security is not required unless and until the equitable relief is to be granted. Rule 65(c), F.R. Civ.P.; 7 Moore's Federal Practice Ch. 65, ¶ 65.09, at 1656 (1968).
A considerably more serious issue is raised by defendants when they suggest that the subject matter of this action involves a political question which, therefore, renders the lawsuit nonjusticiable. The non-justiciability of political questions is a doctrine which extends back to Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137, 164-166 (1803). Further, there can be no doubt that this complaint involves political matters. Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants control and exert coercion over patronage employees, who are defined as those persons employed by Chicago and Cook County governmental entities, hired on the basis of political support and not protected by civil service or otherwise against arbitrary discharge from employment. The complaint further alleges that these employees are required to take time off from their jobs in order to perform political work, for which they are paid with public funds. As a result of this alleged misuse of public funds and personnel, the rights of the Democratic patronage employees are allegedly infringed in that they may not associate with plaintiff candidate, speak on his behalf, vote freely, or refuse to support defendant political organizations. Further alleged unlawful results of the patronage system are that plaintiff candidate is deprived of the right to associate with these employees, that plaintiff cannot express himself through patronage employees, that plaintiff's supporters cannot have their votes cast effectively, that the votes of plaintiff and his supporters are debased, that the election in which plaintiff is running will not be determined by votes freely cast, that plaintiff is forced to support political organizations, policies, programs, and candidates to which he is opposed, and that the electoral process is not rudimentarily fair or free of substantial political interference. Complaint, ¶ 38.

That these allegations are obviously politically oriented does not automatically resolve the motion to dismiss for if the political question doctrine is of long duration, it is also of increasingly limited scope. In recent years, the doctrine has been considerably narrowed. Thus the judiciary has considered politically tainted issues of reapportionment, e. g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed.2d 663 (1962), petitioning for a place on a ballot, e. g., Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969), Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1969), ballot position, e. g., Weisberg v. Powell, 417 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1969), and discrimination in party primaries, e. g., Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953), Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944). At the same time, courts have maintained a reluctance to interfere with the strictly internal operations of a political party. Irish v. DemocraticFarmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, 399 F.2d 119, 120 (8th Cir. 1968); Lynch v. Torquato, 343 F.2d 370 (3d Cir. 1965).
A determination as to the justiciability of the political issues in this case in the light of the standards set forth in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 209, 217, 226, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), need not be made, however, because plaintiffs lack the requisite standing to litigate this controversy. Assuming for the moment that plaintiff's complaint is well pleaded, which assumption is questionable in view of the vague conclusory allegations, and further accepting for the purposes of this motion similar allegations that thousands of patronage employees are being coerced into making involuntary contributions of time
1401
*1401 and money and that they are being deprived of their right to associate with, work for, contribute money to and vote for plaintiff candidate, (Complaint, ¶ 39) the proper parties to assert that those deprivations amount to unlawful violations of their civil rights are the patronage employees, not plaintiff. Cf. Tileston v.

Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 46, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943). Plaintiff has asserted that "these employees are not free to assert themselves since they believe that to do so will lead to the loss of their patronage jobs or other punishment in said jobs." Complaint, ¶ 39. Nevertheless, the issues presented are of such a serious nature and have a potential impact across the country in local, state, and national affairs, that we cannot allow selfappointed representatives of other persons federal rights, no matter how decent their intentions, to attempt to remedy the alleged wrongdoing. If the patronage system does concern upwards of 30,000 persons (Complaint, ¶ 27), has existed for "many years," (Id.) and is as coercive and obnoxious as is claimed, there should be some patronage employees willing and able to assert their rights for themselves and their class. Any other rule would risk improper representation and prosecution of the claims of these employees to say nothing of creating raising questions concerning the binding nature of a decision affecting persons not before the court. The rule prohibiting reliance on another's constitutional rights is admittedly a rule of self-restraint which may be disregarded in unique situations where, for instance, the action of a state court might result in a denial of constitutional rights to the absent party, Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 257, 73 S.Ct. 1031, 97 L.Ed. 1586 (1953). In the instant case, we know of no similar impediment to the attempted enforcement of an aggrieved party's civil rights.
Of course, unlike the Tileston case, plaintiffs have alleged deprivations of their own rights. Compare, Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 46, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943). Yet, these asserted rights are not infringed directly, but derivatively, i. e., because rights of the patronage employees are allegedly infringed. Thus, Candidate Shakman alleges he is deprived of his freedom of speech and association because certain patronage employees are unlawfully deterred from associating with or speaking or working for him. Recognizing that standing "has been, and remains, one of the most enigmatic areas of the law," Investment Company Institute v. Camp, 274 F.Supp. 624,

632 (D.D.C.1967), we think that plaintiff is the wrong party to complain about alleged wrongs incurred by patronage workers.
Leaving aside the issue of standing to litigate, plaintiffs' complaint is subject to dismissal because it is conclusory. For purpose of testing the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12 (b) (6), "the well pleaded material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted; but conclusions of law or unwarranted deductions of fact are not admitted." 2A Moore's Federal Practice Ch. 12, ¶ 12.08 at 2266-2269 (1968). In the complaint, plaintiff contends that he is deprived of the "right to associate" with certain patronage employees, yet he has never alleged that he attempted to associate with any such employee and was spurned. Similarly, plaintiff contends that he is deprived of the "right to express and espouse" his candidacy through patronage employees. Even assuming the First Amendment guarantees the right to speak through other persons' mouths, there has been no allegation that plaintiff has attempted to engage patronage employees to speak for him. Plaintiff's allegation that he is being deprived of the "right to cast his vote effectively and to have the election determined on the basis of votes so cast" is another unwarranted deduction. Plaintiff has not alleged that he or any of his supporters who are qualified to vote have been or are being denied access to the polls. Nor has plaintiff alleged that the tally of votes cast in Constitutional Convention elections is not an accurate count of the votes made by qualified voters.
1402
*1402 In a like fashion, plaintiff has also alleged that votes of himself and his supporters are "dilute(d) and debase(d)." This conclusion is unwarranted for a number of reasons: there has been no allegation that patronage employees in plaintiff's district are not entitled to vote, there is no way of precisely knowing which voter votes for which candidate, and plaintiff candidate in fact received enough votes to qualify as a candidate for the office he seeks. Similarly, the conclusion is unwarranted that votes cast in the two Constitutional Convention elections are not "freely

cast." Again, no one can say for sure which voter voted for which candidate. See generally, Complaint, ¶ 38.
In addition, plaintiff has alleged that he and his supporters have been deprived of a fair electoral process free of "substantial partisan interference." Neither the federal constitution nor any civil rights law prohibits legitimate activity including canvassing, poster hanging and poll watching (Complaint, ¶ 38) by partisan political personnel in an election. The patronage employees about whom plaintiff is so concerned have as much right to support the candidate of their choice as do plaintiff's supporters. No doubt plaintiff will respond in agreement, but contend that the employees are coerced. If so, then as stated earlier, it is not for plaintiff to assert the rights of others, rather it is the patronage employees' right to bring an action on their own behalf.
Plaintiff has further contended that he is "force(d) * * * to support and contribute" to a political organization to which he is opposed. In all of plaintiff's lengthy complaint, we can find no factual allegations regarding coercion as to him. The funds allegedly used by plaintiff's opponents are allegedly derived from coerced contributions from patronage employees. Complaint, ¶¶ 29, 30, 35. As plaintiff has not alleged himself to be one of these coerced contributors of time and money, the conclusion that he is forced to support policies and personnel undesirable to him is simply not justified. To the extent plaintiff complains that taxpaying is a compelled involuntary contribution to defendants and their policies, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Payment of taxes cannot be refused because of disagreement with governmental policies, whether they include school busing, law enforcement or anything else. The mere fact that some individual defendants are not only government officials, but also political leaders does not alter the propriety of paying properly assessed taxes.
Finally, plaintiff also alleges that the acts of the defendants constitute "gross and invidious discrimination" against plaintiff as

a candidate and voter. However, the relationship between the acts alleged and the result alleged is not apparent. Plaintiff is not entitled to the support of any or all political parties or their supporters. To allege that they deny him aid or oppose him may indicate a lot of things, but one of them is not unlawful discrimination.
In conclusion, viewed charitably, the complaint makes several serious charges regarding the direct deprivation of rights of a class of persons characterized as Democratic patronage employees. Whether or not the complaint can be said to state a cause of action on their behalf need not be considered presently, because those employees are not before this court. Further, given the gravity of the charges and the absence of any allegation that plaintiff fairly represents the class of allegedly aggrieved employees, we find that plaintiff does not have standing to assert the alleged violations of the rights of said employees as set forth in the Complaint, ¶ 39.
Nor do we think the complaint can be saved because plaintiff has alleged that the harm done to the patronage employees also harms him. The violations charged in the Complaint, ¶ 38 are too conclusory to support a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has simply not alleged facts sufficient to warrant the deductions and
1403
*1403 charges of alleged deprivation of rights as to him and his supporters.
Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief is denied. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

 
 481 F.Supp. 1315 (1979)
Michael L. SHAKMAN and Paul M. Lurie et al., Plaintiffs, v. The DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF
COOK COUNTY; Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County and all its members; George W. Dunne, Individually and as President of the Board of County Commissioners of Cook County, as President of the Board of Commissioners of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, and as
Chairman of the Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County; City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation; Jane R. Byrne, Mayor of the City of Chicago; Morgan M. Finley, Individually and as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County; Edward J. Rosewell, Individually and as Treasurer of Cook County, Stanley J. Kusper, Jr., Individually and as Clerk of Cook County; Thomas C. Hynes, Individually and as Assessor of Cook County; Forest Preserve District of Cook County, a Municipal Corporation; Richard J. Elrod, Individually and as Sheriff of Cook County; the Chicago Park District, a Municipal
Corporation; et al., Defendants.

No. 69 C 2145. United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

1316 *1316
1317

September 24, 1979.

*1317
1318
*1318
1319
*1319
1320
*1320 C. Richard Johnson, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
William R. Quinlan, Corp. Counsel, Foran, Wiss & Schultz, John A. Dienner, Asst. State's Atty., Peter Fitzpatrick, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
OPINION
BUA, District Judge.
This is a class action brought under the first amendment, the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, challenging the patronage practices of the regular Democratic and Republican Party organizations in most of the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs are independent candidates, voters, and taxpayers. The defendants include various government officers at the state and local levels, local government entities, and local organizations and officials of the two major political parties. Plaintiffs' principal theory is that the use of state and local government patronage power to coerce political support for the regular Party organizations and their candidates violates independents' rights to fair and equal participation in the electoral process. By way of redress,

plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
This case has a long history in this court. A 1969 dismissal of this action by Judge Marovitz was reversed by the Seventh Circuit in 1970. Following that reversal, plaintiffs entered into a consent decree with many of the Democratic and Republican defendants. The consent decree resolved most of the issues as to those defendants. Stipulations of fact were then filed as to (1) the remaining issues between plaintiffs and the Democratic defendants who are parties to the consent decree, and (2) all issues between plaintiffs and the Democratic defendants who are not parties to the consent decree. These matters are now before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Shakman is a resident of the City of Chicago and the County of Cook. Running in his home district, Shakman was an independent candidate in the November, 1969, election for delegates to the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention. At the time of that election, plaintiff Lurie was a resident of the same district. Lurie was one of those voters who supported Shakman's candidacy. In October, 1969, the plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action, attacking the patronage practices of the regular Democratic Party organization in Chicago and Cook County. Those named as defendants included the City and its Mayor, various County officers, the Democratic County Central Committee, and the Democratic Organization of Cook County.
The primary factual allegations of the original complaint may be summarized as follows. The regular Democratic Party organization has long enjoyed a position of strong dominance in Chicago and in Cook County as a whole. This position has allegedly given the Democratic County Central Committee and the Democratic

Organization
1321
*1321 of Cook County a great deal of control over the various offices, departments, and agencies of the City, the County, and many of the suburban political entities located within the County. These government offices, departments, and agencies employ thousands of persons who are not selected on a merit basis and are not protected by statute from arbitrary discharge. Many are even employed on "temporary" terms which require that their employment be renewed every several months. At the time the complaint was filed, most of these non-protected employees were required, in order to obtain their government jobs, and in order to keep those jobs or to avoid some form of job-related discipline, to have the "sponsorship" of some appropriate individual connected with the Democratic Party organization. These employees are referred to as "patronage employees." In order to secure and maintain the necessary sponsorship, patronage employees were allegedly required to contribute or promise to contribute and to do or promise to do political work for the Democratic organization and/or its candidates. According to the complaint, patronage employees were often required to do involuntary political work on public time, or to take time off their government jobs to do such work.
Thus, using governmental power and, directly or indirectly, public funds, the defendants allegedly control by coercion the political behavior of patronage employees. This enables the defendants to generate a massive political effort in favor of their organization and its candidates. The end result, plaintiffs claim, is a substantial electoral advantage for regular Democratic Party candidates, with a corresponding disadvantage to opposing candidates and voters.
Defendants' patronage practices were alleged to infringe, inter alia, (1) the rights of plaintiff Shakman, as an independent candidate, to associate with actual and potential supporters and to be free from invidious discrimination, (2) the rights of both plaintiffs, as independent voters, to associate and to cast their votes effectively in an electoral

process free from substantial partisan interference, (3) the rights of both plaintiffs, as taxpayers, to be free from coerced political contributions to the Democratic Party organization and its candidates, and (4) the rights of the patronage employees to speak, vote, and associate. In addition to other relief, plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction in effect forbidding the use of any political considerations in employment practices of the government defendants.
The original complaint consisted of six counts. Counts I and IV sought relief on behalf of plaintiff Shakman and all other independent candidates similarly situated, including those in future elections. Counts II and V sought relief on behalf of both plaintiffs and all other independent voters similarly situated. Counts III and VI sought relief on behalf of both plaintiffs and all similarly situated taxpayers. Counts I, II, and III alleged the direct liability of each of the defendants for every wrong of which plaintiffs complained. Counts IV, V, and VI were corresponding counts alleging conspiracy liability.
Shortly after the complaint was filed, all of the defendants moved to dismiss it, raising a variety of arguments. Judge Marovitz granted these motions. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 310 F.Supp. 1398 (N.D.Ill.1969). Judge Marovitz's dismissal was based on the twin grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and that the allegations of the complaint were conclusory. Regarding standing, the court found that plaintiffs as candidates, voters, and taxpayers, could not assert the constitutional rights of patronage employees. 310 F.Supp. at 1401. Turning to the allegations that plaintiffs' own rights have been violated, the court reasoned that any violations of plaintiffs' own rights were merely derivative of the alleged violations of the rights of patronage employees. Id. In view of this disposition, the court found it unnecessary to determine whether plaintiffs' claims presented non-justiciable political questions. 310 F.Supp. at 1400.
1322
*1322 On appeal from the dismissal, the Seventh Circuit reversed. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir. 1970). While plaintiffs' appeal from Judge Marovitz's order

was pending, the November, 1969, delegate election took place. Shakman was defeated by 623 votes. A regular Democrat and an independent were elected delegates in the 24th senatorial district. After observing that these circumstances did not moot the case, the court of appeals examined and rejected the grounds for dismissal relied upon by the district court. As to standing, the court found no need to decide whether plaintiffs could assert the rights of patronage employees, or whether plaintiffs' interests as taxpayers would alone be sufficient to confer standing. Instead, the court simply stated that insofar as plaintiffs sought redress for injuries to their own interests as candidates and voters and the interests of others similarly situated, standing, per se, was no obstacle. 435 F.2d at 269.[1] Also, while agreeing that some parts of the complaint were conclusory and reflected questionable legal analysis, the court concluded that "the averments concerning the operation of the patronage system and the disadvantage it causes to candidates and voters who attempt to use the election process to change the direction of government are factual and give adequate fair notice of the claim asserted." 435 F.2d at 270.
The court then addressed two remaining questions of crucial importance: whether the alleged disadvantages to the interests of independent candidates and voters constituted a deprivation of any right or rights secured by the constitution, and whether the case was for any reason non-justiciable. In considering the status of plaintiffs' interests, the court referred to a number of Supreme Court decisions dealing with inequalities in election procedures, e. g., Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944). These cases were found to support the proposition that both a candidate's rights to an "equal chance" and a voter's right to an "equally effective voice" are entitled, under the equal protection clause, to protection from invidious official discrimination. The court recognized that in the present case these rights were allegedly impaired in a different manner than in the election procedure cases. Nevertheless, it found those cases to be controlling:

We acknowledge that the decisions just referred to involved mechanical aspects of the election process: e. g., the right to cast a vote, a candidate's place on the ballot, and equal size districts entitled to a representative. The interest in an equal chance and an equal voice is allegedly impaired in the case before us by the misuse of official power over public employees so as to create a substantial, perhaps massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. We conclude that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury from inequality in election procedure. 435 F.2d at 270.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that the case was nonjusticiable:
One may foresee that in the areas of proof, and devising relief if the claims be proved, care will be required in order to distinguish between compelled and voluntary political support by public employees. Except to the extent some statute validly restricts political expression or activity by public employees, such individuals
1323
*1323 enjoy the same right of political association and expression on their own time, as anyone else. We do not view possible difficulties of the sort just mentioned as demonstrating a "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving" the case or as requiring, at the pleading stage, a decision that plaintiff's claim is not justiciable. 435 F.2d at 271.
After the Supreme Court denied certiorari, 402 U.S. 909, 91 S.Ct. 1383, 28 L.Ed.2d 650 (1971), settlement negotiations began. Several months later, all parties agreed, on certain conditions, to the entry of a consent decree. A copy of the proposed decree was tendered to the court in October, 1971. In essence, the decree purported to free those already hired as government employees from all coercion to make political contributions or to do political work, and from any form of employment discrimination based on political considerations. In a letter which accompanied the consent decree, the parties set forth the

agreed preconditions to its entry. First, plaintiffs were to arrange to have the operative terms of the agreement apply as well to the Republican Governor's patronage in the Northern District of Illinois, and to the Chairman of the Republican County Central Committee of Cook County. Second, the consent decree was to be approved by the court as a settlement under Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Pursuant to their agreement, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding counts VII and VIII. These counts contain allegations analogous to those in the original six counts, but directed toward the patronage practices of the regular Republican Party organization in the Northern District of Illinois outside the City of Chicago. Those named as defendants in counts VII and VIII include various state government officers, the Republican State Central Committee and its Chairman, the Republican County Central Committee for each of the eight counties then in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and various government officers and Republican Party officials in the subject counties. Many of the Republicans, including the Governor and the Chairman and other members of the Republican County Central Committee of Cook County agreed to be bound by the terms of the proposed consent decree.[2] All of the Democratic defendants, except Cook County Sheriff Elrod and the Chicago Park District, agreed to the terms of the consent decree.
The court then certified classes of independent candidates, independent voters, and certain taxpayers on each of the eight counts of the amended complaint. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), notice of the proposed consent decree was given. In April, 1972, a hearing was held as to the propriety of the decree. Finally, on May 5, 1972, the court approved the proposed consent decree, and entered it.
The May 5, 1972, consent decree is attached as an appendix to this opinion. In its central provisions, the decree enjoined the defendants, their successors and agents, from "conditioning, basing, or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or

factor," and from "knowingly causing or permitting any employee to do any partisan political work during the regular working hours of his or her governmental employment." Further, the decree specifically declared that "compulsory political financial contributions by any governmental employee, contractor or supplier" and "all compulsory or coerced political activity by any governmental employee" were prohibited, and that "once hired, a governmental employee is free from all compulsory political requirements in connection with his governmental employment." However, the decree expressly affirmed the rights of government employees to engage, voluntarily and on their own time, in any lawful political activity. Finally, the decree stated
1324
*1324 that the court retained jurisdiction to determine, among other things, whether political sponsorship or other political considerations can lawfully be taken into account in the consenting defendants' hiring practices, and what further remedies or implementing procedures might be appropriate to enforce the terms of the decree.
Following entry of the consent decree, the various Democratic and Republican defendants who were not parties to the decree filed motions to dismiss. Judge Marovitz granted one of these motions in part. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 356 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D.Ill. 1972).[3]
After Judge Marovitz ruled on the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs and the two Democratic defendants who were not parties to the consent decree, Cook County Sheriff Elrod and the Chicago Park District, negotiated stipulated statements of fact regarding all issues remaining in the case.
Subsequently, the Democratic defendants who were parties to the consent decree began to negotiate with plaintiffs in an effort to resolve without trial the factual issues relevant to their remaining dispute over hiring practices. The negotiations continued until the summer of 1977. At their conclusion, the following defendants submitted agreed sets of responses to requests to admit:

1. The Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County and its members, including its Chairman, George W. Dunne, 2. The City of Chicago, 3. George W. Dunne, individually and as President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, 4. Morgan M. Finley, individually and as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 5. Thomas M. Tully, then the Assessor of Cook County, 6. Stanley J. Kusper, as Clerk of Cook County, 7. Edward J. Rosewell, as Treasurer of Cook County,
1325
*1325 8. The Forest Preserve District of Cook County, through its President, George W. Dunne. Particular stipulations are discussed in greater detail below, see pp. 1342-1344, 1345-1349 infra, but the court will outline their scope here in order to facilitate full understanding of the legal issues.
The parties stipulated that in each ward of the City of Chicago and in many townships in Cook County there is a regular Democratic organization. The ward or township Democratic Party Committeeman is normally the head of the local organization, although certain regular organizations have separate heads in wards or townships controlled by "independents." The heads of the ward and township organizations sponsor candidates for public jobs with the City, Cook County, various County officers, the Forest Preserve District, and the Park District.
Preference in the hiring of employees for over 20,000 positions in these agencies is given to persons who have the sponsorship of a local organization head. Indeed, public notice of the availability of these jobs is not normally given. Usually, job applicants can only obtain Democratic sponsorship by having performed political precinct work or by promising to perform such work for candidates endorsed by the sponsor. Applicants will not normally be sponsored if they have been a worker for any political group opposed to the regular Democratic organization, although such persons are occasionally sponsored if they agree to switch political affiliations and work to support the regular Democratic organization. The sponsorship is

usually communicated to the employing agency by means of a letter.
There are, on the average, over 250 governmental employees per ward in the City who were sponsored by the regular Democratic organization for their job. Since the City wards average about sixty precincts per ward, there are, on the average, about four patronage government employees in each precinct in the City. A significant number of these persons do political work on behalf of persons supported by sponsoring regular Democratic organization officials.
Most importantly, the defendants admit that the political precinct work done by these patronage workers "helps elect candidates supported by the various members of the Democratic County Central Committee." They also admit that "[t]his is one of the purposes of giving the preference in hiring." E. g., Response of City of Chicago to Request for Admission, at 3.
After the stipulations were completed, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against two groups of Democratic defendants: (1) the "consenting defendants," consisting of the eight defendants who filed agreed answers to requests to admit, including the named individuals in their individual as well as official capacities, and Michael A. Bilandic, then mayor of Chicago, in both his individual and official capacities, and (2) the "non-consenting defendants," Cook County Sheriff Richard Elrod and the Chicago Park District. Plaintiffs' motion seeks determinations of liability as to the hiring practices of the consenting defendants and as to the full range of politically motivated employment practices of the non-consenting defendants. Plaintiffs ask that an injunction similar to the consent decree be entered immediately against the non-consenting defendants. They suggest, though, that the question of appropriate relief as to the defendants' hiring practices should be left for "subsequent resolution."[4] In support of their motion, plaintiffs rely on the responses to requests to admit and the stipulations of fact, as well as certain affidavits and oral testimony given at prior enforcement proceedings in this action. Both the consenting and non-consenting defendants have also filed motions for summary judgment, supported by additional

1326
*1326 affidavits and other evidentiary materials.
The stipulated admissions, affidavits, and testimony of the parties remove from the case all issues of material fact. Therefore, the court enters this opinion as a general discussion of the rationale for its decision on the ultimate issues of the case as raised by the pending motions for summary judgment. See 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2724, at 497-98; Munoz v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, 563 F.2d 205, 213 (5th Cir. 1977); Aluminum Co. of America v. Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., 337 F.Supp. 674, 688 (N.D.Ill.1972), aff'd, 486 F.2d 717 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1113, 94 S.Ct. 843, 38 L.Ed.2d 739 (1973).[5]
II. PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARTIES DO NOT CONTROL THIS CASE
Under normal procedures, the court would now evaluate the factual record in light of the legal standard set out in the court of appeals' remand opinion. It would scrutinize that record to determine if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . [if] the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); see, e. g., Cedillo v. International Association of Bridge Workers, 603 F.2d 7, 9 (7th Cir. 1979). Both parties claim that upon completing this task, the court will find that they are entitled to summary judgment.
Both the defendants and the plaintiffs, though, also urge the court to consider a preliminary argument. The defendants argue that the Supreme Court's decisions invoking the principles of comity and

federalism show that this court must refrain from granting the plaintiffs any relief. The plaintiffs state that the Supreme Court's decision in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), which outlawed political patronage firing practices, is directly applicable to the facts of this case and requires the court to rule in the plaintiffs' favor. Each side says that if the court rules in its favor on its claim, the court need not reach the more difficult questions required by the normal approach.
A. The Plaintiffs' Cause of Action Is Not Impermissibly Inconsistent With the Principles of Federalism and Comity
The defendants, in their cross-motions for summary judgment, claim that the plaintiffs' cause of action impermissibly interferes with certain interests in federalism and comity recognized by recent Supreme Court cases. See, e. g., Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976); Mayor v. Educational Equality League, 415 U.S. 605, 94 S.Ct. 1323, 39 L.Ed.2d 630 (1974); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 614 (1974). They claim that granting the plaintiffs any relief would impermissibly interfere in the ongoing conduct of state government and violate fundamental principles of our federal system.
The court believes this argument is nothing more than an attempt to relitigate the issues of standing, justiciability, and the existence of a political question. Those issues were decided against the defendants by the court of appeals in the Shakman opinion, 435 F.2d 267, 270-71 (7th Cir. 1970), and that decision is the law of the case.[6] In any

event, the Supreme Court's decision in Elrod v. Burns, see pp.
1327
*1327 1327-1328, infra, clearly establishes that illegal patronage practices can be challenged in court, and that the court has authority to grant relief to the plaintiffs, where appropriate, Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 351-53, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion); id., at 377 n.1, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (Powell, J., dissenting) (agreeing with plurality that patronage firing claims before the court were justiciable and not barred by the political question doctrine).
The defendants' talk of "dual sovereignties" will not be allowed to obscure the true issues in this case. Even though local authorities have the primary responsibility for dealing with local matters, if local authorities fail in their obligations under federal law, federal judicial authority may be invoked. See, e. g., Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977); Elrod, 426 U.S. at 352, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (1976) (plurality opinion); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955); Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 469 F.Supp. 836, 852-53 (N.D.Ill.1979).
B. The Supreme Court's Patronage Ruling in Elrod v. Burns Is Not Dispositive
The plaintiffs invite this court to hold that a subsequent legal development entitles them to relief on grounds separate from those suggested by the Seventh Circuit's Shakman decision.[7] Three years ago, in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), the Supreme Court held that patronage workers could not be fired because of their political affiliation. The plaintiffs suggest that the present case can be resolved simply by applying the Elrod holding to

the patronage promotion and hiring issues present in this case.
Such an argument is very straightforward. The lead opinion in Elrod, written by Justice Brennan for a plurality of three Justices, found that the practice of patronage places substantial restraints on freedoms of belief and association.
Patronage . . . to the extent it compels or restrains belief and association, is inimical to the process which undergirds our system of government and is "at war with the deeper traditions of democracy embodied in the First Amendment." Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d [561] at 576 [(7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928, 943, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973)]. As such, the practice unavoidably confronts decisions by this Court either invalidating or recognizing as invalid government action that inhibits belief and association through the conditioning of public employment on political faith. 427 U.S. at 357, 96 S.Ct. at 2682. The plurality opinion then rejected several proffered justifications for the practice of patronage firing, including the absence of any right to government employment, id. at 360-61, 96 S.Ct. 2673, the need to ensure effective government and the efficiency of public employees, id., at 364-66, 96 S.Ct. 2673, the increased accountability to the public of patronage employees, id., at 366-67, 96 S.Ct. 2673, the need for political loyalty of employees in order to assure that representative government is not undercut by obstructionist tactics, id., at 367-68, 96 S.Ct. 2673, and the preservation of the democratic process, id., at 368-72, 96 S.Ct. 2673.
There is no question that the rationale of the Elrod plurality opinion is applicable to the facts of this case.[8] See, id., at 357-61 & 358 n.11, 359-60 n.13, 96 S.Ct. 2673. Nevertheless, the court cannot simply
1328
*1328 apply Elrod and hold that the defendants' conduct is illegal, for these plaintiffs do not have standing to attack the constitutional validity of the defendants' infringement of job applicants' rights.[9]

When the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs' complaint in this case stated a cause of action, it did so because the plaintiffs alleged that the challenged patronage practices, if proven, infringed the plaintiffs' own rights as candidates and voters. Such an infringement creates a case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendants and gives this court so-called "constitutional" standing under Article III to adjudicate the complete legality of the challenged practices. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975); Frissell v. Rizzo, 597 F.2d 840, 843 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 82, 62 L.Ed.2d 54 (1979). Alone, though, that is not enough to give the court final standing to proceed. The court must also apply certain non-constitutional, "prudential" standing rules to determine whether the plaintiffs are the proper parties to raise the job applicants' interests. See Silva v. Bell, 605 F.2d 978, 984 (7th Cir. 1979).
[E]ven when a litigant has demonstrated a concrete and particularized injury to himself, he is usually permitted to assert only his own legal rights as a ground for decision in his favor, not those of third parties not before the court. Warth v. Seldin, supra, 422 U.S. at 499, 514, 95 S.Ct. 2197; United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 80 S.Ct. 519, 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960).
1329
*1329 Frissell v. Rizzo, 597 F.2d 840, 844 (3d Cir.) (in absence of any allegation that a newspaper had actually been inhibited in its reporting of the news by mayor's action in denying customary public advertising to the paper as a reprisal for the publication of unfavorable news articles, or that the newspaper was in some manner prevented from asserting its own first amendment rights, the taxpayer-citizen lacked standing to sue to vindicate the newspaper's rights), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 82, 62 L.Ed.2d 54 (1979). The plaintiff class in this case was not certified as a class of government employees or applicants for government jobs. There has been no showing that the plaintiffs represent such government employees and applicants, or that the employees and applicants are for some reason unable or unlikely to bring suit themselves. Accordingly, the court must conclude that the plaintiffs are not proper parties for a challenge of patronage

hiring and promotion practices as they affect employees and applicants. Instead, the defendants' conduct must be analyzed solely under the Seventh Circuit's decision in Shakman and other applicable court decisions interpreting the rights of candidates and voters.[10]
III. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR REVIEWING THE CHALLENGED PRACTICES
A. The Shakman Decision Does Not Provide Clear Guidance to This Court as to the Applicable Legal Framework for This Case
In the years since the Seventh Circuit decided Shakman, the Supreme Court has developed a more complicated analytical framework for evaluating the constitutional validity of government laws or practices that are alleged to infringe on the first and fourteenth amendment rights of candidates and voters. In most recent first and fourteenth amendment cases, the Court specifically identifies the protected constitutional interests that are infringed. It then applies a balancing or strict scrutiny test, as appropriate,[11] to weigh the infringed rights against the interests asserted by the state to justify the statute. On the basis of that determination, the Court makes its ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of the challenged law or practice. In contrast, the operative section of the court of appeals' decision in Shakman is

relatively brief.
It is clear that at least some aspects of the interests of candidates in an equal chance and of the interests of voters in having an equally effective voice are rights secured from state action by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The interests of candidates in official treatment free from intentional or purposeful discrimination are entitled to constitutional protection. "Where discrimination is sufficiently shown, the right to relief under the equal protection clause is not diminished by the fact that the discrimination relates to political rights." [Quoting Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 11, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944).] The equal protection clause secures from invidious official discrimination the voter's
1330
*1330 interest in a voice in government of equal effectiveness with other voters. We acknowledge that the decisions just referred to involved mechanical aspects of the election process: e. g., the right to cast a vote, a candidate's place on the ballot, and equal size in districts entitled to a representative. The interest in an equal chance and an equal voice is allegedly impaired in the case before us by the misuse of official power over public employees so as to create a substantial, perhaps massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. We conclude that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure. 435 F.2d at 270.
At first glance, the court of appeals decision appears to be lacking in instructions to this court as to how this court should proceed under a later-developed constitutional analysis. In the first paragraph, the court mentioned that "some aspects" of the rights asserted by the plaintiffs are "secured from state action by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment." In the second paragraph, the court said that certain of the plaintiffs' "interests" were "entitled to constitutional protection." Though the third and fourth paragraphs have some

specific language, the opinion concludes "that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure."
There are two apparent gaps in the opinion that make analysis difficult. First, while there is general discussion of the protected nature of "the voter's interest in a voice in government of equal effectiveness with other voters" and a right of some sort to protection "from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure," these rights do not appear to be precisely defined and their scope is not stated. Second, while the court of appeals repeatedly used the phrase "constitutional protection," it did not define the nature of that protection. The equal protection clause has been construed to provide protection against all government decisions to the extent that it forbids irrational classifications among those upon whom a challenged law or practice acts. See e.g., Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955); Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 40 S.Ct. 560, 64 L.Ed. 989 (1920); Brest, Palmer v. Thompson: An Approach to the Problem of Unconstitutional Legislative Motivation, 1971 Sup.Ct.Rev. 95, 106-07. If the court of appeals meant to refer solely to this general protection, the challenged patronage practices would be subject to only a weak standard of review. See generally, e.g., San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). If the Seventh Circuit intended that this court apply a heightened form of judicial scrutiny, whether through a balancing test or through strict scrutiny, it failed to identify the manner in which this court would proceed. Thus, this court will have to turn to other, subsequent decisions in order to perform the necessary constitutional analysis of the factual stipulations submitted by the parties.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have followed more than one approach in analyzing possible infringements of first and fourteenth amendment rights. See Woodward v. City of Deerfield Beach, 538 F.2d 1081, 1082 n.1 (5th Cir. 1976).[12] Usually, the Supreme
1331

*1331 Court identifies the protected constitutional interests infringed by the challenged government action, then evaluates the importance of the protected interests against the degree of the infringement and the weight and nature of the state interests that assertedly justify the decision. In some areas, however, the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit have repeatedly faced similar fact patterns. In those cases, regularized analytical frameworks have developed.
This court will first undertake a "traditional" analysis of the challenged patronage practices to determine whether protected constitutional interests have been infringed. It will also evaluate the challenged practices against the group of Seventh Circuit cases that present factual circumstances most similar to those in the instant case. After concluding under both tests that the protected constitutional rights of the plaintiffs are infringed by the defendants' conduct, the court will strictly scrutinize those practices to determine whether they can be constitutionally justified.
B. A Constitutional Analysis of the First and Fourteenth Amendment Interests at Stake
The purposeful attempt of the defendants to hinder independent candidates burdens central first and fourteenth amendment values.[13] A traditional constitutional analysis of the challenged patronage practices must begin with an identification of the
1332
*1332 precise first and fourteenth amendment interests at stake. See Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 183-84, 99 S.Ct. 983, 990, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979) (equal

protection case).
The defendants' patronage hiring practices directly burden the plaintiff candidates' interests in running successfully for public office. Such a burden, however, is not by itself an infringement of constitutionally protected rights, for the Supreme Court has never recognized that interest alone as warranting special first amendment protection or as being a fundamental right under the equal protection clause. See Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 142-43, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); Trafelet v. Thompson, 594 F.2d 623, 632 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 219, 62 L.Ed.2d 142 (1979); Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d 825, 828 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968, 98 S.Ct. 513, 54 L.Ed.2d 455 (1977). Instead, the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit have recognized three closely related interests meriting special constitutional protection that are infringed or otherwise burdened by the defendants' challenged conduct. See Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d 825, 828 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968, 98 S.Ct. 513, 54 L.Ed.2d 455 (1977); Note, Newcomb v. Brennan: The Right of a Public Employee to Seek Political Office, 73 Nw.U.L.Rev. 533, 535-37 (1978). They are: (1) the interests of the plaintiff candidates in political expression; (2) the interests of the plaintiff voters and candidates in association for the advancement of their political beliefs; (3) the interests of the plaintiff voters in equal participation in the electoral process. Taken together, see Morial v. Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, 565 F.2d 295, 301 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc) (infringed interests must be aggregated to determine the degree of the constitutional violation), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887, 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978), these interests give a candidate a protected constitutional interest in freedom from official discrimination on the basis of his political beliefs.
1. The candidates interest in political expression

Freedom from government-imposed restrictions on the content of belief or expression is the central premise of free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment.[14] Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 234-35, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 356, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 565, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969); New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1202 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291, 58 L.Ed.2d 264 (1978). "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95-96, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2290, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972).[15] See Karst, Equality as a Central Principle in the First Amendment, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 20 (1975). This is especially true where political belief and expression are involved. "[I]t can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee [of free speech] has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 625, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971). See
1333
*1333 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 231, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977); id., at 259, 97 S.Ct. 1782 (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14-15, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1975); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966).
To the extent that the allegations of the present complaint are true, see pp. 1344-1349, infra, the defendants have clearly burdened the plaintiff candidates' rights of free political belief and expression. As

noted above, impairment of a candidate's efforts to obtain public office can not, in itself, be equated with interference with protected first amendment freedoms. Trafelet v. Thompson, 594 F.2d 623, 632 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 219, 62 L.Ed.2d 142 (1979); Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d 825, 828 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968, 98 S.Ct. 513, 54 L.Ed.2d 455 (1977); see Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972). Here, however, it is alleged that the defendants have intentionally used the power of the state to impede plaintiffs' candidacies because plaintiffs have chosen to run in opposition to the Democratic organization. Where state officials burden an individual's candidacy in order to discourage opposition to some more favored candidate or viewpoint, their actions constitute a punishment based on the content of a communicative act. Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d at 828.[16] As the court observed in Newcomb, "[p]laintiff's interest in running for . . . [public office] . . . and thereby expressing his political views without interference from state officials who wished to discourage the expressions of those views lies at the core of the values protected by the First Amendment." 558 F.2d at 829.
To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wideopen." . . . . . [G]overnment must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95-96, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2292, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (citation omitted); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1202 (7th Cir.) (quoting Mosley), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291, 58 L.Ed.2d 264 (1978). "[T]he essence of the first amendment is its denial to government of the power to determine which message shall be heard and which suppressed. . . ." Karst,

Equality as a Central Principle in the First Amendment, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 20, 28 (1975) (discussing Mosley). "[A] concern about content . . . is never permitted." Mosley, 408 U.S. at 99, 92 S.Ct. at 2290 (citation omitted).
2. Freedom of association
[The Supreme Court's] decisions establish with unmistakable clarity that the freedom of an individual to associate for the purpose of advancing beliefs and ideas is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. E. g., Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 355-357 [, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion)]; Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 487 [, 95 S.Ct. 541, 42 L.Ed.2d 595 (1975)]; Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56-57 [, 94 S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973)]; NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460-61 [, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958)]. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 233, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 1799, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977). The right of association is closely allied to freedom of speech and, like free
1334
*1334 speech, lies at the foundation of a free society. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 486, 81 S.Ct. 247, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960). Because "[E]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association," NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. at 460, 78 S.Ct. at 1171, the first amendment guarantees the freedom to "associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas . . .." Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56, 94 S.Ct. 303, 307, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973). "The right to associate with the political party of one's choice is an integral part of this basic constitutional freedom. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 [, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d

24 (1968)]." Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 57, 94 S.Ct. 303, 307, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973).
In the present case, the defendants have burdened the rights of the plaintiff candidates and voters to associate. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that candidacy restrictions which have the effect of excluding certain candidates from the ballot burden the associational rights of those candidates and their supporters by rendering less valuable their freedom to collectively advance political ideas. E. g., Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 188, 99 S.Ct. 983, 990, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). In much the same way, when the state acts to oppose the electoral efforts of certain candidates on the ballot, it renders less valuable the associational rights of those candidates and their supporters.
3. Equal participation in the electoral process
There is no constitutional right to vote, as such. Nevertheless, the equal protection clause confers the substantive right to participate on an equal basis with other qualified voters whenever the state has adopted an electoral process for determining who will represent any segment of the state's population. Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 71314, 94 S.Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 59 n.2, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring); Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1968); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1971). "[E]ach and every citizen has an inalienable right to full and effective participation in the political process . . .." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 565, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1383, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). This right of qualified voters to

cast their votes effectively is clearly fundamental. E. g., Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 188, 99 S.Ct. 983, 990, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979). "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968). Thus, "[t]he right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). Since voters can only express their rights by voting for particular candidates, aspects of candidacy are "intertwined" with the rights of voters. Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 716, 94 S.Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974).
The allegations of the present complaint indicate that the defendants have interfered with the rights of the plaintiff voters to equal participation in the electoral process. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267, 270 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 909, 91 S.Ct. 1383, 28 L.Ed.2d 650 (1971). Equal electoral participation "can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the exercise of the franchise." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); see Karst, Equality as a Central Principle in the First Amendment, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 20, 57
1335
*1335 (1975) ("the holding of Reynolds v. Sims, is that a state cannot constitutionally discriminate among voters by giving some interests greater proportional weight than is justified by the numbers of people who share those interests"). This principle frequently has been invoked in striking down legislative apportionment plans resulting in the numerical dilution of votes. While the complaint in this case does not present such a claim, it does involve allegations of similar types of inequality. The state is alleged to work against and make more difficult the election of certain candidates. To the extent this is true, see pp.

1345-1349 infra, the value of the votes of those supporting those candidates, in terms of their ability to affect the outcome of an election, is lessened.
C. The Candidates' Interest in Freedom from Official Discrimination on the Basis of Their Political Beliefs — The Ballot Placement Cases
1. The two-part Bohus test
The analysis conducted in Section B, pp. 1331-1335 supra, demonstrates that if the allegations of the complaint are true, the patronage practices challenged in the complaint infringe the first and fourteenth amendment rights of the plaintiff candidates and voters. As noted above, it is helpful in considering the implications of this legal conclusion to carefully review those Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit cases which present factual settings closest to the present case. Cf. Morial v. Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, 565 F.2d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc) (first and fourteenth amendment analytical approaches should both be applied, even though result will normally be the same), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887, 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978). In so doing, this court can have the benefit of the analytical framework used by higher courts in the most closely analogous setting.
Of all the cases dealing with the rights of candidates and voters, the

line of cases that is most directly applicable to the facts of this case is the line of ballot placement cases. Ballot access cases, for example, usually allege the effectively complete exclusion of certain candidates or types of candidates from the ballot. Suffrage cases involve either the total exclusion of a class of voters from the electoral process or an identifiable dilution and debasement of their vote. Ballot placement cases, however, involve allegations of governmental interference with the equality of the electoral process in a manner and to a degree similar to that charged in the present case. In ballot placement cases, unlike ballot access cases, the government has not excluded any candidate or candidates from the electoral process. Instead, the government is charged, as in the present case, with acting so as to favor, to some relatively small degree, certain candidates because of their political affiliation.
In recent years, the Seventh Circuit has decided a clearly discernible line of ballot placement cases. Board of Election Commissioners v. Libertarian Party, 591 F.2d 22 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 442 U.S. 918, 99 S.Ct. 2840, 61 L.Ed.2d 285 (1979); Sangmeister v. Woodard, 565 F.2d 460 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 939, 98 S.Ct. 1516, 55 L.Ed.2d 535 (1977); Baum v. Lunding, 535 F.2d 1016 (7th Cir. 1976); Bohus v. Board of Education, 447 F.2d 821 (7th Cir. 1971); Weisberg v. Powell, 417 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1969) (per curiam). In these cases, the Seventh Circuit has analyzed the effect of various ballot placement schemes on voters' and candidates' interests in political expression, association, and equal participation in the electoral process. The consistent holding of these cases has been that "[a] successful challenge to ballot placement procedure under the equal protection clause requires a showing of `an intentional or purposeful discrimination by authorities in which one class is favored over another.' Bohus v. Board of Election Commissioners, 447 F.2d at 822." Board of Election Commissioners v. Libertarian Party, 591 F.2d at 25.[17] In addition, the plaintiff must prove that the challenged election process "is an
1336
*1336 advantage in an election." Board of Election Commissioners v.

Libertarian Party, 591 F.2d at 25 n.3 (citing Bohus); Sangmeister v. Woodard, 565 F.2d at 465 (citing Bohus); see Baum v. Lunding, 535 F.2d at 1018 (citing Bohus); Weisberg v. Powell, 417 F.2d at 392-93. Cf. Smith v. Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098, 1103 (7th Cir. 1973) (per curiam) ("relief under the equal protection clause is appropriate where, as here, plaintiffs have shown a discriminatory design favoring a particular group against others") (candidate substitution case), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 910, 94 S.Ct. 2607, 41 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974). The court adopts the standard of the Bohus case as the appropriate test in this case.
2. The degree of advantage required
The parties disagree as to the degree of advantage required by Bohus. The defendants present two arguments in support of their contention that the plaintiffs must satisfy a higher burden than the mere showing of "an advantage." First, they argue that the court of appeals' decision in this case requires that the plaintiffs show a "substantial, perhaps massive," 435 F.2d at 270, advantage in order to prove their case. Even if such a high standard is not necessary, they argue that the plaintiffs must at least demonstrate that the challenged patronage practices provide the defendants with a significant advantage, which they say the undisputed facts do not show here.
a. A "substantial, perhaps massive" advantage is not required
The defendants' first argument is based on a slight misreading of

certain language in the court of appeals decision. What the court of appeals actually said was:
The interest in an equal chance and an equal voice is allegedly impaired in the case before us by the misuse of official power over public employees so as to create a substantial, perhaps massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. We conclude that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure. 435 F.2d at 270 (emphasis added). This court does not construe the quoted language as requiring the plaintiffs to prove even a "substantial, perhaps massive, political effort" in order to prevail. Rather, the quoted language appears merely to be a characterization by the Seventh Circuit of the allegations of the plaintiffs' complaint.[18]
In any event, the defendants err when they claim that the plaintiffs must show a "substantial, perhaps massive," advantage accrues to the regular Democrats due to the defendants' patronage practices. Such a claim is erroneous, for neither the Shakman opinion nor any other authority supports their attempt to apply the quoted language to the degree of advantage required by Bohus.
1337
*1337 b. An actual, significant advantage is required
There is a legitimate argument, though, over the amount of the advantage that must be shown by the plaintiffs under the Bohus test. It is a general rule of constitutional law that heightened judicial scrutiny is not appropriate unless some significant effect has been felt on a protected interest. Unless there is more than a de minimus impact on

the plaintiffs' interest in equal participation as candidates and voters in the electoral process, the plaintiffs cannot prove a constitutional violation, see Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 368, n.26, 99 S.Ct 664, 670 n.26 (1979) (dictim) (both purpose and effect are necessary to an equal protection violation); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 729, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1279, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974) ("substantial burdens on the right to vote or to associate for political purposes are constitutionally suspect") (primary affiliation case); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 58, 94 S.Ct. 303, 308, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973) (heightened scrutiny required when there is "a `significant interference' with the exercise of the constitutionally protected right of free association") (citation omitted) (primary affiliation case); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143-44, 92 S.Ct. 849, 856, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972) (strict scrutiny mandated where a restriction on the right to vote has a "real and appreciable impact on the exercise of the franchise") (filing fee case); Socialist Workers Party v. March Fong Eu, 591 F.2d 1252, 1260-61 & 1261 n.5 (9th Cir. 1978) ("more than insubstantial" burden required) (following Storer) (ballot identification case); cert. denied, 441 U.S. 946, 99 S.Ct. 2167, 60 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1979); Antonio v. Kirkpatrick, 579 F.2d 1147 (8th Cir. 1978) (following Bullock) (residency requirement case), and will not be entitled to relief, see Mt. Healthy City School Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 270 n.21, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); cf. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (scope of remedy is limited to the scope of the violation). Thus, this court must construe the "an advantage" test to require some showing that an actual, significant advantage is received by the favored candidates.
An early expression of this requirement can be found in the Seventh Circuit's decision in Weisberg v. Powell, 417 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1969). There, the court of appeals evaluated a similar contention by the defendants in a ballot placement case.
Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to prove that a candidate with first or second ballot position would enjoy a substantial advantage.

This amounts to an argument that the device employed by the secretary was ineffective; that the discrimination was harmless. We think it was adequately established that top position on the ballot is one of a number of factors which tend to affect the outcome of an election, and which may have a substantial effect although the degree varies with the circumstances. 417 F.2d at 392 (emphasis added). The Weisberg statement remains good law. See Culliton v. Board of Election Commissioners, 419 F.Supp. 126, 127-28 (N.D.Ill.1976) (quoting Weisberg), aff'd sub nom. Sangmeister v. Woodard, 565 F.2d 460, 465 (7th Cir.) (citing Weisberg), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 939, 98 S.Ct. 1516, 55 L.Ed.2d 535 (1977). See also Smith v. Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098, 1102-03 (7th Cir. 1973) (per curiam), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 910, 94 S.Ct. 2607, 41 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974).
Thus, the Seventh Circuit ballot placement cases show that the advantage need not be a massive or overwhelming one. It need not be the only, or the dominant factor in deciding elections. The plaintiffs, in order to prevail, must show no more than that the challenged patronage practices are a significant advantage, an advantage that will help the regular Democrats win some elections.
The foregoing discussion of the ballot placement cases demonstrates that, even though there is no right to run for office, the rights of voters and candidates
1338
*1338 discussed in Section B, pp. 1331-1335 supra, combine to give a candidate the right to be free from official discrimination on the basis of his or her political beliefs.[19] Those cases also provide a two-part test for determining whether this right has been violated. Once a plaintiff shows (1) an intentional discrimination by the government on the basis of his or her political beliefs that gives (2) an actual significant advantage in an election to his or her opponent, as defined in Weisberg, he or she has demonstrated an infringement of that right.
As in other first and fourteenth amendment cases, the defendants will

then be obliged to demonstrate that the challenged law or practice can survive strict constitutional scrutiny, i.e., that the challenged law or practice is necessary to the achievement of a compelling government interest. See Board of Election Commissioners v. Libertarian Party, 591 F.2d at 25; pp. 1349-1350 infra.[20] Without such a demonstration, the law or practice must be struck down as unconstitutional.
D. The Bohus Test is Consistent with General Theories of Fourteenth Amendment Motivation Analysis and with the Shakman Decision
1. General Theory
The preceding sections have analyzed a candidate's interest in running for office in the manner usually applied in such cases, and have identified a test that is applicable to the present case. The origins of the Bohus test, and its necessary applicability to the Shakman case, are not immediately apparent. Closer investigation reveals that the Bohus test is in fact derived from general principles of fourteenth amendment equal protection analysis. See Sangmeister v. Woodard, 565 F.2d 460, 467 (7th Cir.) (Bohus test must be construed consistently with Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 [1976]), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 939, 98 S.Ct. 1516, 55 L.Ed.2d 535 (1977).[21]
In recent years, the Supreme Court has decided several cases which

discuss the scope of judicial review of improper legislative motivation under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The most important of these cases, Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976), disapproved several earlier cases which had held that courts could not review a legislative or administrative decision to determine whether the decision's motivation had been proper.[22] The Davis Court held that judicial review of motivation could be proper under certain circumstances. This position has been amplified by several subsequent Supreme Court decisions. See Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977).
One commentator who has written extensively on the problems of motivation analysis is Professor John Hart Ely.[23] See Ely, Legislative and Administrative Motivation in Constitutional Law, 79 Yale L.J. 1207
1339
*1339 (1970); Ely, The Centrality and Limits of Motivation Analysis, 15 San Diego L.Rev. 1155 (1978).[24] Professor Ely has made one point that is particularly helpful in understanding the theoretical basis of the Bohus and Shakman decisions.
[Judicial] analysis of motivation is appropriate only to claims of improper discrimination in the distribution of goods that are constitutionally gratuitous (that is, benefits to which people are not entitled as a matter of substantive constitutional right). . . . However, where what is denied is something to which the complainant has a substantive constitutional right — either because it is granted by the terms of the Constitution, or because it is essential to the effective functioning of a democratic government — the reasons it was denied are irrelevant. . . . To have a right to something is to have a claim on it irrespective of why it is denied. Ely, Centrality and Limits, 15 San Diego L.Rev. at 1160-61 (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted) (citing Ely, Legislative and

Administrative Motivation, 79 Yale L.J. at 1281-84).
Applying Professor Ely's insight to the Shakman and Bohus cases, the foundation for the Seventh Circuit's approach in this area becomes apparent. If a candidate has a right to candidacy, no special motivation scrutiny would be appropriate. Any government action that adversely burdened, affected, or impacted upon that candidacy would be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. Without a right to candidacy, judicial review protects plaintiffs' candidacies, per se, only from those government decisions that are improperly motivated. Thus, it is entirely appropriate that a candidate can be protected from official discrimination against his or her candidacy because of his or her beliefs,[25] even though there is no right to candidacy.
The Shakman case, when read with the ballot placement cases, can therefore be seen as holding that government action that deliberately uses the patronage system to favor one candidate over another is improperly motivated for purposes of motivation analysis.[26] The Shakman decision is in accord with related Seventh Circuit decisions,
1340
*1340 see Trafelet v. Thompson, 594 F.2d 623, 632 (7th Cir.) (classifications burdening groups of voters because of their political beliefs require strict scrutiny) (dicta), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 219, 62 L.Ed.2d 142 (1979); Board of Election Commissioners v. Libertarian Party, 591 F.2d 22 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 918, 99 S.Ct. 2840, 61 L.Ed.2d 285 (1979); Sangmeister v. Woodard, 565 F.2d 460 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 939, 98 S.Ct. 1516, 55 L.Ed.2d 535 (1977); Baum v. Lunding, 535 F.2d 1016 (7th Cir. 1976); Hennings v. Grafton, 523 F.2d 861, 864 (7th Cir. 1975) (citing Shakman); Smith v. Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098, 1102-03 (7th Cir. 1973) (per curiam), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 910, 94 S.Ct. 2607, 41 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974); Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561, 569 n.17 (7th Cir. 1972) (approving Shakman), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928, 943, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973); Bohus v. Board of Education, 447 F.2d 821 (7th Cir. 1971); Briscoe v. Kusper, 435 F.2d 1046, 1052 (7th Cir. 1970); Weisberg v. Powell, 417 F.2d 388 (7th Cir.

1969); cf. United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620 (7th Cir. 1973) (en banc) (government is forbidden to discriminate on the basis of the exercise of protected first amendment activities);[27] and is not inconsistent with applicable Supreme Court decisions, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (government assistance to political campaigns must not give unfair advantages); Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1973); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967); cf. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 234-35, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977) (freedom to believe as one will and not have belief forced upon you by the government is at the heart of the first amendment). See generally, pp. 1331-1339; note 9 supra. Interpreted in this fashion, the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Shakman is seen to be in general accord with current law.
It is clear that at least some aspects of the interests of candidates in an equal chance and of the interests of voters in having an equally effective voice are rights secured from state action by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The interests of candidates in official treatment free from intentional or purposeful discrimination are entitled to constitutional protection. . . . The equal protection clause secures from invidious official discrimination the voter's [and the candidate's] interest in a voice in government of equal effectiveness with other voters. . . . The interest in an equal chance and an equal voice is allegedly impaired in the case before us by the misuse of official power over public employees so as to create a substantial, perhaps, massive, political effort in favor of the ins and against the outs. We conclude that these interests are entitled to constitutional protection from injury of the nature alleged as well as from injury resulting from inequality in election procedure. 435 F.2d at 270.

2. A showing of coercion is not required by the Shakman decision.
There is one possible difference in theory between the Seventh Circuit's Shakman opinion and the later case law discussed above. In the Shakman decision, the court of appeals may have assumed that proof that the patronage employees' political activity was coerced was a necessary part of the plaintiffs' case.
One may foresee that in the areas of proof, and devising relief if the claims be proved, care will be required in order to distinguish between compelled and voluntary political support by public employees. Except to the extent some statute validly restricts political expression or activity by public employees, such individuals enjoy the same right of political association and expression on their own time, as anyone else.
1341
*1341 435 F.2d at 271. Judge Marovitz's ruling on the motions to dismiss of the defendants who did not join the consent decree did make this assumption. See note 3 supra. Based on these decisions, defendants argue that the plaintiffs must show that their rights have been infringed by coerced precinct work. The recent Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit case law necessarily implies that proof of coercion is not an essential part of the plaintiffs' case. If independent candidates and voters have a protected constitutional entitlement to freedom from official discrimination against their candidacies and votes on the basis of their political beliefs, that right will be violated by any scheme of patronage employment that uses government jobs to elect government supported candidates. Whether the political precinct work done by the patronage workers is coerced becomes irrelevant for the purpose of proving the violation.[28] The plaintiffs need only show that the government, in sponsoring the patronage system, is purposefully discriminating against them on the basis of their political beliefs, and that the system provides regular Democrats with "an advantage" in

elections[29] that they would not otherwise have, see pp. 1335-1338 supra; pp. 1346-1347; note 38 infra.
IV. THE CHALLENGED PATRONAGE PRACTICES INFRINGE UPON THE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INTERESTS
The patronage practices challenged in this case infringe upon the plaintiffs' first and fourteenth amendment interests, for the stipulated admissions made by the defendants satisfy the two-part Bohus test. The court's decision evaluates the factual matter in the light of two legal standards which govern its organization of the facts.
A. The Legal Standards Applied in Interpreting the Facts
1. The standard for summary judgment
Both sides have attempted to avoid a trial in this case by stipulating to facts which each party hoped would be sufficient for a grant of

summary judgment in its favor. The court recognizes that to find for either party on a motion for summary judgment, the court must determine that a high burden of proof has been met.
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of clearly establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact that is material to a judgment in his favor. The issue of material fact required to be present need not [, however,] be resolved conclusively in favor of the party asserting its existence, but the movant need only show that sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute does not require a jury or judge at trial to resolve the parties' differing versions of truth. All inferences to be drawn from the facts contained in the affidavits, exhibits, and depositions are to be drawn in favor of the non-movant. Adikes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 153, 159-61, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 [(1970)]; First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 303,
1342
*1342 305-07, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 [(1968)]; Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 468-69, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 [(1962)]. Cedillo v. International Association of Bridge Workers, 603 F.2d 7, 10, (7th Cir. 1979).[30]
Even though the standard for granting a summary judgment is high, a court must not shrink from granting a summary judgment where it is appropriate.
With the ever increasing burden upon the judiciary, persuasive reasons exist for the utilization of summary judgment procedure wherever appropriate. Therefore, while appellate courts should not look the other way to ignore the existence of genuine issues of material fact, on the other hand we do not deem it necessary in the best interest of judicial administration to strain to find the existence of such genuine issues where none exist. Kirk v. Home Indemnity Co., 431 F.2d 554, 560 (7th Cir. 1970).

2. Conspiracy liability
Taken together, the admissions of the defendants, when combined with the uncontroverted affidavits of the plaintiffs, establish that if the patronage practices of the defendants were unconstitutional, the defendants were engaged in a civil conspiracy to commit them. The law of civil conspiracy was recently restated by the Seventh Circuit in Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 620-25 (7th Cir. 1979).
A civil conspiracy is "a combination of two or more persons acting in concert to commit an unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by unlawful means, the principal element of which is an agreement between the parties `to inflict a wrong against or injury upon another, and an overt act that results in damage.'" Rotermund v. United States Steel Corp., 474 F.2d 1139 (8th Cir. 1973) (citation omitted). In order to prove the existence of a civil conspiracy, a plaintiff is not required to provide direct evidence of the agreement between the conspirators; "[c]ircumstantial evidence may provide adequate proof of conspiracy." Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Greenberg, 447 F.2d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 1971). [600 F.2d at 620-21]. . . . . . A plaintiff seeking redress need not prove that each participant in a conspiracy knew the "exact limits of the illegal plan or the identity of all participants therein." Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., supra, 447 F.2d at 875. An express agreement among all the conspirators is not a necessary element of a civil conspiracy. The participants in the conspiracy must share the general conspiratorial objective, but they need not know all the details of the plan designed to achieve the objective or possess the same motives for desiring the intended conspiratorial result. [600 F.2d at 621.] . . . . . . . . [I]n order to have an adequate claim for relief under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege and prove both a conspiracy and an actual deprivation of rights; mere proof of a conspiracy is insufficient to

establish a section 1983 claim. [600 F.2d at 622.] . . . . . 22 Discrimination on the basis of political beliefs or affiliations has been found to be actionable under section 1985(3). [600 F.2d at 623 n.22.] The stipulated admissions of the defendants, together with the other evidentiary matter before the court, establishes that there was a conspiracy among the defendants to deprive the plaintiffs of the rights discussed in Part III, p. 1329-1341 supra. Sheriff Elrod's stipulations indicate the scope of the conspiracy. He admitted that there is a regular practice among the defendants of using public employment for
1343
*1343 political purposes. As stated on page 4 of his stipulation:
8. When elected Sheriff, Mr. Elrod had known of the practice in Chicago, Cook County and the State of Illinois whereby public employment positions with the City government and with other governmental offices in Cook County and the State of Illinois had often been filled on the basis of political recommendation, as discussed below . . .. Mr. Elrod had also known of the then practice whereby some public employees of the City government and of other governmental offices in Cook County and the State of Illinois who failed to do adequate precinct work or financially to support their ward organizations had been discharged from public employment. Similarly, he had known of a practice in the State of Illinois whereby when a new office holder takes office and is of a different political party or persuasion than his predecessor, many of the employees in the governmental office of the same political affiliation or persuasion as the predecessor are discharged, so that persons may be hired who have been politically recommended by the party of the new office holder. [Footnote omitted.] The Sheriff's other admissions are typical of those made by all the defendants, although his language is unusually frank. As stated on pages 15-16 of his stipulation:
30. Members of the regular Democratic organization generally

recommend persons for employment by various governmental offices such as the Sheriff's Office on the basis, among other considerations, of their support or promise of support of the regular Cook County Democratic Organization, of the recommender's ward or township organization or of other units of the Democratic Party and for candidates endorsed thereby. Many such persons are required as a condition of obtaining a recommendation for public employment, to do or to promise to do precinct or other political work for the candidates endorsed by the local regular Democratic Ward Organization or to make or to promise financial contributions to that ward organization. This is a practice of long standing in Cook County. Sheriff Elrod has been aware of these practices since prior to December 7, 1970. [Emphasis added.] 31. Usually no person is recommended by a member of the regular Democratic organization for a public employment position if he or she has in any open way been a worker or partisan of any political group opposed to or by the regular Cook County Democratic Organization and the Central Committee or subunits thereof. On some occasions such persons are so recommended if they agree to switch political affiliation and agree to support the regular Democratic organization and its candidates. Defendant Elrod has also been aware of these practices since prior to December 7, 1970. 32. With regard to applicants for Sheriff's non-merit positions recommended by Central Committee members or other persons active in regular Democratic politics, the political recommendation has frequently been communicated by the recommender to Sheriff Elrod by means of a letter. . . . In some instances prospective employees for Sheriff's non-merit positions have had the fact of such political recommendation by members of the Central Committee or other important political persons or elected officials in the regular Democratic organization communicated to Sheriff Elrod by a phone call or a personal oral conversation rather than by letter. The stipulations and admissions of the other consenting and nonconsenting defendants are generally similar. They demonstrate that all defendants understand the nature of and participated in this "practice," which can be characterized in technical language as a "common plan."

All of the defendants in question have admitted that they are aware that members of the Democratic Central Committee regularly sponsor applicants for employment to the defendant government officials' agencies. They have also admitted that they are
1344
*1344 aware that those sponsored are often required to perform or to promise to perform political work in exchange for appointments to jobs. Finally, the defendants admitted that the officeholders appoint these patronage workers to jobs with the expectation that they will do the precinct work and help elect Democratic candidates. In addition to those admissions, the plaintiff has submitted affidavits that show that it is the policy of the defendants to act together to create and further this patronage system.
The defendants have produced no evidentiary matter to refute the material submitted by the plaintiffs.[31] The court can only conclude, see Rule 56(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact concerning the existence of a common plan among the defendants to implement and effectuate the challenged patronage practices, see Hampton, 600 F.2d at 621; Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Greenberg, 447 F.2d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 1971). To the extent that those practices illegally affect the plaintiffs' rights, see pp. 1331-1341 supra, and pp. 1344-1349 infra, each defendant is a member of a conspiracy violative of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, see Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d at 622-25, and each is responsible for the acts, see, e.g., Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515, 523 F.2d 569, 576 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 963, 96 S.Ct. 1748, 48 L.Ed.2d 208 (1976); Scott v. Moore, 461 F.Supp. 224, 228 (E.D.Tex.1978), and admissions, see, e.g., United States v. Trowery, 542 F.2d 623, 626-27 (3d Cir. 1976) (dicta) (admissions admissible as evidence against co-conspirator after the court determines that the conspiracy existed at the time of the admission), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104, 97 S.Ct. 1132, 51 L.Ed.2d 555 (1977), of its co-conspirators, conducted during the pendency of the conspiracy and in furtherance thereof.[32]
The liability of each defendant for all challenged practices is not

absolute. In this case, the consenting defendants have renounced, through the consent decree, the use of patronage firing and promotion practices. The plaintiffs have tendered no evidence to suggest that the consenting defendants condone the non-consenting defendants' continued refusal to abjure such practices. Thus, the consenting defendants are not responsible for those practices.
Therefore, in analyzing the constitutionality of the challenged practices, each defendant will be accountable for the hiring practices of all the defendants currently before the court. In addition, the nonconsenting defendants will also be held accountable for their own and each other's patronage firing and promotion practices.
B. The Plaintiffs Have Proved Both Parts of the Bohus Test
1. The illegitimate purpose is conceded
The first part of the Bohus test is not even arguable in this case. The defendants have freely admitted that "one of the purposes of giving the preference in hiring" is to "help . . . elect candidates supported by the various members of the Democratic County Central Committee." This necessarily involves a deliberate discrimination against the plaintiff candidates and
1345
*1345 voters who, as independents, normally oppose the regular

Democratic organization candidates. There is therefore no question of material fact as to the existence of "an intentional or purposeful discrimination by authorities in which one class is favored over another." See p. 28 supra.[33]
2. The Challenged Patronage Practices Give the Defendants an Advantage in Elections
The court also concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning the question of whether the challenged patronage practices give the defendants an actual, significant advantage in elections. Based on the stipulated admissions of the parties, the court can only conclude that the plaintiffs have demonstrated the existence of such an advantage.
a. The consenting defendants
The defendant Democratic County Central Committee for Cook County made, inter alia, the following admissions with respect to the claims made against each of the consenting defendants:
[Agency name] gives preference in hiring for many [Agency] jobs to persons who are politically sponsored by Democratic Party Ward or township committeemen or other Democratic regular organization officials. For some of these jobs persons normally can be hired only with Democratic political sponsorship. Most of the jobs for which

preference is given are not policy-making or confidential in nature. [Agency] employees often inform Party officials of job openings of which public notice is not otherwise given. The [Agency] has approximately [number] employees. Over [fraction] of the people hired by the [Agency] in recent years were for jobs for which preference was given to applicants with Democratic Party sponsorship. . . . . . Usually persons get the sponsorship for a County job from a Democratic party official either after having done or upon the expectation that they will do precinct political work (such as door to door canvassing, putting up posters, etc.) on behalf of candidates for public office endorsed by the sponsor. In the City of Chicago there are, on the average, over 250 persons per ward who were sponsored by the Democratic Party officials for state, Cook County, Cook County officer, City of Chicago and other public jobs. There are likewise significant numbers of persons so sponsored for public jobs in the various townships in Cook County. A significant number of these persons in the City and County do political precinct work on behalf of candidates for office supported by sponsoring Democratic Party officials. This political precinct work helps elect candidates supported by the various members of the Democratic County Central Committee. This is one of the purposes of giving the preference in hiring. Similar admissions are made by the other consenting defendants.
Taking all inferences in favor of the defendant, the next-to-last sentence necessarily
1346
*1346 shows that the political precinct work done by sponsored patronage workers provides the regular Democratic defendants with an actual, significant advantage in elections.[34] It would go against the plain language of the admission to accept any inference that even though precinct work helps elect regular Democrats, that help is only insubstantial or de minimus.[35] The admission is unqualified and unequivocal. The court can only construe it as identifying exactly the

type of factor to which the Weisberg court referred when it held that the ballot placement practice challenged in that case was "one of a number of factors which tend to affect the outcome of an election, and which may have a substantial effect although the degree varies with the circumstances." Weisberg v. Powell, 417 F.2d 388, 392 (7th Cir. 1969).[36]
The only way that the consenting defendants could avoid summary judgment on this issue would be by showing that the challenged patronage hiring practices are somehow not responsible for the patronage work done by patronage workers. If the precinct work would be done absent the patronage system, or more specifically, if sponsored patronage employees were people who would do precinct political work even if they did not have patronage jobs and had no prospect of or interest in getting them, then it could not be said that the challenged patronage hiring practices provide "an advantage" in elections. Thus, the defendants have made some arguments in the briefs that attempt to raise a genuine issue
1347
*1347 as to whether a significant number of those patronage workers who do precinct work perform that work voluntarily. They have also submitted excerpts from depositions of several patronage workers, apparently taken in connection with earlier compliance hearings in this case, in which the workers claim that certain precinct work they had performed was done voluntarily.
The court holds that the matter submitted by the defendants is not, however, sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Although the defendants have submitted evidence that indicates that some patronage employees do work on a voluntary basis after they obtain their jobs, they have not submitted evidence in any form that any patronage employee who does political precinct work would voluntarily do the same work even if he did not have, and could never obtain, a patronage job. Since the consenting defendants' responses do not "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial," summary judgment is properly entered against them.[37] Rule 56(e),

Fed.R. Civ.P. See, e.g., Faulkner v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co., 561 F.2d 677, 682-83 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 905, 98 S.Ct. 1450, 55 L.Ed.2d 495 (1978).[38]
1348
*1348 b. The non-consenting defendants
Since the court holds that there is no genuine issue of material fact between the plaintiffs and the consenting defendants, it must hold, a fortiori, that there is no genuine issue of material fact between the plaintiffs and the non-consenting defendants. The non-consenting defendants, as members of the same conspiracy as the consenting defendants, are responsible for the acts and admissions of the consenting defendants that were taken within the scope of the conspiracy and in furtherance thereof. See p. 1344 supra. That alone is sufficient to justify a finding that the non-consenting defendants have not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their practices, when combined with those of the consenting defendants, infringe upon the plaintiffs' protected first and fourteenth amendment rights.
In addition, the non-consenting defendants are responsible for the effects upon the electoral process of their own patronage promotion and firing practices. There can be no doubt that these practices are far more coercive upon current employees than are the consenting defendants' patronage hiring practices, and they are far more likely than the hiring practices to cause current employees to do precinct political work.[39]
1349
*1349 The additional effect of this coerced precinct work, when added to the effect of the work produced by the patronage hiring practices of

the consenting defendants, creates an even greater infringement on the plaintiffs' right to an electoral process that is not tainted by deliberate discrimination against their political efforts.
The non-consenting defendants claim that even though at one point they may have been liable for their patronage firing practices, they should not now be held responsible for them. This claim is based on two separate arguments. First, the defendants say that they have not conducted any patronage firings in recent years. Second, they argue that since the Supreme Court's decision in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), has effectively outlawed patronage firing practices, this court need not rule on those practices.
Both arguments are insufficient. As to the first, the defendants have never renounced, with legal sufficiency, the use of their patronage firing powers. Absent such a renunciation, the plaintiffs' claim on this ground is not mooted.
It is established doctrine that the voluntary cessation of the complained action is not sufficient to moot litigation. It must appear with assurance "that `there is no responsible expectation that the wrong will be repeated,'" [citation omitted]. The defendants have the "heavy burden of persuasion." (citation omitted). Hernandez v. Finley, 471 F.Supp. 516, 521 (N.D.Ill.1978) (three-judge court) (quoting Rabinowitz v. Board of College District No. 508, 507 F.2d 1255, 1256 [7th Cir. 1974]).
As to the second argument, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants' firing practices is legally distinct from the claim brought by the fired patronage employee in Elrod v. Burns. See pp. 1327-1329 supra. The non-consenting defendants have cited no cases that would suggest that the plaintiffs here are not entitled to a legal determination of their own claim, so that they may obtain direct enforcement from this court of any violation of their own rights that may occur.
The court therefore holds that the non-consenting defendants have independently infringed the plaintiffs' constitutional rights through their use of patronage hiring, firing, and promotion practices, as well as

through their conspiracy with the consenting defendants to practice and further patronage hiring practices.[40]
V. NO COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST IS NECESSARILY FURTHERED BY THE CHALLENGED PATRONAGE PRACTICES
A. The Legal Standard
Whether analyzed under the first or the fourteenth amendment, the challenged patronage practices must survive exacting scrutiny. Under the first amendment, significant government interferences
1350
*1350 with the freedom of speech, political belief, expression, or association, must survive exacting scrutiny. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 259-60, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977) (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment); Elrod v. Burns, 424 U.S. 347, 362-63, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (plurality opinion); id., at 381, 96 S.Ct. at 2693 (Powell, J., dissenting); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25, 64, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1975). This is true whether the challenged action directly restricts first amendment freedoms or places indirect burdens on their exercise, so long as the government provides some inducement for their abandonment. Elrod, 427 U.S. at 356-61, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (plurality

opinion); see Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 58, 94 S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973). Such interferences cannot be justified by a mere showing of a rational relation to a legitimate government objective. Elrod, 427 U.S. at 362, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (plurality opinion) id., at 381, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (Powell, J., dissenting); Buckley, 424 U.S. at 64, 96 S.Ct. 612; Rhode Island Minority Caucus v. Baronian, 590 F.2d 372, 376 (1st Cir. 1979). Instead, the government must carry the burden of showing that the challenged action furthers a vital public interest. Abood, 431 U.S. at 259-60, 97 S.Ct. 1782 (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment); Elrod, 427 U.S. at 362, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (plurality opinion); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524, 80 S.Ct. 412, 4 L.Ed.2d 480 (1959). In addition, it must appear that the benefit of the action in terms of service to an important public interest outweighs the detriment to protected freedoms. Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 560-67, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973); United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 96, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947); see Morial v. Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, 565 F.2d 295, 300 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc) (discussing first amendment balancing test in this context), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887, 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978). Finally, the challenged government action must be closely tailored to the service of its legitimate objectives, so as not to unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected interests. Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 59, 94 S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973); Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 101, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963).[41]
The fourteenth amendment analytical framework is similar. Government decisions which are based on impermissible classifications are subject to the strictest scrutiny. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 144, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 18-29, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). Such classifications must reflect a compelling government interest, and be closely tailored so that no less drastic means is available towards meeting those interests. See

Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184-185, 99 S.Ct. 983, 991, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979) (collecting cases). See generally Note, Legislative Purpose, Rationality, and Equal Protection, 82 Yale L.J. 123 (1972).
Viewed under either first or fourteenth amendment analysis, the patronage practices challenged by the plaintiffs cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Indeed, the defendants have failed to put into issue sufficient facts to properly raise these interests. Even if they had, the interests raised are insufficient to justify the infringements of the plaintiffs' rights that the court has found in this case.
B. The Defendants Have Not Properly Raised the Existence of Any Compelling State Interests
The defendants have totally failed to meet their burden of showing that compelling
1351
*1351 state interests justify the patronage practices. They have not properly placed before the court the existence of such interests.
Under Rule 56(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., it is the obligation of a party opposing a motion for summary judgment to go beyond the pleadings and the briefs to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. "[A]n adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Affidavits containing only conclusory allegations of ultimate facts or legal conclusions do not set forth the specific facts

required by the rule. See Askew v. Bloemker, 548 F.2d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 1976); Ashwell Co. v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 407 F.2d 762, 766 (7th Cir. 1969).
The only evidence in this case cited by the defendants as proof of the alleged state interests is the affidavit of John H. Stroger, Jr., who, as of May 11, 1978, the date of the affidavit, had been a member of the Board of County Commissioners for seven years and Democratic Ward Committeeman of the Eighth Ward for ten years. The operative portion of the affidavit is as follows:
I am making this affidavit to state my belief in the constructive ends served by the limited patronage employment in Chicago and Cook County, as follows: a. It tends to recruit a work force with an equitable distribution of jobs geographically. b. It insures an equitable distribution so far as minorities and various ethnic groups are concerned. c. It enables an officeholder in filling vacancies to recruit persons sympathetic with his philosophy of the management of government and public service. d. It serves as a leaven of interested and ambitious persons in a work force otherwise recruited by "Civil Service methods." (Compare, President Carter's complaints of an obdurate Civil Service bureaucracy.) e. It offers an opportunity to recruit handicapped persons into the work force. Their employment is a matter of public concern. f. It recruits persons who increase the productivity of the work force because of their ambition to advance. g. It offers a training ground for persons interested in a career in local government. h. It furnishes an opportunity to persons from areas disadvantaged, both economically and socially, to rise to positions of influence, where they can be of real service, not only to their community, but to their city, county, state and country as a whole. If the federal court were to enjoin all patronage hiring in Chicago and Cook County, it would be denying now to Blacks and Hispanics the opportunity historically

enjoyed by other ethnic groups, at this time in history, when Blacks and Hispanics are becoming the dominant voting power because of their numbers in urban America. i. It tends to give officeholders representatives throughout the communities of the city and county. This can be an important matter at all times, but particularly in time of crisis. For example, during the riots of the late 1960's, precinct leaders with their intimate association with their neighbors were perhaps the main influence for stabilizing things and bringing them back to normal. These allegations are completely conclusory. With the possible exception of the last one, they are totally devoid of any specific facts that would support the contentions involved. The court finds that they are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact pursuant to Rule 56(e). They are especially inadequate in light of the heightened burden on the government in this case. See Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. at 259, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 1812, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment) ("`the [governmental] interest advanced must be paramount, one of vital importance, and the burden is on the government to show the existence of such
1352
*1352 an interest. . . .'") (quoting Elrod, 427 U.S. at 362, 96 S.Ct. 2673 [plurality opinion]).
C. Even If They Are Properly Raised, the Interests Advanced by the Defendants Are Not Sufficient to Justify the Challenged Patronage Practices
Even if the interests raised by the defendants in the Stroger affidavit,

along with certain other interests discussed in their briefs, may be considered by the court, those interests are insufficient to withstand the strict constitutional scrutiny that must be applied. The court will consider the interests raised by the defendants and demonstrate how each interest is insufficient.
Goals a, b, e, g, and h of the Stroger affidavit all involve the problem of recruiting particular groups or persons into government service. There is no reason, however, that such recruitment could not be conducted within a civil service system. Extra weight in employment or termination decisions could be given to the factors involved in a, b, e, g, and h. Even without civil service protection, these goals could be attained in a non-merit system that did not give preferences to those with political sponsorship. The words of Mr. Justice Stevens, sitting as Circuit Judge in Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1972) cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928, 943, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973), illustrate this point.
Neither this court nor any other may impose a civil service system upon the State of Illinois. The General Assembly has provided an elaborate system regulating the appointment to specified positions solely on the basis of merit and fitness, the grounds for termination of such employment, and the procedures which must be followed in connection with hiring, firing, promotion, and retirement. A federal court has no power to establish any such employment code. However, recognition of plaintiffs' claims will not give every public employee civil service tenure and will not require the state to follow any set procedure or to assume the burden of explaining or proving the grounds for every termination [or refusal to promote or hire] . . . There is a clear distinction between the grant of tenure to an employee — a right which cannot be conferred by judicial fiat — and the prohibition of a discharge [or refusal to hire or promote] for a particular impermissible reason. The Supreme Court has plainly identified that distinction on many occasions, most recently in Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). Unlike a civil service system, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution does not provide job security, as such, to public

employees. If, however, a discharge [or a refusal to hire or promote] is motivated by considerations of race, religion, or punishment of constitutionally protected conduct, it is well settled that the State's action is subject to federal judicial review. 473 F.2d at 567-68. Since there are less drastic means available to meet these proposed goals, they are not sufficient to justify the patronage practices. See Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 99 S.Ct. 983, 991, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 59, 94 S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973); Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 101, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963).
Goals d and f are similar to those discussed above. They are aimed at recruiting certain persons, but they are also aimed at using non-merit appointments to correct certain perceived flaws with the civil service system. Once again, though, there is no reason that these goals could not be served by a non-merit system that did not take political work or affiliation into account. Thus, less drastic means are available to meet these goals.
Goal i can also be met through less drastic means. If the desire is to have government employees living in every geographical area, as in goal a, recruitment can be based in part on geographic considerations
1353
*1353 without involving political considerations. On the other hand, if the goal is to have a political representative of officeholders in each neighborhood, there is no reason why the defendants could not build up a network of contacts in neighborhoods, perhaps including their precinct captains, to serve that function. Both networks, governmental and political, could exist simultaneously. In any event, there has been no showing that the continuance of the patronage system is necessary to the achievement of this interest.[42]
The last of the goals discussed in the Stroger affidavit is c, enabling an officeholder in filling vacancies to recruit persons sympathetic with

his philosophy of the management of government and public service. This goal is closely related to the goals discussed by the defendants in their briefs. In the Memorandum of Non-Consenting Defendants in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 24, and in the brief in support of their counter-motion for summary judgment at 30-32, the non-consenting defendants raise the governmental interests that were considered and rejected by the Supreme Court in the Elrod case. These interests, as discussed in the plurality opinion, include the absence of any right to government employment, the need to ensure effective government and the efficiency of public employees, the increased accountability to the public of patronage employees, the need for political loyalty of employees in order to assure that representative government is not undercut by obstructionist tactics, and the preservation of the democratic process. 427 U.S. at 360-72, 96 S.Ct. 2673.[43]
The court holds that the Elrod plurality opinion, insofar as it rejected these asserted interests as a defense for patronage firings, is in accord with the law of this circuit, and is directly and equally applicable to patronage hiring and promotional practices. Then-Judge Stevens' opinion for the Seventh Circuit in Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis,[44] 473 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928, 943, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973), establishes that the Elrod defenses are insufficient.[45]
In his opinion, Justice Stevens rejected the goals raised by the defendants. Justice Stevens directly rejected the first goal, the absence of a right to public employment. 473 F.2d at 573-74. Then, under a slightly different framework, he rejected the others.
Absent some proof that political loyalty was particularly important for specific classes of workers, Justice Stevens held, general defenses based on a need for political loyalty were insufficient to withstand constitutional scrutiny[46]. 473 F.2d at 574.
1354
*1354 Finally, Justice Stevens disapproved defenses based on a claim

that the interests of government efficiency and of preservation of the democratic process support patronage practices. 473 F.2d at 574-76. He concluded that:
reflection persuades us that in the long run the State's strong interest in efficient management is at least consistent with, and may well favor, the recognition and protection of the constitutional rights asserted in this case. Of greater significance is the fact that as the number of employees affected is increased, the importance of preserving their First Amendment freedoms likewise grows. Indeed, when numbers are considered, it is appropriate not merely to consider the rights of a particular janitor who may have been offered a bribe from the public treasury to obtain his political surrender, but also the impact on the body politic as a whole when the free political choice of millions of public servants is inhibited or manipulated by the selective award of public benefits. While the patronage system is defended in the name of democratic tradition, its paternalistic impact on the political process is actually at war with the deeper traditions of democracy embodied in the First Amendment. 473 F.2d at 575-76.
Although the factors to be weighed in a strict scrutiny analysis may differ slightly in this case from those present in Elrod and Lewis, the court holds that the result must be the same. The defendants' interests asserted in all cases are effectively the same, and the question of the presence of any less drastic means to achieve the government's interests must be determined identically. The only possible difference concerning the application of the test in this case as compared to its application in Elrod and Lewis is the importance of the plaintiffs' interests infringed by the patronage practices.
This court will not attempt to determine whether the rights of candidates and voters at issue here are either more or less important than the right of government employees to retain their jobs without regard to their political affiliations. Both are clearly important constitutional interests, and the result of the strict scrutiny test must be

the same. The challenged patronage practices are unconstitutional.
XII. CONCLUSION
Ever since the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion in this case nine years ago, the parties have attempted, for the most part, to work out their differences. The plaintiffs entered into a consent decree with most of the defendants in this case. They negotiated stipulated factual admissions with the defendants currently before the court. The plaintiffs, the consenting Democratic defendants, and the non-consenting Democratic defendants then filed crossmotions for summary judgment. This was done because both sides recognized an interest in avoiding a trial in this case.
A trial in this case would be lengthy and difficult. It would probably involve taking the testimony of most of the defendants in this case, who hold important official positions. It would be disruptive of the ongoing conduct of the business of many government institutions in this area. Also, a trial would be very expensive, and involve the consumption of a great amount of public funds, as well as the resources of the individual parties.[47]
1355
*1355 Thus, the parties, in an admirable spirit of conciliation, have endeavored to put this case in a position where the court could resolve it without the necessity of a public trial.[48] The court has found that under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the granting of a summary judgment, it is able to deny the defendants' motions for summary judgment on counts I, II, IV, and V of the amended complaint, and to grant the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on those counts as to these defendants.[49]

The court holds that the plaintiffs have a right to an electoral process free from deliberate governmental discrimination against their views. The factual record before the court conclusively demonstrates, beyond any existence of a genuine issue of material fact, that the defendants deliberately use the challenged patronage practices to help elect regular Democrats and help defeat their opponents. This purposeful, deliberate discrimination gives the defendants an actual, significant advantage in elections.
This is not to say, of course, that patronage workers are the dominant force in every election. The plaintiffs do not claim that they are. The parties agree that many factors, including campaign money, television exposure, racial or ethnic background, etc., may influence the outcome of the election. The point is that patronage workers give an important advantage to regular Democrats. The regular Democratic defendants are using the government to further their own political interests by giving preferences for many government jobs only to those who have worked and/or will promise to work for regular Democratic candidates.
The court concludes that the patronage practices challenged by the plaintiffs infringe their rights as candidates and voters under the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985. The challenged practices are not necessary to the furthering of any compelling government interest. Accordingly, the court holds that the challenged practices violate the Constitution of the United States.
The court hereby sets a status hearing for Friday, October 12, 1979, at 10:00 a. m. All parties are invited to attend. At that time, the court will entertain suggestions as to the manner in which it should proceed in order to determine the proper remedy in this case.[50] The court trusts that the parties will work together in the creation of the remedy, as they have worked together in the previous phases of this litigation.[51]
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1356
*1356 APPENDIX
CONSENT JUDGMENT ENTERED MAY 5, 1972 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN and PAUL M. ) LURIE et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) No. 69 C 2145 ) ) THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF ) COOK COUNTY, etc., . . . the REPUBLICAN ) COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE ) OF COOK COUNTY et al., ) ) Defendants. )
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie having filed their complaint herein, and said plaintiffs (on behalf of themselves and the classes they represent under the First Amended Complaint herein as determined by previous Orders of Court) and the defendants named in paragraph C hereof having consented to the entry of this Judgment as to such parties without trial and without adjudication of any allegation in the complaint or any issue of fact with respect to the alleged commission by said defendants of any unconstitutional, unlawful or wrongful act, and without this Judgment constituting evidence of or an admission by any defendant with respect to any issue of fact herein or the commission of any unconstitutional, unlawful or wrongful act;
Now, therefore, upon the consent the parties as aforesaid, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:
A. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties to this Judgment and of the subject matter of this action under Sections 1331 and 1343(3) of Title

28 of the United States Code.
B. As used herein, (1) the term "governmental employment" means any employment (whether full-time or part-time, permanent or temporary, and regardless of whether the employment is paid for by federal funds) by or for the City of Chicago or any employment within the Northern District of Illinois by or for any other governmental entity other than an entity of the federal government; (2) the terms "governmental employee" and "employee" mean a person employed in governmental employment.
C. The provisions of this Judgment apply to each and all of the following: (1) defendant The Democratic Organization of Cook County, a corporation; (2) defendant Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County and all members thereof; (3) defendant City of Chicago, a municipal corporation; (4) defendant Richard J. Daley, individually and as President of the Democratic Organization of Cook County, Chairman of the Democratic County Central Committee Of Cook County, Mayor of the City of Chicago and Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Eleventh Ward of the City of Chicago; (5) defendant
1357
*1357 Matthew Bieszczat, individually and as Secretary of The Democratic Organization Of Cook County, Secretary of the Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County, member of the Board of County Commissioners of Cook County and Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Twenty-Sixth Ward of the City of Chicago; (6) defendant Marshall Korshak, individually and as Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Fifth Ward of the City of Chicago; (7) defendant George W. Dunne, individually and as President of the Board of County Commissioners of Cook County and as Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Forty-Second Ward of the City of Chicago; (8) defendant P. J. Cullerton, individually and as County Assessor of Cook County and as Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Thirty-Eighth Ward of the City of Chicago; (9) defendant Edward J. Barrett, individually and as County Clerk of Cook

County and as former Democratic Party Ward Committeeman for the Forty-Fourth Ward of the City of Chicago; (10) defendant Matthew J. Danaher, individually and as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County; (11) defendant Richard B. Ogilvie, individually and as Governor of the State of Illinois; (12) defendant Edmund J. Kucharski, individually and as Chairman of the Republican County Central Committee of Cook County; (13) defendant William J. Scott, individually and as Attorney General of the State of Illinois; (14) defendant John W. Lewis, individually and as acting Secretary of State of Illinois; (15) defendant Paul Simon, individually and as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Illinois; (16) defendant Alan Dixon, individually and as Treasurer of the State of Illinois; (17) defendant Michael Bakalis, individually and as Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Illinois; (18) defendant Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, a municipal corporation; (19) defendant John E. Egan, individually and as President of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago; (20) defendant Joseph C. Doring, individually and as Sheriff of Kane County, Illinois; (21) defendant William A. Vollrath, individually and as County Clerk of Kane County, Illinois; (22) defendant Jack M. Weidner, individually and as Coroner of Kane County, Illinois; (23) defendant James H. Fitzgerald, individually and as Treasurer of Kane County, Illinois; (24) defendant Jan E. Carlson, individually and as Clerk of the Illinois Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Kane County, Illinois; (25) defendant James A. Callahan, individually and as Sheriff of LaSalle County, Illinois; (26) defendant George L. Hunter, individually as [sic] as County Clerk of LaSalle County, Illinois; (27) defendant Ray Rathbun, individually and as Treasurer of LaSalle County, Illinois; (28) defendant Republican State Central Committee of Illinois and all members thereof; (29) defendant Victor L. Smith, individually and as Chairman of the Republican State Central Committee of Illinois; (30) defendant William F. Scannell, individually and as Secretary of the Republican State Central Committee of Illinois; (31) defendant Timothy Sheehan, individually and as Republican Committeeman for the Forty-First Ward of the City of Chicago; (32) defendant Joseph Woods, individually and as a Commissioner of Cook County; (33) defendant Floyd Fulle, individually, as a Commissioner of Cook

County and as Republican Committeeman for Maine Township; (34) defendant Charles J. Grupp, individually, as a Commissioner of Cook County and as Republican Committeeman for Bloom Township; (35) defendant William N. Erickson, individually, as a Commissioner of Cook County and as Republican Committeeman for Evanston Township; (36) defendant Eugene Leonard, individually, as Bremen Township Assessor and as Republican Committeeman for Bremen Township; (37) defendant William E. Kane, individually, as Orland Township Assessor and as Republican Committeeman for Orland Township; (38) defendant John J. Nimrod, individually, as Niles Township Supervisor and as Republican Committeeman for Niles Township; (39) defendant Bernard Pederson, individually, as Palatine Township Assessor and Republican Committeeman for Palatine Township; (40) defendant John F. Kimbark, individually, as Clerk of both the Town of Cicero and Cicero Township and as Republican Committeeman
1358
*1358 for Cicero Township; (41) defendant Elmer N. Conti, individually, as President of the Village of Elmwood Park and as Republican Committeeman for Leyden Township; (42) defendant Frank A. Bella, individually, as Calumet Township Collector and as Republican Committeeman for Calumet Township; (43) the successors of each of the foregoing defendants in each of their aforesaid capacities; and to (44) the present and future officers, members, agents, servants, employees and attorneys of each of the defendants and others named or referred to hereinabove, and all others in active concert or participation with any of the defendants or others named or referred to in (1) through (44) above who receive actual notice of this Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
D. It is declared that compulsory or coerced political financial contributions by any governmental employee, contractor or supplier, to any individual or organization and all compulsory or coerced political activity by any governmental employee are prohibited, and, once hired, a governmental employee is free from all compulsory political requirements in connection with his employment. However,

governmental employees may engage on a voluntary basis, on their own time, in any lawful political activity (including the making of political financial contributions).
E. Each and all of the defendants and others named or referred to in Paragraph C above are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly, in whole or in part:
(1) conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor.
(2) knowingly causing or permitting any employee to do any partisan political work during the regular working hours of his or her governmental employment, or during time paid for by public funds; provided that nothing contained in this subparagraph (2) shall prohibit governmental employees from voluntarily using vacation time, personal leave time or from taking nonpaid leaves of absence to do political work, but permission to do so must be granted nondiscriminatorily.
(3) knowingly, inducing, aiding, abetting, participating in, cooperating with or encouraging the commission of any act which is proscribed by this paragraph E, or threatening to commit any such act.
F. Each defendant named or referred to in paragraph C above shall give notice of this Judgment, in the manner directed by this Court, to the employees under said defendant's jurisdiction.
G. This Judgment represents the agreed-to disposition of the claims asserted in this case by plaintiffs Michael L. Shakman and Paul M. Lurie, on behalf of themselves and the classes referred to above, against the defendants named in paragraph C above. Plaintiffs' claims for money damages, compensatory and exemplary, against the defendants named in paragraph C above are hereby dismissed.
H. Jurisdiction is retained for the following purposes:

(1) To enable the parties to this Judgment to continue to litigate the following questions before this Court:
(a) Certain governmental employment positions under the jurisdiction of the defendants who are parties to this Judgment by their nature involve policy-making to such a degree or are so confidential in nature as to require that discharge from such positions be exempt from inquiry under this Judgment. Jurisdiction is maintained to litigate the question of which governmental employment positions under such defendants' jurisdiction are so exempt for the foregoing reasons. (b) Can political sponsorship or other political considerations be taken into account in hiring employees? If so, to what extent can such considerations be taken into account? (c) What remedies and implementing procedures ought to be granted and established by the court in connection with
1359
*1359 the resolution of the questions raised in the foregoing subparagraphs (a) and (b)? (2) To enable the parties to this Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction or carrying out of this Judgment, for the enforcement of compliance with the provisions contained herein, and for the punishment of the violation of any of such provisions. Application to enforce such provisions or to impose punishment for any such violation may be presented to this Court by any registered voter. Prior written notice of all such applications and other matters in this action shall be given to the named parties hereto. Except where emergency relief is sought, 7 days written notice shall be given.
I. The Court expressly finds and determines, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that there is no just reason for delay and directs that this Judgment be entered forthwith.
ENTER: /s/ Abraham L. Marovitz District Judge Dated: 5/5/72, 1972.
[1] It is now clear that the plaintiffs' status as taxpayers would not give them standing in this case. Taxpayers have standing to challenge only those expenditures that violate a constitutional provision which is recognized as a specific limitation upon state power to tax and spend. United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 41 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974); Frissell v. Rizzo, 597 F.2d 840, 850 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,

100 S.Ct. 82, 62 L.Ed.2d 54 (1979). The defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on Counts III and VI.
[2] The amended complaint and further supplements have also named additional Democratic officeholders as defendants, as well as several successors in office to those previously named.
[3] The motions to dismiss raised two important arguments. First, it was asserted that the Seventh Circuit's Shakman opinion did not condemn all hiring and firing of patronage employees based on political considerations, but only the use of hiring and firing practices to coerce political work or contributions. Judge Marovitz found this argument to be persuasive:
. . . Shakman prohibits only political considerations which effect voter and candidate rights. The firing of Republicans by incoming Democrats and vice versa is permitted so long as retention is not conditioned on coerced political activity or contributions. Likewise, Republicans have every right to hire only Republicans and Democratic office holders have every right to hire only Democrats so long as coerced political activity is not a condition of that employment.
. . . . .
We therefore grant the defendant's motion to strike and dismiss those portions of the complaint which assert violations of rights through any political activity which does not affect voter-candidate-taxpayer rights and strike that portion of the prayer for relief which seeks the enjoining of all and any political considerations in public employment.
356 F.Supp. at 1248 (emphasis in original). Secondly, defendants argued that the Seventh Circuit's opinion prohibited only coerced political activity by government employees on public time, as opposed to the employees' own time. This argument, however, was rejected:
The Court of Appeals decision both explicitly and implicitly indicated that any activity which effects the voter-candidate-rights of plaintiffs is prohibited and we believe that no distinction ought to be drawn between coerced political activity which is performed on public time and that performed on the employees own time if it emanates from the same source of coercion since both activities result in violations of plaintiffs' rights.
356 F.Supp. at 1248 (emphasis in original).
To the extent that the first point made by Judge Marovitz rests on a holding that Democrats may fire Republicans as long as there is no coercion involved, it has been overruled by Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), and Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928, 943, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973); see Lewis, at 577-78 (Campbell, J. concurring), and is no longer good law, see pp. 1340-1341 infra. To the extent that Judge Marovitz held that plaintiffs could only receive relief for illegal practices that affected their own rights, his holding remains good law. See pp. 1328-1329 infra. See

also note 6 infra.
[4] The defendants oppose this suggestion. The court agrees with the plaintiffs that it is proper to decide the motions for summary judgment on the question of liability now, while reserving questions of remedy for another day. See C. Wright & A. Miller, 10 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2736. See also R. Kluger, Simple Justice, 657-747 (1975).
[5] The court is also entering today certain specific supplemental findings of fact. The court finds that there is no genuine issue present concerning any of these facts. Since these findings are not likely to be of general interest, they are being released via an unpublished order, and not as part of this opinion.
[6] The law of the case doctrine, see, e. g., James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of Beefeater, Inc., 572 F.2d 574, 577 (7th Cir. 1978), would not bar the court from ruling on the defendants' claim if there had in fact been a change in the law. A prior decision by an appellate court in the same case is not binding when "controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues." Morrow v. Dillard, 580 F.2d 1284, 1290 (5th Cir. 1978) (quoting White v. Murtha, 377 F.2d 428, 431-32 [5th Cir. 1967]); see Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768, 771-72 (9th Cir.); Chicago and North Western Transportation Co. v. United States, 574 F.2d 926, 930-31 (7th Cir. 1978) (same); Petition of United States Steel Corp., 479 f.2d 489, 494 (6th Cir. 1973) (same).
[7] See note 6 supra.
[8] Justice Powell, in his dissent in Elrod, implied that patronage hiring practices may infringe first amendment interests more strongly than patronage firing practices do. See 427 U.S. at 380-81 & 381 n.4, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (Powell, J., dissenting).
[9] In addition, the Elrod plurality opinion is not necessarily controlling. Justices Stewart and Blackmun, who concurred in Elrod, concurred only in the judgment. They specifically refused to join in the "plurality's wide-ranging opinion," and they also specifically declined "to consider the constitutional validity of a system that confines the hiring of some governmental employees to those of a particular political party . . .." 427 U.S. at 374, 96 S.Ct. at 2690. Although Justice Stevens might well join the plurality, see Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1972) (Stevens, Circuit Judge), cert. denied. 410 U.S. 928, 943, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973); see also Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 189, 99 S.Ct. 983, 994, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979) (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment) (Illinois cannot discriminate among political parties in access to the ballot), either Justice Stewart's or Justice Blackmun's vote would still be needed to create a majority. In order to apply the Elrod plurality's opinion to the promotion and hiring practices at issue in this case, this court would therefore have to compare that decision with other Supreme Court decisions to determine Elrod's general validity.
Some courts and commentators have suggested that the Elrod plurality opinion is fully

consistent with other Supreme Court decisions, and that basing hiring or promotion for government jobs on political affiliation is unconstitutional per se. See Finkel v. Branti, 457 F.Supp. 1284, 1289 n.9 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (Elrod concurrence and plurality both rely on Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 57 [1973] [broadly prohibiting the conditioning of government benefits on the exercise of first amendment rights]), aff'd 598, F.2d 609 (2d Cir.) (unpublished order), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 3095, 61 L.Ed.2d 871 (1979); Stegmaier v. Trammell, 597 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (5th Cir. 1979) (collecting authorities); Rosenthal v. Rizzo, 555 F.2d 390, 392 (3d Cir. 1977). Cf. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 605-06, 87 S.Ct. 675, 685, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967) ("the theory that public employment which may be denied altogether may be subjected to any conditions, regardless of how unreasonable, has been uniformly rejected"); United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S.Ct. 556, 569, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1949) ("[n]one would deny" "that Congress may not enact a regulation providing that no Republican, Jew or Negro shall be appointed to federal office") (dicta). See generally Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561, 569-72 (7th Cir. 1972) (Stevens, J.) (discussing Supreme Court cases), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928, 943, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973). See also Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 234, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 1799, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977) (it is clear "that a government may not require an individual to relinquish rights guaranteed him by the First Amendment as a condition of public employment") (citing Elrod plurality opinion, Perry, and Keyishian). In addition, there is a strong argument that the Seventh Circuit's decision in Lewis, supra, demonstrates that the Elrod plurality opinion is the law in this circuit, and that patronage promotion and hiring practices may be illegal per se under applicable circuit authority. Cf. pp. 1353 1354 infra. Nevertheless, since the plaintiffs do not have standing to raise this point, it is not desired here.
[10] The plaintiffs also suggest that the court could grant them summary judgment on the issue of hiring merely as further implementation of the present consent decree. The court questions whether such a result would be possible, especially in the absence of documented, massive violations of the decree. That question need not be decided, though, given the result reached today by the court.
[11] In first amendment cases of this nature, a balancing test is usually used. See generally, L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, §§ 12-1 to 12-36 (discussing first amendment doctrine). Under fourteenth amendment analysis, strict scrutiny is applied when a fundamental interest or suspect classification is at stake. See generally San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); Tribe, §§ 16-1 to 16-57, 13-1 to 13-31.
In first amendment balancing cases that involve substantial infringements of protected first amendment rights, the balancing analysis usually reduces to the strict scrutiny test. See note 12 infra. Therefore, the court will occasionally use the phrase "strict scrutiny" to refer both to fourteenth amendment analysis and to the tilted first amendment balancing approach justified by the first amendment violations found herein.

[12] Deprivations of political and associational rights can be analyzed under both the first and fourteenth amendments. See Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 n.3, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (collecting authorities). The Fifth Circuit's discussion of this point in Morial v. Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, 565 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887, 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978), is instructive.
The plaintiffs couch their complaint in the language of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment as well as in the language of the first. While it is true that a first amendment claim typically takes the form of an assertion that the government cannot deprive the plaintiff of some freedom and an equal protection claim takes the form of an assertion that the government may not single out the class of which the plaintiff is a member for deprivation, it is equally true that every first amendment claim can be transformed into an equal protection claim merely by focusing upon the classification that every legislative scheme embodies. It is, therefore, generally appropriate to employ the same standard of scrutiny to the derivative equal protection claim as would be applied to the underlying claim of a substantive deprivation. See American Party v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 778, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). The method of equal protection analysis, however, retains independent worth even in such cases. Highlighting the legislative classification serves to illumine the state's interest in burdening those of the plaintiff's class and the necessity of doing so in order to advance that interest.
565 F.2d at 304 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).
In first amendment cases, a court usually identifies the infringed first amendment rights and the asserted government interests. It then "balances" one against the other. The weight of the government interests needed to justify the decision and the closeness of the meansend "fit" between the interests and the decision varies directly with the importance of the plaintiff's infringed interests and the degree of the infringement. See Morial, 565 F.2d at 300; Barry v. District of Columbia Board of Elections, 448 F.Supp. 1249, 1252 (D.D.C.1978), appeal dismissed, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 432, 580 F.2d 695 (D.C.Cir.1978). Under the fourteenth amendment, certain kinds of classifications are subject to "strict scrutiny," while most classifications receive almost no scrutiny at all. See Wilson v. Harris, 478 F.Supp. 1046, 1049-50 (N.D.Ill. 1979) (collecting authorities). A sliding-scale balancing approach has generally been rejected under the fourteenth amendment. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). But see Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 188, 99 S.Ct. 983, 993, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979) (Blackmun, J., concurring); Woodward v. City of Deerfield Beach, 538 F.2d 1081, 1082 n.1 (5th Cir. 1976) (suggesting that Supreme Court has used a balancing test in equal protection cases involving candidates). See also note 11 supra.

[13] It is not relevant that the defendants are acting pursuant to their own discretion and that their conduct is not mandated by any statute.
The promise of equal protection of the laws is not limited to the enactment of fair and impartial legislation, but necessarily extends to the application of these laws. The basic principle was stated long ago in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-374, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886):
"Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution."
United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1973) (en banc). Accord, Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).
[14] This is not to say that some narrow types of content restriction are not permissible. See Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1202 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291, 58 L.Ed.2d 264 (1978).
[15] The Seventh Circuit has recently held that Mosley remains good law. See Brown v. Scott, 602 F.2d 791, 794 (7th Cir. 1979). See also Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1202 (7th Cir.) (following Mosley), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291, 58 L.Ed.2d 264 (1979).
[16] Cf. Morial v. Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, 565 F.2d 295, 301 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887, 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978) (resign to run statute was not a penalty on the belief or expression of any particular idea).
[17] See Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944).
[18] Even if the plaintiffs are required to prove a "substantial, perhaps massive, political effort," they have done so here. The defendants' stipulations, see pp. 1324-1325 supra, show that many of the over twenty thousand patronage employees perform political precinct work. There are an average of four patronage employees for each precinct in the City, and there are other such employees in many precincts in the area of the County outside the City. The existence of a force of many thousands of employees for the purpose of helping regular Democrats win election over Independents shows, by itself, that the regular Democratic defendants make a "substantial, perhaps massive, political effort."
The defendants also argue that the plaintiffs must prove that the scope of the challenged patronage practices must be "substantial relative to the size of the electorate." This argument is based on language from the plurality opinion in Elrod: "Patronage thus tips the electoral process in favor of the incumbent party, and where

the practice's scope is substantial relative to the size of the electorate, the impact on the process can be significant." Elrod, 427 U.S. at 356, 96 S.Ct. at 2681.
The court finds, however, that the crucial part of this passage is that which refers to tipping the electoral process in favor of the incumbent party. The Seventh Circuit cases have held, in effect, that that can be demonstrated by a showing that patronage is "an advantage," or "an actual, significant advantage" in elections. The scope of the patronage effort in relation to the size of the electorate can be probative of this fact, but proof of any particular ratio is not essential. It is sufficient that the advantage be proven by any appropriate means. See pp. 1337-1338 infra.
[19] Similarly, voters have a right not to have the campaigns of the candidates they support deliberately disadvantaged by official action. See pp. ___ _ ___ supra.
[20] Cf. Barry v. District of Columbia Board of Elections, 448 F.Supp. 1249, 1252 (D.D.C.1978) (absent discrimination against identifiable class, candidacy restriction is not subject to strict scrutiny) (resign to run statute), appeal dismissed, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 432, 580 F.2d 695 (D.C.Cir.1978).
[21] See also notes 11, 12 supra.
[22] See Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 91 S.Ct. 1940, 29 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968).
[23] The other major contributor in this area has been Professor Paul Brest. See Brest, Palmer v. Thompson: An Approach to the Problem of Unconstitutional Legislative Motivation, 1971 Sup.Ct.Rev. 95; Brest, The Supreme Court, 1976 Term — Forward: In Defense of the Anti-discrimination Principle, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1 (1976). See also, e. g., Symposium, Legislative Motivation, 15 San Diego L.Rev. 925 (1978).
[24] Ely's articles have been frequently cited by the Supreme Court for illumination of this area. See Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 280 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 1112 n.10, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979) (citing Centrality and Limits); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 268 n.18, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977) (citing Legislative and Administrative Motivation). See also Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 283, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2298, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (citing Legislative and Administrative Motivation); Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 148-49 n.4, 96 S.Ct. 1357, 47 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (citing Legislative and Administrative Motivation); Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 262 n.20, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 39 L.Ed.2d 306 (1974) (citing Legislative and Administrative Motivation); San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 26 n.62, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973) (citing Legislative and Administrative Motivation); Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 264, 91 S.Ct. 1940, 29 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) (White, J., dissenting) (citing Legislative and Administrative Motivation).

[25] The protected interest in being free from official discrimination against your candidacy can be stated, alternatively as an affirmative right: the right to equal participation in the process of running for office. Cf. Morial v. Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, 565 F.2d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc) (discussing interrelationship of first and fourteenth amendment rights), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887, 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978). Whether it is analyzed in terms of improper discriminatory motivation, or as a violation of this affirmative right is irrelevant. Either way, the plaintiff needs to show (1) an improper government purpose, and (2) some actual discriminatory effect, that is, some actual advantage received by his or her opponents and not received by the plaintiff.
[26] Or, to use synonymous analytical jargon, Shakman and the ballot placement cases hold that any classification based on political beliefs that is used to burden the attempt of particular groups to compete in the political process is suspect under the first amendment. Accord, Trafelet v. Thompson, 594 F.2d 623, 632 (7th Cir.) (dicta), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 219, 62 L.Ed.2d 142 (1979). Any legislative or administrative decision that embodies a suspect classification is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. See pp. 50 - 52 infra.
[27] See also Rhode Island Minority Caucus v. Baronian, 590 F.2d 372, 376 (1st Cir. 1979) ("privilege of holding public employment . . may not be denied by the state on the basis of distinctions which violate federal constitutional guarantees").
[28] The question of whether precinct work is coerced will remain relevant in the creation of a remedy. The court would not prevent current patronage employees from continuing to do voluntary, uncompelled precinct work. Similarly, it would not prohibit the defendants from hiring any individual who has done precinct work on their behalf in the past. It would be appropriate, however, to bar the defendants from ever including consideration of an individual's past history of precinct work, or the lack thereof, in any employment decision. See Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561, 56768 (7th Cir. 1972) cert. denied, 410 U.S. 928, 943, 93 S.Ct. 1364, 35 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973). Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 96, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947) (Congress cannot pass law barring Republicans from public jobs). See also pp. 1345-1349 infra.
[29] Thus, the Seventh Circuit's determination in Shakman that coercion is relevant is not binding on this court as the law of the case. See note 6 supra.
[30] The court of appeals continued: "Finally, as a general principle, questions of motive and intent are particularly inappropriate for summary adjudication." Cedillo, at 11. This is a rare case where a question of motive and intent is conceded by the defendants, making summary adjudication proper.
[31] The absence of additional direct evidence as to meeting dates, particular acts, etc., demonstrating the creation of the conspiracy is not dispositive. Circumstantial evidence may provide adequate proof of the existence of the conspiracy. Hampton, 600 F.2d at 621; Hoffman-La Roche, 447 F.2d at 872.

[32] The conspiracy allegations of Counts IV, V, and VI are broad. Under recently developed Seventh Circuit law, they might have had difficulty withstanding a motion to dismiss. Compare Sparkmun v. McFarlin, 601 F.2d 261, 268 (7th Cir. 1979) (en banc) (plurality opinion of Judge Sprecher) (dismissing complaint for insufficiently specific pleading of conspiracy with immune state court judge), with id., at 274-81, (Swygert, J., dissenting) (emphasizing the limited nature of the plurality's holding) (discussing proof of civil conspiracy). Since the factual record before the court contains sufficient uncontroverted evidence to prove the conspiracy, as discussed in the text, and the defendants have not objected to the sufficiency of the pleadings or the court's consideration of the evidence, any inadequacy that may have existed has been waived, see Rule 15(b), Fed.R. Civ.P., and the court may proceed to grant summary judgment. See 3 Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 15.13[2] (2d ed. 1979) (collecting cases).
[33] It is not relevant that the defendants do not admit that helping elect regular Democratic candidates is the only purpose for their patronage hiring practices. Under Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 270 n.21, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977), and Mt. Healthy City School Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977), a decision is presumed to be improperly motivated once the plaintiffs show that an improper motivation was present. The defendants may rebut that presumption by showing that legitimate purposes support the decision, and that the same decision would have resulted absent the impermissible purpose. See Comment, Proof of Racially Discriminatory Purpose Under the Equal Protection Clause: Washington v. Davis, Arlington Heights, Mt. Healthy, and Williamsburgh, 12 Harv.C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 725 (1977). See also Finkel v. Branti, 598 F.2d 609, No. 78-7494 (2d Cir. Feb. 20) (unpublished order) (discussing Mt. Healthy), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 3095, 61 L.Ed.2d 871 (1979).
The defendants in this case have never claimed that the challenged patronage practices would be carried out in the same way if they did not help elect Democrats. Nothing in the record would support such a claim.
[34] Note that since the patronage employees of any one officeholder are expected to work to support the candidates of the entire regular Democratic ticket, it is the ticketwide effect of the defendant conspirators that must be studied. The fact, for example, that Sheriff Elrod's predecessors in the last two dozen years have included two Republicans and an Independent, see Elrod, 427 U.S. at 382 n.5, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (Powell, J., dissenting), does not decrease the unconstitutional impact of the Sheriff's office's patronage practices on the entire electoral process of Cook County.
[35] Subsequent to the stipulated admissions made by the defendants, they filed affidavits containing expert testimony denying the existence of any significant advantage. See Memorandum of Non-Consenting Defendants in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, at 11. These affidavits cannot override the admissions, for the admissions made by the defendants are binding upon them, and the

defendants have not sought to withdraw the admissions. Any evidence inconsistent with the stipulated admissions cannot be considered by the court. Rule 36(b), Fed.R. Civ.P.; see 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2264.
[36] The results of two campaigns are illustrative. In one, defendant Elrod only won by 10,500 votes in his 1970 race for sheriff against Bernard Carey. That total is smaller than the admitted number of regular Democratic patronage employees in Cook County.
The other campaign is the one which led to this lawsuit. The plaintiff Shakman ran with Al Raby as independents. Odas Nicholson and Attye Belle McGee ran as regular Democrats. The results were:

Raby (I) Nicholson (D) Shakman (I) McGee (D)

14,145 12,330 11,707
9,205

Plaintiff Shakman lost his campaign for election as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention by only 623 votes. Although the exact number of patronage workers in the district is not before the court, it is clear that a small number of patronage workers, if they have any effectiveness at all, could help swing this and other close elections. And it is clear that they do have some effectiveness, for the defendants have stipulated that patronage precinct workers "help elect" Democratic candidates.
The defendants note that the plaintiff is white while the other three candidates were blacks. They suggest that that may be the most important factor for Mr. Shakman's defeat in this predominantly black district. That argument does not refute Mr. Shakman's point, however. The effect of the defendants' patronage practices may well have been a dispositive factor in the election, that is, a but-for cause of the result, even if it was not the most important factor.
Similarly, it is not important that the regular Democrats do not win all elections in Chicago or Cook County. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has interpreted the Constitution and applicable Supreme Court precedent as prohibiting any government action significantly favoring one party or political belief over another unless the action is necessary to further a compelling state interest. As long as the plaintiffs can prove, as they have in this case, that the challenged conduct constitutes an advantage that may give the regular Democrats more elections than they would otherwise win, they have made out their claim.

[37] The plaintiff has presented enough evidence to warrant summary judgment on this question. The admission that persons usually get sponsorship in exchange for past services or a promise of future services is particularly strong evidence on this point.

[38] The above argument is based on the assumption that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that all of the precinct work done by sponsored employees is coerced. If the court's legal analysis is incorrect, and proof of coerced work is held to be part of the plaintiff's case, the stipulated admissions of the parties may still be sufficient to demonstrate the requisite coercion. The admissions can be said to prove the following:
1. The challenged patronage hiring practices are massive in scope, and involve a large percentage of the total number of civilian, non-teacher government jobs available in Cook County.
2. Notice of vacancies for the patronage jobs is often available only through regular Democratic committeemen.
3. Sponsorship is usually granted in exchange for past political work [and]/or for a promise of future political work. (The court notes that "usually" is defined as "[i]n a usual or wonted manner; according to customary, established or frequent usage; commonly, customary, ordinarily; as a rule. Oxford English Dictionary at 477 [1933 ed.]. See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, at 1410.) Though there may be occasional exceptions, sponsorship is customarily, as a rule, conditioned on the performance of precinct work.
4. Precinct work that is so conditioned, as against the background of the evidence in general, and 1 and 2 in particular, is necessarily coerced.
5. The political precinct work of sponsored patronage employees helps win elections.
6. This provides an actual, significant advantage in elections.
The weak point of this argument is that it is conceivable that a substantial number of those patronage employees who received their job in exchange for prior services may subsequently work for the regular Democratic organization either "voluntarily" in gratitude for their job or because they like the boss and the candidates he supports. (The services of those who received their job in exchange for future political services is presumptively coerced, even though the consent decree in this case makes their promises unenforceable.) The number of such "voluntary" workers might be so substantial that the court could not say that the "advantage" received by regular Democrats because of the precinct work was a direct result of the coerced precinct work. As noted in the text, certain deposition excerpts were proffered to support such a claim, although the excerpts do not indicate the consideration for which the deponents received their job.
Summary judgment might still be appropriate, however. The admission made by the defendants only focuses on the post-employment precinct work of these employees. A considerable amount of pre-employment work must continually and necessarily be performed by prospective applicants who will use that work to obtain government jobs. The admissions of the defendants logically compel that this work, too, be considered in determining whether enough of the precinct work that "helps elect" regular Democrats is coerced work, for purposes of granting summary judgment.

It is possible that a court might decide that the resolution of this issue could only be done by a trial on the merits, at which general testimony on the scope and effect of coerced patronage work would be taken, as limited by the stipulations. On the other hand, a court might well conclude, as this court does, that no genuine issue of material fact really exists here, and that a court that refuses to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs is straining hard to avoid it. See p. 1342 supra.
[39] The court sees no point in conducting a detailed explication of the evidence concerning the non-consenting defendants' firing and promotion practices. Much of the evidence is summarized in the unpublished Supplemental Findings of Fact issued today. The following stipulated admissions, however, are of particular interest to the court because they, when read together, highlight some of the evidence regarding those practices.
29. No employee of the Park District hired for full-time work under a temporary appointment and whose work at the Park District has been deemed satisfactory has been discharged in the last three years because of the expiration of the temporary appointment. Persons hired by the Park District under temporary appointments frequently remain for extended periods of time as "temporary appointments." Persons who are performing satisfactory work, have satisfactory efficiency ratings and who are not discharged for other reasons and who do not obtain civil service status, are reappointed as temporary appointments. From time to time persons hired under temporary appointments pass civil service examinations and thus secure protected civil service status. By virtue of actual job experience gained as an employee of the Park District under a temporary appointment, persons obtain an advantage on civil service examinations over persons not so employed.
30. Many promotions in full-time (other than summer) employment are into temporary appointment positions. . . . Preference is given, in many instances, in promotions under temporary appointments in positions which are not policy-making or confidential in nature to persons with political sponsorship as described above, but such preference is only given to employees who the Park District finds to be fit and qualified for the position to which the promotion is being made.
. . . . .
32. The Superintendent and the Personnel Director from time to time receive telephone calls or other communications from Central Committee members asking that Park District employees be fired because of their failure to do satisfactory political precinct work, but the Park District's position is that the Superintendent has not, in fact, done so.
33. In response to requests of the kind referred to in Paragraph 30 above, the Park District from time to time transfers the employee to employment out of the ward of the sponsor if, in the judgment of the Superintendent and the immediate Supervisor of the employee, it is in the best interest of the Park District.

34. From time to time the Superintendent and the Personnel Director receive telephone calls or other oral communications from Central Committee members asking that Park District employees who are having employment difficulties with the Park District not be discharged, sometimes citing their good political standing. In some instances, consideration is given to these communications in giving these employees an opportunity to improve their work performance rather than being immediately discharged.
35. It is believed that the Park District on occasion, in the past, discharged employees upon the recommendation of the employee's political sponsor, usually because of a failure to do adequate political precinct work. It is the position of the Park District that since Mr. Kelly became its General Superintendent, the Park District has not followed such a practice of discharging employees. Mr. Kelly has no personal knowledge of such a practice while he has been employed by the Park District.
36. The Park District maintains a list of its employees by Parks, and it maintains records of the parks in each ward. The records of the Park District thus reflect the ward of residence of Park District employees. These records on occasion are used to respond to requests from Central Committee members for additional jobs for politically worthy persons from the ward.
. . . . .
38. One of the reasons for giving preference in hiring, as stated above, is to assist in providing regular Democratic political precinct organizations.
Stipulations of Fact Between Plaintiffs and Defendant, Chicago Park District, at 11-14. Certain of defendant Elrod's stipulations are quoted at pp. 1342-1343 supra.
[40] In its analysis in sections a and b, pp. 1345 1349 supra, the court has evaluated the factual record to determine whether it leaves no genuine issue of material fact as against the legal standard set by the Bohus test. The court could also conduct a second analysis performing a detailed review of the evidence under the "traditional" first and fourteenth amendment legal approach, see pp. 1331-1335 supra. The court has not considered the second factual analysis to be necessary, since it should be apparent from the factual discussion conducted in connection with the Bohus test that the defendants' challenged practices substantially infringe the plaintiffs' rights of political expression, association, and equal participation of voters in the electoral process. Under either approach, the facts justify the application of the strict scrutiny test to the patronage practices.
[41] It is an interesting question whether the possibly unconstitutional effects of the defendants' patronage practices on employees' and applicants' own rights can be considered by a court in the first amendment "balance," even though the plaintiffs cannot raise such violations for purposes of determining liability, see pp. 1327-1329 supra. The court has not considered those effects in this case.

[42] The court notes that many of the interests discussed above are not sufficiently compelling to justify the challenged patronage practices, even if the defendants could show that the practices were a necessary means towards achieving those goals.
[43] Many of the arguments made by the defendants confuse the best interests of the government and the best interest of the Democratic party. "`[C]are must be taken not to confuse the interest of partisan organizations with governmental interests.'" Abood, 431 U.S. at 260, 97 S.Ct. at 1812 (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment) (quoting Elrod, 427 U.S. at 362, 96 S.Ct. 2673 [plurality opinion]).
[44] "The holding of Shakman is in complete accord with our decision here." Lewis, 473 F.2d at 569 n.17.
[45] Lewis has been repeatedly relied on in subsequent Seventh Circuit cases, see, e. g., Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d 825, 827, 830 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968, 98 S.Ct. 513, 54 L.Ed.2d 455 (1977); Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515, 471 F.2d 488, 495 n.16 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 967, 93 S.Ct. 2150, 36 L.Ed.2d 688 (1973), and was specifically reaffirmed in Burns v. Elrod, 509 F.2d 1133, 1135 (7th Cir. 1975) affd 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976).
[46] It is the court's understanding that the plaintiffs are not challenging the defendants' use of political considerations in their employment decisions concerning policymaking officials, see Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976); Newcomb v. Brennan, 558 F.2d 825 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968, 98 S.Ct. 513, 54 L.Ed.2d 455 (1977). The court's decision today does not affect government employees who are in that category.
[47] The court notes, however, that a trial of the issues in this case would have general educational value. Under the spirit of the first amendment, it would be beneficial to the public for it to receive a full and detailed demonstration of how the electoral and public employment processes actually work in Cook County.
It is not the court's role to determine whether these benefits would outweigh the burdens that a trial would entail. That is a decision that must be made by the parties, consistent with the applicable law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[48] The court fully recognizes that a trial cannot be avoided merely because both sides have filed motions for summary judgment. 6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 56.13, at 56341 (2d ed. 1976) (collecting cases).
[49] The plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment on counts III and VI of the amended complaint are denied, and the defendants' motions for summary judgment on these counts are granted. See note 1 supra.
[50] See generally Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, 89 Harv.L.Rev. 1281 (1976); Altman, Implementing a Civil Rights Injunction: A Case Study

of NAACP v. Brennan, 78 Colum.L.Rev. 739 (1978); Berger, Away from the Court House and Into the Field: The Odyssey of a Special Master, 78 Colum.L. Rev. 707 (1978); Special Project — The Remedial Process in Institutional Reform Litigation, 78 Colum.L.Rev. 783 (1978). See also O. Fiss, The Civil Rights Injunction, (1978); note 28 supra.
[51] The court will also entertain suggestions, if necessary, as to the propriety and advisability of certifying this interlocutory summary judgment order for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2715.