A months-long fight by ethics advocates to restrict the powers of City Hall’s mayor-controlled top attorney has ended with a compromise both sides said they support.
The City Council Ethics Committee on Monday advanced an ordinance that restricts when the city’s Law Department can attend investigative interviews and lays out when city attorneys can claim attorney-client privilege to avoid sharing records sought by the inspector general.
“The crux of the policy proposal is still there to ensure that we are protecting the integrity of these investigations,” Ethics Committee chair Ald. Matt Martin said after the unanimous vote. “At the end of the day, if we can land on a compromise that both sides are satisfied with, that’s a job well done.”
The push for the ordinance began when Inspector General Deborah Witzburg accused the mayor-controlled Law Department in a letter to aldermen of hindering investigations that “may result in embarrassment or political consequences to City leaders” throughout different mayoral terms.
At the time, Witzburg asked aldermen to change city law to eliminate the Law Department’s discretion over inspector general subpoena enforcement, block city attorneys from sitting in on investigative interviews and prevent the department from asserting attorney-client privilege to avoid sharing records.
Martin’s ordinance seeking to make the changes was stalled by a Johnson ally. But the North Side alderman used a legislative maneuver to end the stall tactic last month, teeing up Monday’s vote.
The compromise approved by Witzburg, Martin and Corporation Counsel Mary Richardson-Lowry was finally reached Saturday after months of negotiations.
In the new ordinance, Martin, 47th, dropped the push for Office of Inspector General subpoena enforcement changes. He also clarified that Law Department attorneys can attend investigative interviews in certain circumstances, including when an interviewee requests a city attorney and the Law Department agrees, when pending or threatened litigation is involved or when the inspector general grants approval.
The compromise deal also clarifies that city attorneys can assert attorney-client privilege to withhold records requested by the inspector general’s office, but requires the Law Department to provide the office a log of withheld materials and discuss if the materials can ultimately be shared. The office will also be able to review certain materials with protections.
And the ordinance codifies requirements for the inspector general’s office to follow professional standards and requires the inspector general to be a licensed Illinois attorney with at least seven years of experience.
The reform push came with support from a host of civic groups, including the League of Women Voters of Chicago, the Better Government Association, the Chicago Council of Lawyers and the Union League Club of Chicago. It is set to face a final full City Council vote Wednesday.
Richardson-Lowry, who had initially criticized the original ordinance as “legally deficient,” said Monday her team was not aware of the measure when it was first introduced.
“We didn’t know of its existence, had no opportunity to opine, and had we done so, we would have been able to point out its legal shortcomings and the absence of clear guardrails,” she said.
The substitute ordinance reflects “a lot of work” from her and Martin, she said. It reflects both Witzburg’s concerns and essential legal obligations for the Law Department, like limiting liability from subpoenas and preserving the “sacrosanct obligation” to have confidential discussions with clients, she said.
“It’s a different product with a better result,” Richardson-Lowry said. “At the end of the day, I’m comfortable that we have a product that reflects both the needs of that office and the duties and needs of this office.”
Witzburg shared a similarly positive tone after the vote. The ordinance that passed accomplished her two big goals, she said: “to protect the effectiveness and the integrity of OIG investigative interviews and to provide for our access to the city records we need to do our jobs.”
She praised Johnson’s administration for reaching the deal and said she hoped that the new ordinance would work, but pledged to flag her concerns to aldermen if they again arise.
Asked if the deal changed how she views Johnson’s approach to ethics reform, Witzburg, who has criticized the mayor’s efforts, praised his administration.
“It’s always the right time to do the right thing,” she said.
She said she has not discussed with Johnson whether or not he will appoint her to a second, final term. The mayor must make a decision on her future in the role by late October, and she hopes to remain inspector general.
“I think we are making real progress,” she said. “I think we are paying down the deficit of legitimacy at which the city operates. I think a decision made on the merits of the work we’ve done would allow me to continue.”
