City settlement deal demands silence from whistleblowers fired by Chicago Treasurer Conyears-Ervin

In an extraordinary departure from usual practices at City Hall, the city’s $100,000 settlement agreement with whistleblowers who were fired by Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin prohibits them from publicly discussing their negative experiences in her office, records show.

Of more than three dozen settlements reached with city workers over the past five years, the deal that Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s administration reached with the treasurer’s ex-employees was the only one that contained what amounts to a gag order, the Tribune found. In a handful of cases, former employees agreed not to discuss the terms of their settlements, but they could still speak freely about their time in city government.

For the whistleblowers who had alleged that Conyears-Ervin used public resources for personal gain, the terms of the deal’s non-disparagement clause were so restrictive that they specifically included a ban on giving any “false and disparaging” statements to the media.

Entering into the agreement wasn’t the only step taken by the Lightfoot administration to keep the public from knowing about the allegations against Conyears-Ervin, a political ally. Her administration denied the Tribune’s public records request for the whistleblowers’ complaint, then sued the office of Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul after the office ordered the city to turn it over.

Not until Mayor Brandon Johnson took office did the city release the records related to the misconduct allegations.

A spokeswoman for Lightfoot didn’t address specific questions about the settlement or her communications with Conyears-Ervin but released a statement saying the mayor “was not involved in the negotiations in question.” A Law Department spokeswoman also declined to address questions other than to release a statement saying “the settlement was fully negotiated and agreed upon between all parties.”

A statement from Conyears-Ervin’s office acknowledged she spoke with Lightfoot about the whistleblowers’ allegations but said she did not influence the terms of the non-disparagement clause.

Her spokesperson said the treasurer’s discussion with Lightfoot was about how the former aides had “grossly misrepresented” her work, adding that the treasurer has focused running her office in ways that put “the ethical stewardship of taxpayer dollars at the center of everything it does.”

The Tribune first reported last month on the details surrounding allegations made by Tiffany Harper and Ashley Evans, two former aides in the treasurer’s office, in December 2020. In a letter to the city from the pair’s lawyers, they alleged Conyears-Ervin had used government workers to plan her daughter’s birthday party, repeatedly misused taxpayer resources and attempted to force BMO Harris — one of the banks where city money is deposited — to issue a mortgage tied to the building that houses the aldermanic office for the treasurer’s husband, Ald. Jason Ervin.

Conyears-Ervin has said she didn’t do anything wrong in asking BMO Harris about providing a loan to her husband’s landlord, even though as treasurer she oversees deposits of city funds with BMO and other banks. She also said she did not have public employees run personal errands for her while they were on duty but declined to address whether they did work for her on their personal time.

The allegations against Conyears-Ervin were reported at the time to the city’s inspector general, but the office hasn’t announced the results of any investigation it might be conducting. The office generally operates in secrecy except for its quarterly reports.

After the Tribune published details of the allegations, investigators under Inspector General Deborah Witzburg seized computers from the treasurer’s City Hall offices, though it’s not clear whether the action was connected to the accusations laid out in the letter.

Under terms of the two workers’ settlement agreement, finalized in October 2021, both “agree that they will not make any false and disparaging statements about their employment with the City, its work product, its employees, the termination of their employment or any other dealings of any kind between them and the City, to any third party, specifically including, without limitation, any past, present, or prospective employee of the City, any customer of the city or to any representative of any media.”

While such non-disparagement agreements had become common in private-industry employment lawsuits, they have come under criticism, particularly as the #MeToo era exposed how the deals could be used to force the silence of accusers. By the time the city offered the agreement, a recently enacted Illinois law had prohibited employers, with some exceptions, from cutting settlement deals that keep ex-employees from making “truthful statements” or talking publicly about “unlawful employment practices.”

When shown the language in the Harper-Evans deal, one attorney not involved in the settlement, Laura E. Schrick, noted that the terms prohibit only “false and disparaging” comments.

That wording, in theory, leaves the ex-employees free to speak about truthful actions. But practically speaking, talking could bring a city lawsuit and arguments over whether what they said was truthful.

“Even if you think you can prove the statement is true,” Schrick said, “if the city files suit against you, you are taking a risk and you will be expending significant time and likely money on legal fees to defend yourself.”

The Tribune reviewed 36 other settlement agreements with former city workers and found none specifically required them to promise not to disparage their employer.

For example, the city in November 2022 agreed to pay $225,000 to a former firefighter who alleged he had been called racist names, had his food thrown away and was temporarily assigned to other fire stations more than his co-workers were. The city, which denied wrongdoing in that case, didn’t put any gag order on the firefighter.

In another case settled in September 2021, months before Lightfoot settled the claims brought by Harper and Evans, a city firefighter filed a lawsuit alleging he had been fired for reporting that a superior officer had put unqualified workers at O’Hare airport, leading to a Federal Aviation Administration investigation. That worker was reinstated with a deal that allowed him the right to discuss what had happened.

Lightfoot’s administration settled the treasurer case at a time when her relationship with Conyears-Ervin and her powerful husband was transitioning from bitter enemies to close allies.

“The fact that out of 37 settlements only one had a nondisclosure and disparagement clause suggests that the treasurer received special treatment,” said Dick Simpson, a retired University of Illinois at Chicago professor and government ethics expert who served on the City Council and in recent years supported Lightfoot.

Lightfoot’s handling of the letter would have been unimaginable in her earliest days as mayor. Touting her experience as a former federal prosecutor and riding a wave of anti-establishment anger following Ald. Edward Burke’s criminal indictment, she promised to reform City Hall and bring new transparency.

The early days of her administration were also marked by repeated clashes with Ervin, who was head of the City Council’s Black Caucus. His wife, the treasurer, was frequently discussed as a potential mayoral challenger to Lightfoot.

Ervin led furious battles against Lightfoot over legal marijuana sales in late 2019 and emergency contracting during the COVID-19 pandemic. But he slowly evolved into an ally and surprised colleagues when he delivered an early endorsement for Lightfoot’s reelection campaign in September 2021. The city signed the settlement agreement a month later.

Chicago Tribune’s Joe Mahr contributed.

gpratt@chicagotribune.com