Editorial: The pesky problems of independent consultants and aldermanic expense accounts

The municipal code of Chicago is notably explicit when it comes to aldermanic expense accounts, detailing 28 allowable categories from “holding a paper shredder event” to newspaper subscriptions to the acquisition of rain barrels. One of those permissive categories, No. 18, though, is proving dangerously vague: “Consultants or professional services incurred in connection with the performance of an alderman’s official duties.”

Ah yes, consultants. A word that can cover up a multitude of problems, especially when a consultant is also a former city employee.

According to Monday’s Tribune, Chicago aldermen cumulatively used some $48,000 of their annual expense allocation to make payments to a consulting firm run by Alonzo Williams, the Chicago Park District’s chief program officer from 2016-2021. Williams was asked to resign as part of the fallout from the Park District’s 2021 sexual abuse lifeguard scandal and subsequently placed on the city’s do-not-rehire list.

Williams was cited in an independent investigation as one of at least three Park District officials who mismanaged allegations of sexual harassment at the Oak Street beach operation and elsewhere by not adequately investigating complaints and reporting them to HR in a timely fashion. Those felled by the scandal also included Park District President and CEO Michael Kelly, who resigned before the report came out.

At the time of the report’s release, then Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she was “outraged and appalled by these findings, particularly those that show that the people entrusted to lead the Park District were aware of these heinous allegations of bullying, intimidation, sexual harassment, and assault and chose to do very little in response.”

Williams might not have been rehired, but the aldermen seemingly saw no reason not to hire his new consulting firm, and proxy, 8028 Consultants LLC, which, according to its listing on LinkedIn, specializes in “helping local government officials/business owners troubleshoot and assess the safety/operations of local park programs, maintenance, and management.”

That sounds a whole lot like what Williams got fired for not doing at the Park District.

And yet anyone with a search engine can find 8028 Consultants on the city’s list of contractors. 8028 appears 10 times on the list, designed to highlight contractors who receive cumulative payments of more than $10,000 in a year between August 2022 and May of this year.

Williams was not convicted or accused of any criminal offense, and he has a right to make a living. But what is the point of a “do not rehire” list if it is so easy to get around the situation by simply calling yourself a consultant? Why does that apparently fall outside the jurisdiction of the city’s Board of Ethics?

Aldermanic reasoning on this matter appears to have been (a), that Williams was very good because he still knew the ins and outs of Park District operations and (b), that Williams probably didn’t deserve what happened to him.

Ald. Michelle Harris (8th) told the Tribune that Williams “didn’t do” anything. Former Ald. Roderick Sawyer (6th) described him as a fall guy who was following orders from the top (presumably Kelly) and then had to fall on his sword.

That of course contravenes the independent investigation that resulted in the firing. That surely was the time for the aldermen to testify on this matter, not get around the rules by later hiring the same person as a consultant.

For his part, Williams has further protested his firing. “The Park District has acted beyond its lawful scope to defame my reputation and hinder my prospects to gainful employment,” he told the Tribune.

Whatever the accuracy of that statement, or the fairness of what happened, there is a bigger issue at stake here.

Neither aldermanic expense accounts nor independent consultancies should be used to get around the findings of independent investigative bodies, nor should they be a way to so easily circumvent “do-not-hire” designations. After all, there are many places beyond the city where a person can work.

Join the discussion on Twitter @chitribopinions and on Facebook.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.