Mayor Brandon Johnson and his predecessor Lori Lightfoot were accused Thursday of impeding the work of Chicago’s inspector general — by withholding documents, selectively enforcing subpoenas and demanding to have the Law Department sit in on interviews that “risk embarrassment” to the mayor.
The investigative roadblocks outlined by Inspector General Deborah Witzburg include picking and choosing which subpoenas to comply with and withholding altogether or unreasonably delaying the release of sensitive documents, such as emails and text messages.
In an explosive memo to the City Council released Thursday, Witzburg cited “at least ten investigations” since her appointment in April 2022 when the Law Department “demanded to attend” investigative interviews. The “vast majority” of those investigations involved “conduct of senior members of the Mayor’s office or high-ranking mayoral appointees.”
The inspector general said she refused to allow city attorneys to sit in on the interviews, fearing it could intimidate witnesses. Instead, the interviews were canceled, “blocking critical avenues of investigation,” she said.
Witzburg’s memo does not name names or pinpoint specific investigations. But it broadly describes four now-completed investigations in which the Law Department put up roadblocks to IG interviews.
The first investigation uses legal language indicating it could be related to Bally’s $1.7 billion proposal to build a casino and entertainment complex in River West.
Witzburg’s office set out to determine “whether the Host Community Agreement was tainted by any improper influences,” whether the city followed “applicable laws, regulations and best practices” and whether “city officials directed the awardee” to enter into a “lucrative lease with a third party based on improper influences.”
The Law Department allegedly interfered with that investigation by demanding to be present at interviews of “multiple high-ranking” employees of the mayor’s office, “multiple current and former city department heads” and a Council employee.
The second investigation was aimed at determining whether a “now-former elected official” misused city property and solicited campaign contributions from city employees.
In yet another case, the Law Department ran interference when the inspector general tried to interview an administrative assistant in the mayors office as part of its investigation into allegations that a “Cabinet-level Mayor’s Office employee” misused city time and resources.
The fourth case of interview interference impeded an investigation aimed at determining whether “a mayor or another city employee improperly directed removal of an individual from a City Council meeting.”
Witzburg also cited four more serious ongoing investigations impeded by interview interference.
They involve allegations of “potential bribery, an allegation of retaliation” by withholding city services and “multiple instances of alleged retaliation against individuals who made protected reports” to the inspector general’s office.
The Law Department’s demand to sit in on interviews — even after whistleblowers had “identified fears of retaliation for protected reporting” — is “egregiously obstructive,” Witzburg wrote.
“The pattern we are seeing is that, when we are conducting investigations which risk embarrassment to City Hall, the Law Department demands to be present at those interviews. That’s not a sensible way to conduct investigations,” Witzburg told the Sun-Times.
“We are certainly not gonna subject complainants, whistleblowers and witnesses to having the mayor’s lawyers glaring at them across the table. I’m concerned about intimidation. I’m concerned about a chilling effect on people making complaints. We cannot expect candor when the mayor’s lawyers are sitting in the room.”
Law Department spokesperson Kristen Cabanban released a statement that essentially denies the inspector general’s investigations were improperly impeded.
“For the past three decades, previous City inspector generals have properly accepted that the legal rights of City employees and the legal interests of the City rightfully justify our practices. There is both legal precedent through case law as well as procedural jurisprudence that dictates how we must conduct ourselves.”
Lightfoot’s spokesperson Joanna Klonsky could not be reached.
Ald. Matt Martin (47th), chair of the Council’s Ethics Committee, said he’s “very concerned” about the investigative impediments that Witzburg outlined and plans to remove them by strengthening the city’s ethics ordinance in the ways she recommended.
Among the specific changes she recommended:
• Clarify that city employees and officials have a “duty to cooperate” with the inspector general that “supersedes any assertion of privilege by or on behalf of the city.”
• Prevent the Law Department from “unilaterally substituting its judgment regarding which city records may be subject to oversight and accountability.”
• Strengthen city code to protect the inspector general’s ability to “enforce its lawfully-issued subpoenas without selective interference or delay” by the city’s Law Department.
“Chicagoans have very consistently sent a message to elected officials that we…need to shine a spotlight on that alleged misconduct — not hide it,” Martin said.
“Whether you’re talking about the raid on Anjanette Young’s home or the Hilco investigation, when something goes wrong, it shouldn’t matter how much you make. It shouldn’t matter what your title is. We need to move forward with those investigations in a quick and fulsome way.”
Better Government Association President David Greising couldn’t help but tie the alleged interference Witzburg cited to this week’s federal corruption conviction of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago).
“This is tantamount to, while the feds were investigating Madigan, having a lawyer who is connected to Madigan sit in on investigative interviews,” Greising said.
“This structure has a chilling effect on the independence of the inspector general’s office.”