IN THE EXECUTIVE ETHICS COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

In re:

SALVADOR GODINEZ and
JERRY BUSCHER

)
)

OEIGCase:

11-01738

OEIG FINAL REPORT (REDACTED)
Below is a final summary report from an Executive Inspector General. The General Assembly
has directed the Executive Ethics Commission (Commission) to redact information from this
report that may reveal the identity of witnesses, complainants or informants and "any other
infonnation it believes should not be made public." 5 ILCS 430/20-52(b).
The Commission exercises this responsibility with great caution and with the goal of balancing
the sometimes-competing interests of increasing transparency and operating with fairness to the
accused. In order to balance these interests, the Commission may redact certain information
contained in this report. The redactions are made with the understanding that the subject or
subjects of the investigation have had no opportunity to rebut the report's factual allegations or
legal conclusions before the Commission.
The Commission received a final report from the Governor's Office of Executive Inspector
General ("OEIG") and a response from the agency in this matter. The Commission, pursuant to
5 ILCS 430/20-52, redacted the final report and mailed copies of the redacted version and
responses to the Attorney General, the Governor's Executive Inspector General and to Salvador
Godinez and Jerry Buscher at their last known addresses.
The Commission reviewed all suggestions received and malces this document available pursuant
to 5 ILCS 430/20-52.
FINAL REPORT

I.

Allegation and Summary

The OEIG self-initiated this investigation in response to information it obtained that the
Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") hired a politically-connected, but otherwise
unqualified, person as [a senior prison position], namely [employee 1].
The investigation revealed that the [identifying information redacted] is a "Rutanexempt" position, and therefore it would not have been improper for the IDOC to hire [employee
1] for that position based, in part, on political affiliation. However, the investigation further
revealed that the IDOC violated its own policy by hiring [employee 1], because [employee l 's]
educational background and work history did not meet the written requirements for the
[redacted] position, as set out in the position description.

1

II.

Bacl{ground
A.

Rutan Hiring Procedures, Illinois Personnel Code Merit Selection Provisions,
and Other Applicable Hiring Policies

In 1990, the United States Supreme Court held in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois 1
that public officials could not use political affiliation and support as a basis for hiring,
promotion, transfer, or recall decisions for non policy-making positions. Policy-maldng
positions for which consideration of political affiliation is permitted have come to be known as
"Rutan-exempt." In Illinois, in order to determine whether a position is Rutan-exempt, the
Department of Central Management Services ("CMS") conducts a technical review of each
position description? CMS and the Civil Service Conunission also review position descriptions
to detennine whether a position contains policy-making responsibilities such that the position
should be exempt from the merit selection provisions of the Personnel Code. 3
Positions that are both Rutan-exempt and exempt from the merit selection provisions of
the Personnel Code are referred to as "double-exempt." Under the CMS Personnel Transactions
Manual, certain double-exempt positions are filled using a transaction called an "exempt
appointment."4 Because such double-exempt positions are exempt from the merit and fitness
section of the Personnel Code, prospective employees are not evaluated by CMS before being
eligible for hire. Instead, the Personnel Transactions Manual provides that before making an
exempt appointment, the hiring agency, such as IDOC, "is responsible for ensuring the candidate
meets the minimum training and experience qualifications for the position" as outlined in the
position description. 5 An agency may also have additional internal policies regarding position
qualifications or requirements. For example, IDOC has an internal policy that further provides
that applicants for employment with the Department must, among other things, "[m]eet the
educational and experience requirements of the position for which applying. " 6 The IDOC policy
does not waive that requirement with regard to exempt or double-exempt positions. 7
B.

Executive Inspectors General Review of State Hiring Practices

In 2009, the General Assembly amended the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act8
("Ethics Act") and, among other things, expanded the duties of Executive Inspectors General to
include the following duty:

497 U.S. 62 (1990).
See Administrative Order No. I (1990).
3
20 ILCS 415/4d.
4
CMS Personnel Transactions Manual, Section 2, p. 21.
5 !d.
6
!DOC Administrative Directive 03.02.106, II.H.l.c. (Effective 111/2002).
7
The !DOC policy does provide that the process of"[i]nterviewing and selection of applicants for exempt positions
shall be conducted as determined necessary by the [Director]." !DOC Administrative Directive 03.02.106, II. H.3.
(Effective 11!/2002).
8
5 ILCS 430/1-l et seq.
I

2

2

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 ofIllinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990), and with all applicable employment laws. 9
As a result of this amendment to the Ethics Act, the Executive Inspector General for the
Agencies of the Illinois Governor has reviewed various State agency hiring practices, including
the practices set forth in this report.

C.

[Redacted) Correctional Center

[This section identifies and describes the prison to which employee 1 was assigned and
its personnel structure]. 10

D.

Position Description for [Employee l's position).

According to the established position description, the [redacted] is a double-exempt
position charged with "formulating, organizing, and directing the overall Program Services" for
[redacted]. The [redacted] position is "administratively responsible and accountable for
execution of policies and procedures in management of the institution while serving as Duty
Warden" and is expected to conduct "daily routine inspection tours of the institution for security,
safety, and sanitation."
!DOC's [redacted] position description contains a list of six specialized skills and
knowledge "necessary for the successful performance of the work of th[ e] position." The first
two relate to education and work experience, and the last four pertain generally to knowledge of
prison administration. The six specialized skills and knowledge in the position description are: 11
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

E.

Requires knowledge, skill and mental development equivalent to completion
of four years college supplemented by a Master's degree in public or
business administration, sociology, penology, behavioral sciences or a related
field.
Requires at least two years professional supervisory experience in a
correctional facility, public or private service, or social welfare organization.
Requires thorough knowledge of the methods of prison or institution
administration.
Requires thorough knowledge of the principles and practices of penal
administration and criminology.
Requires thorough knowledge of the methods and techniques of developing
and conducting progran1s.
Requires thorough knowledge of the attitudes, problems and behavior of
residents under restraint.

[Employee l's) Educational Background and Employment History

9

5 ILCS 430/20-20(9).
[Redacted].
11
The requirements are not numbered in the position description, but are here for ease of reference.

10

3

i.

Education

[Redacted]. [Employee I' s] application materials, wherein he listed the number of
semester hours completed in various fields of study, did not reveal any coursework in criminal
justice, criminology, business administration, penology, behavioral sciences, or public
administration. [Employee 1's] application materials reveal that he completed six hours of
coursework in sociology.

ii.

WorkExperience

[Employee 1's] work experience, according to his resume, included positions:
•
•
•

teaching theatre;
managing the campaign office for his father's campaign, [redacted]/ 2 and
managing a movie store.

[Redacted].
III.

Investigation
A.

Interview of [Employee 1]

On January 5, 2012, investigators interviewed [employee 1]. [Employee 1] stated that in
the summer of 2011 he was looking for new employment because of threats of layoff from his
position with [redacted]. After learning about the [redacted] vacancy from a family friend,
[employee 1] applied and was interviewed in August 2011 by IDOC Director Salvador Godinez,
Executive Chief to the Director Jerry Buscher, and a third IDOC employee whose name
[employee 1] could not recall. 13
[Employee 1] said that he believed he would be a good fit as [redacted] because of his
experience at [redacted]. In that position, he taught a substance abuse prevention course to
junior high students, young people who had dropped out of high school, and juveniles on
probation. He also oversaw summer youth programs, which included assessing operational
needs, including staffing and budget issues. [Employee 1] also thought his personal skill set,
being a big picture thinker, and having good people skills, would also lend itself well to the
position.
[Employee 1] was shown a copy of the [redacted] position description and asked whether
his education and experience met the six requirements. [Employee 1] said that he did not meet
the third, fourth, or sixth requirements. With respect to the first requirement, [employee 1] stated
that his degrees were not directly related to the degrees listed in the first requirement, but said his
coursework involved public speaking and communication. [Employee 1] also said that his acting
12

[Redacted].
Investigators determined that the third !DOC employee in [employee 1's] interview was [redacted]. [Redacted]
informed investigators that he did not have any input into [employee l's] hiring.
13

4

classes were related to behavioral sciences. [Employee I] said that he did not meet the second
requirement because he did not have two years supervisory experience in a correctional facility,
public or private service, or social welfare organization. He noted, however, that he had
supervisory experience as Assistant Manager at a movie store and as Office Manager for his
father's campaign. Finally, [employee I] stated that although he did not have knowledge on the
methods and techniques of developing programs as stated in the fifth requirement, he did
implement curriculum for nearly five years while working at [redacted].
[Employee I] said that during the interview and selection process, he raised the issue that
he had no correctional experience and was assured that he would receive training once hired.
After he was hired, IDOC employee [employee 2], provided [employee 1] with an extensive list
of objectives designed to "establish the groundwork upon which [his] success and effectiveness
as an [redacted] will depend." The objectives would essentially bring [employee I] up to speed
with the operations of the institution and program areas. The objectives were to be completed
within [employee 1's] first 90 days on the job.

B.

Interview of [Employee l's former employer]

On August 22, 2012, investigators interviewed [employee 1's former employer]. The
[employer] said that as a[n employee], [employee 1's] duties included teaching State curriculum
to students in grades four through seven or eight. The [employer] further stated that [employee
1] did not have any supervisory responsibilities.
When asked whether [employee 1] would have gained any knowledge of (a) methods of
prison or institution administration or (b) principles and practices of penal administration and
criminology, the [employer] responded, "Absolutely not." The [employer] also stated that as an
employee in the [redacted], [employee 1] did not have any interaction with criminal offenders or
any type of residents under restraint. 14 According to the [employer], [employee 1] did gain
knowledge and experience related to conducting programs, but that he did not develop any
programs while employed at [redacted].

C.

Interview of IDOC Executive Chief to the Director Jerry Buscher

On February 15, 2012, investigators interviewed Jerry Buscher, Executive Chief to the
Director. Mr. Buscher stated that he has seen position descriptions for an [redacted] position in
the past, but that he has never used a position description to assess whether an applicant is
qualified. Mr. Buscher stated that he knows what qualifications are required for the positions
because of his extensive 23-year career at IDOC. Mr. Buscher said that he does not know if
written requirements of a position are compared to an applicant's resume prior to filling the
position.

14

The [employer] stated that [employer] does not house residents under restraint; however, [employer] does have a
contract with Sheridan Correctional Center to house electronically monitored offenders. !DOC monitors the
offenders, and [employer] provides the treatment. However, [redacted] did not have any interaction with any
[employer] criminal offender.

5

Mr. Buscher stated that exempt positions are not Rutan-covered, and the Director can hire
[redacted] in such a position if he wants. When asked whether he was aware of any limitations
on appointments to these positions, Mr. Buscher replied that common sense drives the selection
process and the interviewers try to match up the applicant's skill set with the facility. For
instance, Mr. Buscher said that he would not send an applicant who does not have a conections
Mr. Buscher stated that IDOC is absolutely less
background to a high security facility.
concerned with an applicant for an [redacted] position having prior correctional experience than
an applicant for an Assistant Warden of Operations position.

Mr. Buscher stated that he pmiicipated in [employee 1's] interview for the [redacted]
position at [redacted]. Although Mr. Buscher did not specifically recall [employee 1's]
background or interview, Mr. Buscher said that [employee 1] was [redacted]. For example,
IDOC has employed former educators as Assistant Wardens of Programs, and many of them had
done very well.

D.

Interview ofiDOC Director Salvador Godinez

On May 30, 2012, investigators interviewed IDOC Director Salvador Godinez. Since
becoming Director, Director Godinez conducts interviews for exempt positions, including the
majority, if not all, interviews for Assistant Warden positions. Director Godinez said that
[redacted] positions are difficult to fill, and he selects applicants based on a combination of the
applicant's resume and performance in the interview.
Director Godinez said that he interviewed and selected [employee 1] for the [redacted]
position because [redacted] is a [redacted] facility that needs progrmn creativity to engage
inmates. Director Godinez stated that he was aware that there were written requirements for the
[redacted] position, but had not seen them. Nonetheless, Director Godinez said that he was
knowledgeable about what was required of the position because he served as a [redacted] during
his career. Director Godinez stated that while education is important, he looks primm·ily to
intangibles like energy and thought process when filling [redacted] positions.
Director Godinez said that though it is not related to any of the fields outlined in the first
requirement in the position description, [employee 1's] [redacted] degree fits with what is
required of the position and could lend itself well to a [redacted] prison like [redacted]. Director
Godinez pointed to [employee 1's] experience at [redacted] as meeting the requirement that an
applicant possess knowledge of the methods and techniques of developing and conducting
programs. Director Godinez confirmed, however, that [redacted] did not meet any of the
remaining requirements outlined in the job description.
Director Godinez said that the requirement outlined in the position description that an
applicant has thorough knowledge of the principles and practices of penal administration and
criminology is absolutely important, because when acting as [redacted], an [redacted] would be
in charge of the entire facility during an emergency situation. However, Director Godinez stated
that all new [redacted] receive [redacted] training to ensure they are competent to be in charge if
the need arises. Director Godinez said that he would not have hired [employee 1] for a position
at a [redacted] security facility due to his lack of conectional experience, but said that [redacted]
6

security facilities do not have many emergency situations during which [employee 1] could be
responsible as [redacted].
Director Godinez was shown IDOC Administrative Directive 03.02.106. Director
Godinez stated that he was not aware that the administrative directive required that an applicant
"meet the educational and experience requirements for the position for which applying."
Director Godinez said that based on the written requirements for the position, [employee I] was
not qualified for the position; however, Director Godinez said that, in his opinion, [employee 1]
was qualified to perfmm the job duties of an [redacted].

IV.

Analysis

Under IDOC policy, the Director is empowered to determine the manner in which IDOC
conducts interviews and selection for exempt positions. IDOC Administrative Directive
03.02.1 06, II.H.3. In particular, IDOC policy states that an applicant for employment with the
Department must, among other things, "[m]eet the educational and experience requirements of
the position for which applying." IDOC Administrative Directive 03.02.106, II.H.l(c). In
addition, according to CMS guidelines, the agency is responsible for ensuring that the applicant
meets the minimum educational, training, and experience requirements for the position. CMS
Personnel Transactions Manual, Section 2, p. 21.
[Employee 1] and IDOC officials who interviewed him for the [redacted] position all
confirmed that [employee 1's] education and experience did not meet the minimum requirements
of the established position description. Director Godinez specifically noted the importance of
correctional experience and knowledge of principles and practices of penal institutions because
the incumbent, acting as [redacted], would be in charge of the institution in an emergency
situation. Nevertheless, Director Godinez authorized the hiring of [employee 1], who did not
meet the written requirements for the [redacted] position as set forth in the position description.
In addition, neither Director Godinez nor Mr. Buscher reviewed the position description
prior to interviewing or selecting [employee 1] to familiarize themselves with the written
requirements of the position as set forth in the position description before assessing whether
[employee 1] was qualified. In fact, Director Godinez confirmed not having seen the position
description, although he knew written position requirements existedY Director Godinez
indicated that he relied on his prior experience working in a similar position to detem1ine
whether an applicant was qualified. Mr. Buscher understood that there were no hiring limitations
for double-exempt positions. Moreover, according to Mr. Buscher, the limitations or lack
thereof in the hiring of double-exempt employees with no correctional experience was not
limited to [employee 1].
Hiring [employee 1] as [redacted], a position for which he did not meet the educational or
experience requirements as set forth in the existing position description, violated IDOC policy

15

Notably, position descriptions are used not only to determine whether the position is exempt from Rutan
procedures and Personnel Code provisions, but also to detennine the appropriate level of pay commensurate with the
requirements and responsibilities. See 20 ILCS 415/8a(2); 80 Ill.Adm.Code §301.1 0.

7

and contravened CMS guidelines.
[redacted] is FOUNDED.
V.

Therefore, the allegation that IDOC improperly hired

Recommendations
Following due investigation, the OEIG issues this finding:

>-

FOUNDED -IDOC violated agency policy when hiring [employee 1] as
[redacted].

The OEIG recommends that the Governor's Office take appropriate action with regard to
the hiring of [employee 1] as [redacted] in light of the fact that he did not meet all of the written
employment requirements as set forth in the position description.
The OEIG also reconnnends that the Governor's Office ensure IDOC take appropriate
action to prevent the future hiring of individuals who do not meet all of the employment
requirements.
No further investigative action is needed, and this case is considered closed.
Date: August 31. 2012
Office of Executive Inspector General
for the Agencies of the Illinois Governor
607 East Adams, 14th Floor
Springfield, IL 62701
Sarah R. Kerley
Assistant Inspector General
Kasey Cook
Investigator # 119

8

STATE OF ILLINOIS

OFFICE OF THE GoVERNOR
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706

Pat Quinn
GOVERNOR

CONFIDENTIAL
VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL
September 27, 2012

Mr. Neil P. Olson
Deputy Inspector General and Chief of Springfield Division
Office of the Executive Inspector General
607 East Adams, 14th Floor
Springfield, IL 62701-1634
Re:

Response to Final Report in OEIG Case No. 11-01738

Dear Mr. Olson:
Please be advised that the Office of the Governor ("OOG") is in the process of finalizing its
response to the Office of the Executive Inspector General's ("OEIG') Final Report in case No. 1101738.· The OOG will provide a written response by Thursday October 4, 2012.
Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can provide any additional information.
~ly,

Jc!Pfi

F. Schomberg
,General Counsel

Cc:

Jack Lavin, Chief of Staff, OOG (via email, w/ encl.)

~--···

--··---------------·-··------

STATE OF ]LLINO!S

OFFICE OF THE GoVERNOR
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706

Pat Quinn
GOVERNOa

CONFIDENTIAL

VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL
October 4, 2012

Mr. Neil P. Olson
Deputy lnspector General and Chief of Springfield Division
Office of the Executive lnspector General
607 East Adams, 141h Floor
Springfield, lL 62701-1634

Re:

Response to Final Report In OEIG Case No. 11-01738

Dear Mr. Olson:
Enclosed please find the response of the Office of the Governor (''000") to the Office of the
Executive Inspector General's ("OEIG") Final Report in Case No. 11-01738.
Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,

~F.

Schomberg
General Counsel

Enclosures
Cc:

Jack Lavin, Chief of Staff, 000 (via email, w/ encl.)

......•.,.

___ ··-

-----

-- --· - ----. ----------------

----'"~---- --~--------

OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FOR THE AGENCIES OF THE ILLINOIS GOVERNOR
32 WEST RloHt>OLPH STlEET, SlJIT6 1900

CHJCAOO, ll.LINOlS 60601

(312) Bl4·5600

OEIG RESPONSE FORM

Return By:
20 Days After Receipt of Report

Case Number;
11-01738
Please check the box that applies.

o

We have implemented all of the OEIG recommendations.
(Provide details regarding action taken.)

o

We will implement all of the OElG recommendations but will require additional time.
We will report to OEIG within 30 days from the original return date.
(Provide details regarding action planned f taken.)

(over)
FORM400.31

l of2

March 2011

.,

...

-··

~

.

-~-

•'

'---·· ,_

----

.;

.....

1)}.

We are implementing one or more of the OEIG recommendations, however, we plan
~o depart from other OElG recommendations.
.
(Provide details regarding action planned I taken and any alternate plan(s).)
See attached.

o

We do not wish to implement any of the OElG recommendations.
(Explain in detail why and provide details of any alternate plan(s).)

6/fi~e of 4t {~<M.r'l'"~f&..._!.&.,

Print Agency and Job Title

\!:)-{
Date

FORM400.3 I

2 of2

(

/

;,1

March 20]1

.

--··~

..... - ·' ·-·- .-.

:

-~-.--··--·-~·

ADDENDUM TO OEIG RESPONSE FORM IN CASE NO. 11-01738

The Office of the Governor (OOG) has the following responses to the Office of the Executive
Inspector General's (OEIG) recommendations in the OEIG's Final Report in Case No. 11-01738:
l. OEIG Recommendation: For the Governor's Office to "take appropriate action with
regard to the hiring of
Correctional Center in light of the fact that he did not meet all of the written employment
requirements as set forth in the position description."

OOG Response: The OOG asked CMS 's Bureau ofPersonnel's Examining and
Counseling Division to review
·background against the written
employment requirements, although such analysis is not required for positions
that are both Rutan exempt and partially exempt from the Personnel Code.
CMS's Examining and Counseling Division determined that
, has
achieve_d the requisite education and employment experience equivalent lo the
; position.
written requirements for the,

2. OEIG Recommendation: For the Governor's Office to "ensure IDOC take appropriate
steps to prevent the future hiring of individuals who do not meet all of the employment
requirements."
OOG Response: The OOG will work with the Department of Corrections (the
"Department") to ensure that all senior staff members are counseled on the
appropriate steps that must be taken prior to hiring a candidate for employment.
The OOG will also work with the Department to ensure that appropriate processes
and controls are in place to ensure that the relevant written employment
requirements are reviewed and considered prior to the Department hiring a
candidate for employment.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call Office of the Governor General Counsel John
Schomberg, at

...