Advocates of a new ordinance that would require more transparency in police disciplinary decisions received a tepid response and some tough questioning this morning from members of City Council's Police and Fire Committee.
Serious disciplinary decisions are made by the Chicago Police Board, a nine-person quasi-judicial body whose members are appointed by the mayor.
The ordinance is a response to a recent study by the Chicago Justice Project. It found that board members regularly miss meetings, that the board overrides the police superintendent's request to fire officers in most cases, and that decisions are made with little or no public explanation.
Alderman Robert Fioretti, who introduced the bill, said the board's unwillingness to fire problem officers is hindering the city's broad effort to improve police conduct.
Those efforts include appointment of a superintendent from outside Chicago and establishment of an independent board that reviews cases of police use of force.
"This is impacting other efforts to reform the Police Department," he said. The ordinance is an effort at "rebuilding the credibility of the board," he said.
The ordinance would:
The committee's chairman, Alderman Isaac Carothers, said he's amenable to working with Fioretti and the Police Board to craft a compromise.
But he also had some tough talk for Chicago Justice Project executive director Tracy Siska, who testified that the board's leniency is one cause of the $72 million the city paid out last year to settle lawsuits against the police.
"Don't mislead people," said Carothers. He went on to suggest that much of that sum was related to settlements in car crashes and other cases that don't involve misconduct.
Siska countered: "An engaged board might play some role in limiting exposure by the department."
Alderman James Balcer suggested the root of the problem lies elsewhere.
"As far as that $72 million, what we need is tort reform," he said.
Much of the discussion centered on the amount of work performed by board members and whether it justifies their stipends.
Siska contended that members attend a short meeting each month, and refused to document additional work they may perform on board business. And he said $25,000 a year would be considered a tidy salary, rather than a stipend, for many residents of Carothers' ward.
Carothers asked Siska whether he received a salary at the Chicago Justice Project, and whether he'd missed any of the organization's board meetings recently.
Max A. Caproni, executive director of the board, said members spend about 30 hours a month on their duties. They have to review the transcripts and watch videos of each disciplinary hearing, and many last six to eight hours.
Caproni said the board would be able to provide written decisions on each case without hiring extra staff.
"I don't see a problem w/ more transparency," said Carothers. "There could certainly be improvements to the ordinance as it stands now."
Other aldermen were less enthusiastic.
"If it ain't broke, why are we trying to fix it?" said Alderman Emma Mitts.