chicago police board annual report - 1993 to 1994

CITY of CHICAGO POLICE BOARD

1993 - 1994 BIANNUAL REPORT

Cc P77o2 1993/94 c.4

p ~ERT C. MAULE resident, Police Board

RICHARD M. DALEY Mayor , City of Ch icago

Digitized by ChicagoCop.com

POLICE BOARD MEMBERS

Victor P. Annendariz

Managing partner of the law firm of Armendanz and Magdziarz, and President of the Cermak Road Chamber of Commerce, he has been a member of the Police Boa rd Since 1989

Maxine C. Leftwich

A pnnC1pal in the investment banking and financial advisory firm of LS Financial Group. Inc • she has been a member of the Board since 1989

Albert C. Maule PRESIDENT

A partner witt'I the law film of HopkJns and Sutter he prew>usJy seM!ld on the Qty of Chicago s Pe~eJ Board He has seM!d as Presajent of the Pollce Board snce 1989

Scott J . Davrs

A partner at the law firm of Mayer Brown. and Pia he has been a member of the Board S¥lce 1989

James C. Murray

A renred Appellate Court Judge, he is a former Member of Congress. Alderman First Assistan t State's Attorney, and Assistant Attorney General He iorned the Board Ill

1995

Edna Selan Epstein

A former AS'SISta State's Attorney for Cook County and Partner at Scf.ey aria

Austin , she has been head of her owr lzw f.nn s;nce 1989 and a member of tne Board since 4 989

.Art Smith

President of Arts Transportat>on a tonner police sergeant ~ • sixteen years expenence • he has been a member of the Board sznce 1986

RussriH. E~

A aa;'t'I! ... .e ca::::::::X'!. :e ::2S~ a ~...:I!!' of Soar:l ~ • ~


The Police Board of the City of Chicago

1993-1994 BIANNUAL REPORT

Honorable Richard M. Daley Albert C. Maule Mayor President

City of Chicago Chicago Police Board

1121 South State Street Room 603 Chicago IL 60605

(312) 747-6268 (312) 744-8006 (TDD) J 1 J ,

.. ..


MESSAGE FROM THE PRES I DENT

The Police Board, established in 19 60 , i s requ i red by law t o

hold monthl y public meetings . Superintendent Ma t t Rodriguez and

members of his exempt staff regularly attend these mee t ings . Th

public ' s comments and questions at some o f t hese mont hly meetings

indicate there remains considerabl e public c on f usion abou t what c an

be discussed and accomplished in these forum s . Ther e also is

publi c confusion about the different roles of t he Poli ce Board and

t he Police Superintenden t, particularly with r espec t to

investigating allegations of police misconduc t. Although t he Board

has att empt ed t o keep these meetings proper ly focused and to

e liminate thi s c on f usion , some meetings seem t o r esu l t in

frust r a tion for all involved . Thus, I would like t o devot e my

remarks to reiterating both the legal and practical limitat i o n s of

these meetings in the hope o f reducing, i f not e l i mina ting , the

frustra tion level.

Some c itizens come to the Police Board public meetings t o

report instances of alleged police misconduct . When the Boa rd

explains that it cannot listen to the details of these c omp l a ints

in these meetings and refers them to the Department ' s Offi ce of

Professional Standards (OPS), and Internal Affairs Division ( I AD),

which investigate citizen complaints of police misconduc t, these

citizens sometimes express the view that t he Board does not car

about their complaints. This is incorrect . The Police Board

certainly abhors police misconduct. But there us ually are at least

two sides to each c ase. The Board's public meeting is not the f o r um

established by law for resolving whether police misc onduc t, in

1 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com

fac t, has occurred .

OPS i s headed by Gay le Shines , a lawy r ncl t m r p t CH f'C\l t ' 1 •

once OPS completes its investigation of a c i tj z n omp 1 cd n t q \in t t

a pol i ce officer , it make s a recommendation t·

Rodriguez whether to take d i sciplin ary action qc inn t t lw n ft I <' t T •

He reviews the OPS f indings and in consul tat ion wj th t hf" C i 1 y t. \\v

Department makes a f inal determination wh h t 0 P \ll ! U P

disciplinary action whic h results in a Pol i c Bo rd lw -1 i nq

review . During thi s process , the offic r ha s c r t in 1 q ncl

constitutional rights . The officer also has ccr in iqht~ i ~ l nq

from the police union' s contract with th Dep rtm n • 1\monq t 11 '

police offi cer ' s basic rights are the right to h v no j c o t h

charges , the right to present a de f ense , a nd th riqh 0 i

hearing by an impartial tribunal . Where the Su p rin ndcnt d c id .

to pursue a disciplinary action resu lting in a Polic Bo rd h rinq

or revi ew, the Board must review all the evidenc pr s n d by o h

sides in accordance with the legal proces s .

The Police Board monthly public meeting is no p rt of h

l egal process for reviewi ng evidence to determine wh ther o impos

di sci plinary action against a police o ff i cer . Th t is why t h

Board cannot listen to the details o f a citi zen ' s al leg tions of

police misconduct at its month ly public meeting . By th s m

token, t he Board cannot listen t o the de tails o f a polic offic r ' s

defense against allegatio ns of misconduct at s u ch a me ting . I f h

Board were to listen t o the details of c ompla ints and d fen s s

public meetings, the right o f the complainant and th po lie

Off i cer t o a fair hearing could be jeopardized.

2

uauc ueRARV CH\CAG0 FPERENCE COLLEC1'\0N

MUN\C\PAL RE


p

It is entirely appropriate for a citizen to ask Ms. Shines or

superintendent Rodriguez about the status of a particular

investigation at a Police Board monthly public meeting. It also is

appropriate for a citizen to ask the Board about the status of a

particular case the Board is hearing or has under review.

complaints about general police activity are appropriate, and may

assist the Board in performing its delegated duties, and the

Department in providing police service. But it is not appropriate

for citizens or officers to attempt to use the monthly public

meeting as a means for resolving the merits of a particular

investigation or case about alleged police misconduct.

The Board has a policy of requiring all persons who wish to

address the Board at a monthly public meeting to sign up in advance

with its Executive Director, Mark Iris . The policy was developed

at the suggestion of a former Board member, the late Nancy

Jefferson, and is consistent with the policies of many governmental

agencies which hold public meetings . The Board's goal is to

conclude the public meeting within one hour or less . Should

numerous persons sign up to s peak, the Board may place a short time

limit on each person's remarks . These policies are intended to help

the meetings foster productive dialogue rather than rancorous

discourse.

The Board is obligated to hold monthly public meetings. But

the Board is not obligated to endure prolonged speeches at these

meetings about systemic problems that cannot possibly be resolved

in one evening.

other forms of

The Board does not condone police brutality or

police misconduct. Nor does the Board condone


criminals who fabricate allegations of police misconduct to disrupt

the ability of the police to protect law abiding citizens . But the

Board must deal with these matters on a case by case basis within

the legal process . Board members spend many long hours each month

reviewing and discussing police misconduct cases. Because these

cases involve sensitive personnel matters, the law provides for

them to be discussed in the Board's executive session, not in the

Board's public meetings . Persons who attend the public meetings

would do well to focus their attention on matters that are within

the Board's legal limits.

4

Albert c. Maule President

z


b

r. The Police Board's Legal Powers and Authority

The Chicago Police Board is a c itizens ' oversight pane l

created by s t ate law to regulate certain activities of the Chicago

police Department . The Board ' s basic authorities are derived from

the Illinois Compiled Stat utes, the Chicago Municipal Code , and

pertinent court decisions . The Board ' s legally mandated

responsibilities include the following:

(1) When a vacancy occur s in the position of Superintendent

of Police , the Boar d nominates three candidates and

s ubmits the ir names to the Mayor;

(2) The Board adopts rules and regulations for governing

conduct of sworn and civili an employees of the Chi cago

Police Department;

(3) The Board reviews, approves, and submits t o the City ' s

Budget Director the Police Departme nt' s annual budget;

(4) The Board considers suspension review appeals fo r

disc iplinary cases involv ing suspensions of six through

thirty days, and conducts evidentiary hearings for case s

in whi c h the Superintendent seeks to suspend Poli ce

Department employees for more than thirty days, or to

discharge them.

The nine members of the Police Board are appointed to f i ve year

terms by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council.

The Mayor also designates the President and Vi ce-President of the

Board. These members serve without compensation, rece i v ing only

limited reimbursement for miscellaneous out o f pocket expenses.

5


As of March 31 , 1995 , the Boar d was composed of the following

persons:

Albert C. Maule

Victor P . Armendariz

Edna Selan Epstein

1axine C. Leftwich

Art Smith

President

Scott J . Davi s

Russell H. Ewert

Judge James C. Murray

Rev . Wi ll ie L. Upshire

Former J udge Brian Cr owe served on the Board , as Vice

Fresident, during the period covered by thi s report. Upon the

expiration of his term, his position was taken by retired Judge

James C. Murray , effective March 9, 1995 . The Board appreciates

Judge Crowe's services on the Board from 1989 to 198 5.

II. Staff and Budget

The Board employs a full-time executive director and

supervising c lerk . In addition, four attorneys, working on a part

time basis, serve as hearing officers .

The Board ' s 1993 appropriation was $ 31 0 ,4 92 ; actual

expenditures were $252,222 . In 1994 , the Board' s appropriation was

$31 4, 668 . The preliminary estimate for 1994 outlays is

approximately $278,000. In 1995, the City Council voted an

appropriation for the Board of $285,094 .

The Board ' s offices are locat,ed in Room 603 , 11 21 S . State

Street. Plans now call for the Board to share in the Police

Department's projected relocation to a new headquarters build i ng,

to be located near the Training Academy and the new 9-1 - 1

Co un ications Center . Construction of t he new headquarters

facilit y may begin s ometime in 199 5 .


>

111. Police Discipli ne: An ove rview

The Board's most time-consuming task is the ad judication of

disc ipl inary cases against members of the Chicago Pol ice

Department. A disciplinary case starts with a compla i nt being

filed . Complaints from a ll source s (citizens , supervisors, fellow

offi cers) against a ll members of the Department (officers as well

as c ivilian employees) are received by the Department's Office of

Profess ional Standards (OPS) , composed of civilian investigators .

A Complaint Register (CR) number is given to each complaint

received. OPS remains responsible for the investigation of all

complaints i n which the primary allegation is the use of excessive

fo r ce . All other complaints insubordination, bribery , use of

narcotics , etc . - are referred to the sworn investigators of the

Internal Affair s Division ( IAD) . The Depar tment's Rules apply to

both the off- duty as well as on- duty conduct of its members .

Table I shows the changes in the numbers of complaints filed

over the past f i ve year s.

TABLE I

COMPLAINTS FILED: 1990 - 1994

TOTAL RETAINED REFERRED COMPLAINTS BY OPS TO I AD

1990 8,367 2,476 5,891

1991 8,178 2,727 5,451

1992 8,039 2,553 5,486

1993 8,299 2,681 5,618

1994 8,699 2,820 5,879


The Department has a specific process for investigating these

complaints . At the conclusion of the investigation, whether done by

IAD o r OPS, if a determination is made that the complaint is

sustained - that is, one or more v iolations of the Department's

Rules has been documented then a multi-stage rev iew process

begins , both t o examine

penal t y . All of the

the findings and

various findings

assess the appropriate

are advisory to the

Superintendent of Police ; it is he who makes the final

determination as to exactly what penalty the Department will

attempt to impose on the accused employee .

Many c itizens erroneously believe the Police Board

inve s tigates t heir complaints of misconduct, particularly excessive

for ce allegations. However , it is the role of OPS and IAD to

investigate complaints of misconduct; the Boar d 's role is to

adjudicate only those cases in which the Superintendent decides to

file charges against Police Department employees . The Board's

j urisdiction i s limited to those cases which are filed be fore it.

The Boar d is basically an administrative court, not an

investigative or prosecutorial agency .

The Board's jurisdiction is a function of t he level of

discipline sought by the Superintendent of Police. From the Board's

perspective , there are in essence three different levels of

discipline.

The first category consists of instances in which an officer

has been ordered suspended for f i ve days or less (with a slightly

different threshold for certain civilian employees) . These cases

are totally outside the Board ' s jurisdiction. The employee is


suspended; appeals are usually handled through the grievance and

arbitration provisions of the applicable collective bargaining

agreement. It should be noted that , as used here , the term

suspended always means suspended without pay.

The second , and most serious, category of disciplinary action

consists of those instanc es in which the Superintendent seeks to

have an employee , whether civilian or sworn , discharged from the

Department, or , in a small number of cases, suspended for a period

of more than thirty days. These cases are described under the

heading Po l i ce Board Cases: Bearings and Dispositions.

The third category is an intermediate one . An officer whom the

Superintendent has ordered suspended for a period of at least s ix

but not more than thirty days ( fo r civilian members of certain

collective bargaining units, ten thr ough thirty days) has the right

to appeal that matter to the Police Board . The Board ' s dispositions

of these cases , a nd the process followed , are described in the

section Suspension Review Cases.

IV. Police Board Cases: Bearings and Dispositions

Under Illinoi s law, a member of the Chicago Police Department

with career service status (i . e ., past his / her probationary period)

may be discharged from his/her position , or suspended from that

position for more than thirty days, only if such an action is

ordered by the Police Board .

To initiate the discharge process , the Superintendent of

Police files charges before the Police Board. Once charges are

filed, the Board will convene a full evidentiary hearing, in which

the Superintendent presents evidence in support of the charges. The


~uperintendent is represented by attorneys of the Corporation

~ounse l 's Of f ice. The accused officer or civ i l ian employee has full

due process rights, including the right to be represented by

counsel, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to

present evidence in defense . The accused employee may be defended

by prh·a tely retained c ounsel, or an att orney provided by his / her

un i on . Some will opt to represent themselves , without a l awyer .

A hearing offi cer of the Board presides over each of these

adversarial hearings, and f unctions as a judge . The Board members

are in essence a j ury . Unlike a typical courtroom j ury , they do not

sit through the hearings to observe test imony . Instead, a court

reporter's transcript - a word for word account of the hearing - i s

prepared and a copy sent to each member of the Board. Board members

read the testimony, and meet in executive session, closed to the

public, to deliberate the matter. The hearing offi cer i s present

during these deliberations and is available to offer observations

on witness credibility and other matters the Board may deem

important. Five members of the Police Board must agree on the

accused 's guilt, and the penalty, for any disciplinary action to be

taken. At the conclusion of deliberations, the hearing officer

responsible for the case writes up the Board's decision in an

appropriate order. Once signed by the Board members , the order i s

then copied and distributed to both sides in the case. The Board's

order may be appealed in court, but is not subject to the

Superintendent's review or approval.

The Board typically has three options: it may find the accused

employee guilty, and order discharge; it may find the accused


·uil ty, ani r~ r a susp nsi n f s me sp'c ific duration; or i may

!·ind t he a us n t uilt ' . Th Bo rd will som jm s qulllify j s

re:ial ty wi h spe i f i addi ional condi ions. For xnmp l , som

offi ers f ound quil ty of rules violations

disputes ha\e been susp nded, and also

su cessfully domestic violen e counseling

expense as a condition of reinstatement.

stemming from domes i c

required to complete

programs at their own

Tables II and III present figures on the numbers of cases

disposed of by the Board du ring 1993 and 1994. As has been the case

in past years, substance abuse - both alcohol and drugs - continues

as the mos t conunon source of Police Board cases . A ma jority of the

Board continues to adhere to a zer o tolerance policy on illegal

drugs : offi cers and civil i an employees found to have used illegal

drugs , or found to have re fused a direc t order to undergo a drug

screen test, are discharged.

The penalties r eflected under the heading Suspended are

reached through several ways. In some instances , the Superint endent

filed charges seeking the employee ' s discharge ; the Board , while

upholding guilt , ordered a lesser penalty, e . g. , a suspen sion of

six months . In a few instances, the Superintendent filed charges

seeking not dismissal, but a defined suspension such as forty - five

days . In these cases , the Board's majority believes that it may

uphold that penalty, or reduce it, but cannot impose a penal t y more

severe than that sought by the Superintendent .

There are also cases in which both sides sign a st i pulated

settlement, in which the accused agrees to accept a specific

suspension of less than discharge, in lieu of proceeding t o


p

TABLE II

POLICE BOARD

SEPARATION CASE DISPOSITIONS:

JANUARY 1, 1993 DECEMBER 31 , 1993

CATEGORY DISCHARGED SUSPENDED* NOT CHARGES

Drug Use 9 -0-

Refused Order to Take Drug Test 1 -0-

Drug Dealing: Other Drug-Related

Alcoholism and Alcohol Related (includes

2

domestic disputes) 2

Excessive Force 9

Monetary Violations (includes theft, bribery, accepting gratuities) 2

Other Criminal Violations (qun laws , etc • ) 1

Residency Violations 1

Incompetence, Inefficiency, Insubordination 3

Medically Unfit, Medical Roll Abuse Secondary Employment Violations 3

Miscellaneous 1

TOTAL 34

-0-

4

7

4

1

-0-

2

3

3

24

GUILTY WITHDRAWN

-0- 8

-0- -0-

-0- 1

1 3

-0- 3

2 3

-0- -0-

-0- 2

2 -0-

-0- 1

-0- 2

5 23

TOTAL

17

1

3

10

19

11

2

3

7

7

6

86

* Of the 2 4 c ases in whic h respondents were s u s pend e d , there a r e 7 cases i n whic h thi s wa s done at the req ue s t of the Chicago Pol i ce Depart ment.

12


>

TABLE III

POLICE BOARD

SEPARATION CASE DISPOSITIONS:

JANUARY 1, 1994 DECEMBER 31, 1994

CATEGORY DISCHARGED SUSPENDED* NOT CHARGES

Drug Use

Refused Order to Take Drug Test

Drug Dealing: Other

9

1

Drug-Related -0-

Alcoholism and Alcohol Related (includes domestic disputes) 5

Excessive Force 3

Monetary Violations (includes theft, bribery, accepting gratuities) 1

Other Criminal Violations (gun laws, etc. ) 2

Residency Violations 1

Incompetence, Inefficiency, Insubordination 1

Medically Unfit, Medical Roll Abuse Secondary Employment Violations 2

Miscellaneous 1

TOTAL 26

-0-

-0-

-0-

2

2

2

2

-o-

2

6

1

17

GUILTY WITHDRAWN

2 25

-0- -0-

-0- -0-

-0- 1

2 5

-0- -0-

-o- -0-

1 3

-0- 1

1 3

-0- -0-

6 38

TOTAL

36

1

0

8

12

3

4

5

4

12

2

87

* Of the 1 7 cases in which respondents were suspended, there are 5 cases in which this was done at the request of the Chic ago Police Department .

13


hearing . These stipula t ed settlements may also contain additional

requi rements. For example, the officer may agree to undergo

alcoholism evaluation and treatment . These stipulated settlements

are presented t o t he Boar d , which has the option of approvinq or

re j ecting t hem . If approved by the Board , the disciplinary action

agreed t o is t hen i mplemented . Should t he Board reject the proposed

sett lement, t hen the c ase would proceed t o the usual adversarial

hearing .

The column heading Charges Withdrawn refers t o those cases in

which the charges have been withdrawn at the request of t he Police

Superintendent. In the overwhelming majority of these cases ,

char ges were withdr awn because the employee involved had resigned

f rom the Department. The Superintendent' s objective - t o see that

t he individual no longer worked for the Chicago Police Departme nt

had been served; thus, there was no need to proceed t o hearing .

Cases tabulated under Charges Withdrawn should not be confu sed with

t hose listed under Not Guilty.

For the first time in its history, charges were filed before

the Board in 1994 seeking the dismissal of an individual (a

captain) accused of numerous rules violations re la ted to sexua l

harassment. After an extensive hearing, the Board issued an order

discharging the accused.

There were 73 new cases filed in 1993, and 7 6 in 1994. These

figures are lower than those for previous years. The number of

cases closed - 86 in 1993, and 87 in 1994 - exceeded new f i lings ,

and allowed the Board to reduce the size of its docket of pending

cases .

14


JV. Police Board Decisions: The Appeals Process

The Board views the integrity of its decisions as very

important, and therefore tracks closely any appeals t o moni tor t he

outcomes of those actions.

The most common means of appeal is a lawsuit in administrative

review . Typically , a party dissatisfied with the outcome of a

Police Board decisi on will file a suit in administrative review

before the Circuit Court of Cook County . In most instances , the

plai nt i ffs in such suits a r e officers and o t her employees whom t he

Board has d i scharged or suspended for lengthy periods . However,

there are instances in which t he Superintendent has filed the suit

due to the Board not havi ng d ischarged an officer. And, on rare

occasion , the Board's suspension of an officer has led to two

suits: one f rom the officer, who f e lt he had done nothing wrong and

deserved no punishment, and one f rom t he Superintendent, who fel t

suspens ion was too lenient g iven the misconduct involved . It should

be noted that under law, only the opposing parties in the Police

Board hearing -- the Superintendent and t he employee ma y appea l

a Board decision through a suit in administrative review. Other

individuals , such as a victim of police misconduct, no matter how

great their interest in the case, have no legal standing t o appeal

to the Court to overturn a Police Board decision .

If either side is dissatisfied with the Circuit Court' s ruling

on a suit in administrative review, he / she may appeal the matter to

the Il linois Appellate Court. In rare instances, cases have been

further appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. This is very rare;

only one Police Board case has gone to that Court in ten years .


p

As shown in Table IV , court decisions have overwhelmingly

affi rmed the Board's positions .

TABLE IV

SUITS IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 1993 - 1994

CIRCUIT COURT APPELLATE COURT SUPREME COURT NEW DECISIONS DECISIONS DECISIONS SUITS UPHELD-REVERSED UPHELD-REVERSED UPHELD-REVERSED FILED BOARD POSITION BOARD POSITION BOARD POSITION

1993 17 23 3 4 0 1 0

1994 21 23 2 8 0 0 0

TOTAL 38 4 6 5 12 0 1 0

Only five Circuit Court decisions out of a total of f i f t y -one

reversed some aspect of the Board ' s decision - less than ten percent.

Of those f ive, one was subsequently overturned by an Appellate Court

order reinstating the Board's original disc harge order; and three are

currently being appealed.

These two years' experience reflects the care with whic h Board

hearings are conducted and decided . In the Board's 1991-1992 Biannual

Report, it was noted that the Illinois Appellate Court had upheld the

Board's position in five of the six decisions issued during those two

years. The one instance in 1991 - 1992 in which the Appellate Court

reversed the Board was appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which,

as noted below, in 1993 then overturned the Appellate Court. This,

combined with the 1993-1994 data shown above, means that in four

years, all Board decisions presented to the Illinois Appellate Court

have ultimately been affirmed .

16 CHICAG0 PUBLIC LIBRARY

MUNICWAL REFERENCE COLLECTION Digitized by ChicagoCop.com

a

Two s eparate sets o f litigation wa rrant particular mention . One

(prev i ously noted the Board ' s 1991-199 2 Biannual Report) i nvolved an

alleged proc e dura l d e f ect in the Department' s handl i ng of drug screen

uri ne t est s of o ff i cers . The Appellate Cour t r uling req uired t he

Board t o dismiss pending c harges a gains t a number of offi cers , each

of whom had not been offered the opportunity t o consult an at t o rne y

befor e c omply ing with an order t o t ake a d r ug screen t est. The

Department pursued the matter to the Illinois Su pr e me Court, wh i ch in

1993 overturned the Appellate Court [Corgiat vs. Police Board, 155

Ill.2d 384 (1993)]. The Supreme Court de c lared tha t an o f f i cer d i d

not have a right to consult an attorney be f ore being ordered t o

provide a urine sample to test for the presence of i lle g a l drugs . As

a result of this decision, the Department was able t o r e i n state t he

previously dismissed charges against a number o f of f i c ers . Mo s t o f

these officers subsequently resigned rather than contes t their

di smissals at Police Board hearings. The remaining cases a r e being

adjudicated before t he Board according to usual proc edures .

In the second, in 1992, the Board held hearing s o f c harges

against a Commander, and two Detectives, on charges stemming f rom the

abuse of a prisoner . After the longest hearing in the Board's

hi s tory , the Board, in 1993, ordered the Commander's discharge, a nd

the lengthy suspensions of the two detectives. All three filed suits

in administrative review. The Circuit Court has upheld the Bo ard' s

disciplinary actions. The matter has been appealed to the I llino i s

Appellate Court. The Police Board will not comment further as tha t

litigation is still open and pending further brie f ings at this time

(March, 19 9 5) •

17


>

v. Suspension Review cases

Based upon a decision of the Ill inois Supreme Court [Kropel v.

Conlisk, 60 Ill.2d 17, (197 5)], an employee of the Chicago Police

Department s erved with notice of a suspension of six t hrough thirty

days has the right to appeal that action to the Police Board . Acting

in an appellate capacity , the Board then conduc t s a paper review of

the matter, and determines whether to uphold the penalty , s u s tain

guilt but reduce the penalt y , or not sust ain the matter in its

entirety .

Tables V and VI present summaries of the Boar d ' s actions in

1993 and 1994 in reviewing these proposed suspensions. The incidence

of excessive for ce cases is higher in thi s group t han in separation

cases. Again , alcohol abuse is clearly a s igni f i cant factor . In

addition to those cases specifically attributed to alcohol , the

context s o f many of the other cases , s uch as those involving

insubor dination or inefficiency , c learly imply that alcohol abuse i s

an underlying cause .

The Board received 121 Suspension Review cases in 1993 , and 59

in 1994 . In 1992 and early 199 3 , the Board had an enormously long

and complex separation case , consisting of ove r 10 , 000 pages of

testimony . The need to dispose of this specific case caused the

Board's outstanding docket of Suspension Review cases awaiting Board

action to grow considerably . During 199 3 and 1994 , the Board

successfully dealt with its very large agenda: 130 existing cases

were disposed o f during 1994, while only 59 new ones were f iled. At

this time, the Board has no backlog of s uspension review cases

awaiting disposition.

18


TABLE V

POLICE BOARD

SUSPENSION REVIEW CASE DISPOSITIONS:


CATEGORY NOT TOTAL SUSTAINED AT FULL PENALTY

SUSTAINED PENALTY REDUCED

SUSTAINED

In t axi ca ted ' Disorderly 12 2 -0- 14 (includes domestic disputes)

Excessive Force (o n & off 55 5 19 79 duty)

Medical Roll-Secondary - 0- 1 - 0- 1 Ellployment Violations

Incompetence, Ine fficie ncy 16 6 - 0- 22 Inattention to Duty, Insubordination

Moving Traf fie Violations 1 -0- -o- 1 (not DUI) ; Vehicle Licensing Violations

!ti..scell aneous 5 1 5 11

TOTAL 89 15 24 128

19


TABLE VI

POLICE BOARD

SUSPENSION REVIEW CASE DISPOSITIONS:


CATEGORY SUSTAINED SUSTAINED NOT TOTAL AT FULL PENALTY SUSTAINED PENALTY REDUCED

Intoxicated & Disorderly 20 1 2 23 (includes domestic disputes)

Excessive Force (on & off 34 3 7 44 duty)

Medical Roll-Secondary 2 2 -o- 4 Employment Violations

Incompetence, Inefficiency 34 9 3 46 Inattention to Duty, Insubordination

Moving Traffic Violations 5 2 -0- 7 (not DUI) ; Vehicle Licensing Violations

Mi see l laneous 6 -0- -0- 6

TOTAL 101 17 12 130

20


While a Su spension Review case i s a waiting the Board ' s d ci . ion,

no disc iplinary action i s taken against the e mp l oyee . If th Ro i cl

upholds the suspensio n, e ithe r in whole or part , then t he p na 1 y t .

served by the employee.

Swor n offi c ers below the rank o f ser geant comprise the va s t

majority of the employees involved in both Police Board and

Suspension Review cases ; t hese offi cer s are cover ed by the Ci y ' s

labor contract with the Fraternal Order of Police . Thi s agreeme n

allows these offi cers to f ile grievances of disc iplinary actions . Jf

pursued to conclusion, a grievance will result i n arbitration of the

action, by an outside arbitrator .

Police Board sepa ration cases are specifically exempted f rom the

grievance provis ions of the City- FOP contrac t . As noted in the

Board's 1991-1992 Biannual Report, an attempt wa s at that time being

made by the FOP to invoke the grievance arbitration process in Police

Board cases in which the Board o r dered a suspension ins tead of

discharge. That attempt was unsuccessful . The matter was resolved by

the Cir cuit Court of Cook County, which affirmed the Department ' s

position that a Police Board separation case is e xempt from the

grievance prov isions.

However, Suspension Review cases are covered by the grievance

process . A number of these cases are gri eved and decided by

arbitrators. The resu l ts of these arbitrations are very di fferent

from the court decisions presented in Table IV . As shown below, in

Table VII , arbitrators are not at all re luctant to overturn a Board

decision .

21


TABLE vn

POLICE BOARD SUSPENSIONS: ARBITRATORS' DISPOSITIONS 1993 - 1994

NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH ARBITRATION DECISIONS UPHELD REDUCED OVERTURNED PENALTY PENALTY PENALTY

1993 2 1 3

1994 3 6 5

TOTAL 5 7 8

Of the twenty Suspension Review decisions arbitrated in 199 3

and 1994 , the Board ' s determination was upheld completely in f i ve

cases, or twenty percent. In eight instances, arbitrators stru ck down

the Board 's disciplinary actions in their entirety; in seven, the

arbitrators upheld the Board ' s determination that a rules violation

had occurred, but reduced the penalties. Typically , these reductions

are significant ones - for example, a Board-ordered suspension of

thirty days was cut to a suspension of ten days. When a suspension is

either overturned or reduced by arbitration, the affected officer's

disc iplinary record is changed to reflect this decision, and

necessar y back pay is awarded.

If the facts of the situation warrant it, the Board does not

hesitate to either overturn or reduce a suspension ordered by the

Superintendent. The numbers in Tables V and VI bear this out. The

Board is independent in reviewing these disciplinary actions. All of

these actions have been subjected to an extremely thorough internal

review, with many steps, be fore they reach the Police Board. An

Officer can then appeal the matter to the Board , and can appeal yet


>

again through the grievanc e p r ocess if dissati s fied with the noa r d ' s

dec i s ion . Thes e multiple steps prolong the f inal c l osure of these

cases . By the t i me an arbitra tion hearing i s conve ned , it may he

sever a l years s ince t he offi c e r' s misc o nd uc t took pJ a ce . Th e

Department is required , in essence , t o prosec ute the ma t t e r be for a n

arbi t ra t or while attempting t o loca t e witnesses , and seek their

cooperation, ove r a matter f r om year s earli e r. The Boar d s t rong l y

be l ieves t his p r ocess o f multiple a ppeal s unne c essarily d rag s out the

di sposition of these c ase s , a nd places an unfa i r burden on the

Depar tment through multiple appeals .

VI. First Amendment Judgment Order

During the 1970s, there were numerou s al l e gatio ns tha t pol i ce

officers, acting under orders, improperly spied upon many s o c ia 1

action a nd c ivil rights organizations in Chic ago . These c ompl aint s

l ed t o the filing of civil lawsuits in U.S. Court. These s uit s were

i n large part resolved through a Consent Decree and J udgment Order

agreed to by all parties. Under the terms of that Dec ree, the Board

was empowered to act as a monitor of the City's compliance with the

terms of that Judgment Order and Consent Decree . As noted in the

1991-1992 Biannual Report, the Police Board has ensure d that

periodically , outside audits have been performed by independent,

nationally recognized auditing firms to evaluate the Department' s

performance in this field.

In addition, the Board is responsible for receiving c itizens'

complaints of possible violations of the Consent Dec ree . I n 1993 and

1994, the Board received one such complaint. The matter wa s p romptly

referred to the Internal Affairs Division . A thorough inve s tigatio n


-

was conducted . The matter was ca tegorized as not s ustained ; there was

no evidence to s upport t he c harges .

vrr. Public Outreach

The Board has continued its efforts to make its activities known

to the publi c. All of the Boar d ' s monthly public meetings a r e held in

the evenings , s o t hat per s on s normally employed du ring the day need

not miss work in order t o attend .

The Board will c ontin ue to publish these Biannual Report s i n

order to keep the publ i c in formed of t he Board ' s act i vities .

Additional copies ma y be reques t ed by con tac ting the Board ' s offi ce .

The Boar d ' s staf f are con s t a nt ly r ece i v ing inqui ries from o t he r

ci t i es looking towards Chicago a s a model f or s tudy a s t hey conside r

est abl i shing police review sys tems in their own jurisd i c tions .

During t he past t wo year s , inquiries have come from numerous places ,

including Char l otte , North Carolina ; Pittsburg and Phi lade lph i a,

Pennsylvani a ; Mesa , Arizona ; Wi l mington, De laware; Mi ami , Florida;

Memphis , Tennessee ; and Boston , Massachusetts ; to name s ome .

The Board a lso remains an a c tive membe r of t he International

Association for Civilia n Over sight of Law Enforcement ( I ACOLE), an

organi za tion composed of police boards and OPS-ty pe inve s tigative

bodies f r om across the U. S ., Canada , and numerous othe r countries .

Partici pation in IACOLE' s activities a l lows the Board t o monito r its

own act ivit i e s in light of emergi ng trends in this f ield .


THE HONORABLE RICHARD M. DAI4EY

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO


chicago police board annual report - 1993 to 1994

Documents