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 ~ • ~
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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 ,
.. ..
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
3 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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 .
6 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
>
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
7 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
8 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
9 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
~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
10 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
·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
11 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
>
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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 .
15 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
>
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
TABLE V
POLICE BOARD
SUSPENSION REVIEW CASE DISPOSITIONS:
JANUARY 1, 1993 DECEMBER 31, 1993
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
TABLE VI
POLICE BOARD
SUSPENSION REVIEW CASE DISPOSITIONS:
JANUARY 1, 1994 DECEMBER 31, 1994
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
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
22 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
>
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
23 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
-
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 .
24 Digitized by ChicagoCop.com
THE HONORABLE RICHARD M. DAI4EY
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO
Digitized by ChicagoCop.com