Why the consent decree won’t bring true reform to CPD
Although a draft of the consent decree involving the City of Chicago, its police department, and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan was recently made public, any hope it will lead to meaningful reform and change within the Chicago Police Department is truly unrealistic.
As a recently departed, 17-year investigator with the now-defunct Independent Police Review Authority and its predecessor, the Office of Professional Standards, I can speak with certainty about what — and more importantly, what not — to expect from the consent decree. In short, it is no more than smoke and mirrors, and it gives false hope to those who believe it will bring about the needed change its authors contend it will.
The largest obstacles are: CPD, which steadfastly denies any of its members ever engage in misconduct, even when overwhelming proof of such exists; the politicians who regularly promise to “get tough” on crime, not realizing that only encourages police to engage in misconduct; and the police unions, which have a long record of fighting any slight reform and helping those who have engaged in misconduct escape the consequences, for years afterward.
It is worth noting that some of those who participated in the consent decree’s creation, or commented on it, have a dismal record when it comes to police accountability. Despite the recommendation of suitable candidates to replace former Police Supt. Garry McCarthy, Mayor Rahm Emanuel ignored the list and appointed Eddie Johnson. This is particularly noteworthy since, during one of his first public interviews, Johnson denied that he ever witnessed any of his colleagues engage in misconduct, despite 28 years on the force. Such a denial is utterly absurd and only believable if he spent his career working in a closet by himself.
Also, it is important to remember that Lori Lightfoot served as the chief administrator of OPS for less than two years but had the opportunity to begin making meaningful changes to the agency and improve its interaction with CPD. Instead, her only measurable success was driving away talented investigators and supervisors and then continuing to deplete the OPS staff by recruiting individuals who were loyal to her during her troubled tenure after she left for another city agency. None of her critiques of the consent decree can be taken seriously when, as chief administrator of OPS and president of the Police Board, she did little to combat police misconduct.
I chose not to be a part of the agency that replaced IPRA for a variety of reasons. I can say, however, that until CPD ceases its automatic denial of misconduct, until politicians realize that their anti-crime rhetoric only fuels misconduct and the police unions realize that their members have to face consequences for their unjustified actions, true police reform and officer accountability will not happen.