Change would allow anonymous complaints vs. some Chicago cops

Chicago police disciplinary authorities would be able to investigate some anonymous complaints against high-ranking cops under an independent arbitrator’s decision issued Friday.

That’s one of a few changes to discipline and supervision that George Roumell Jr. called for to the city’s contracts with sergeants, lieutenants and captains in a 105-page decision capping four years of negotiations.

Police reform advocates have pressed city officials for years to eliminate union contract clauses that hamstring the city’s ineffectual disciplinary system, and Roumell’s decision makes at least partial progress toward some of those demands. For example, the decision spelled out that officers would not get the names of complainants until just before the cops speak with disciplinary investigators, a break with the past practice of giving them the names days in advance.

But the decision did not address other concerns reform advocates have voiced.

The contracts would still give cops 24 hours to make disciplinary statements after shooting people and prevent the city from rewarding cops who blow the whistle on misconduct.

The decision stands to have a limited practical impact on the department, since it would cover only about 1,500 of the city’s roughly 13,000 sworn officers. Mayor Lori Lightfoot still faces the more significant challenge of signing a contract with the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, which represents a wide majority of the force, including the patrol cops who have frequently been involved in controversial shootings and other uses of force. The union’s leaders have vowed to fight for their disciplinary protections and generally oppose efforts at reform.

Lightfoot cast the decision as a victory that provides a potential road map for changes to the FOP contract.

“It’s going to be hard fought … but we’re up for the challenge,” she said during a call with reporters.

Thomas Pleines, an attorney who represents the police supervisors, described it as a mixed bag that gave both sides some of what they wanted.

“While we’re not 100% satisfied … it’s to be expected,” he said.

Lightfoot has been under increased pressure to win changes to the union contracts amid protests against police brutality sparked by George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police in May.

Those protests have revived interest in contract provisions that largely went unnoticed for years before the November 2015 release of video of white Officer Jason Van Dyke shooting Black teenager Laquan McDonald 16 times. The footage spurred street protests and calls for greater accountability for police.

The crisis gave rise to a 2017 U.S. Department of Justice report that criticized the union contracts. Last year, a federal judge enacted a consent decree, a broad court order requiring an overhaul of police practices and policies. The decree, however, states that it doesn’t override existing union contracts but calls on the city to make its “best efforts” to win changes.

Lightfoot herself called for changes to the contracts in 2016 when she was the head of then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s police reform task force. In her run for mayor, she touted her experience heading the panel. During the recent protests, however, she’s drawn criticism from activists who want more elemental changes than she has embraced so far, such as cutting the police budget.

Friday’s decision on the contract with three units of the Policemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association of Illinois followed an agreement last year on a 10.5% raise over five years. The arbitrator’s decision, which still must be ratified by the City Council, would govern contracts replacing those that expired in 2016.

In allowing some anonymous complaints, Roumell changed provisions that previously barred them except when crimes were alleged.

Both state law and the contracts, however, will continue to generally require people who complain to sign a sworn affidavit. Roumell’s decision breaks from the past in allowing the city to go through a process to override the need for an affidavit when the alleged victim is anonymous.

Pleines, the police supervisors’ lawyer, said, “We think he was wrong on that and we’re contemplating our additional legal remedies.”

Police union officials have argued that allowing anonymous complaints would lead to a glut of bogus accusations. Reform advocates have countered that requiring people to give their names discourages legitimate complaints.

The arbitrator’s decision also calls for a change to the timing of when cops learn the names of people who have complained about them. In the past, officers would learn the names of complainants days in advance of a disciplinary interview, Roumell wrote. His decision states that in the future, the city would hold off on giving the names until just before the statement.

The right to confront one’s accuser is a foundational element of criminal law, but those calling for reforms have said that giving cops complainants’ names could lead them to try to intimidate their accusers. Still, the new practice would only delay officers getting the names.

The arbitrator’s decision followed a series of agreements reached through mediation. Under one of those agreements, the city would still be prevented from rewarding cops for blowing the whistle on misconduct. But the agreement would add language saying that whistleblowers are “acting in the highest tradition of the police service” and that the city can give “appropriate acknowledgment of such contribution.”

It’s unclear what impact the new language might have, but reform advocates have said the ban on rewards could dissuade potential whistleblowers from coming forward. They’ve noted that CPD officers often are accused of observing a “code of silence” and enforcing consequences on cops who call out egregious misconduct.

Pleines said the reward clause has had little effect, as police are still obligated to report misconduct.