Right away.
Pregnant only become pregnant.
Sava was not for use as a medicine
to prevent or relieve pain.
S bravado may cause serious side effects, such
as increased blood pressure problems thinking clearly,
or bladder problems with fewer depression symptoms.
You may begin to feel like esophagus.
Ask your doctor about s bravado.
L. Food and beverages including in metal
canisters are not permitted.
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior
to entering the meeting room.
Individuals must remain seated.
Public comment, speakers are permitted
to stand only when providing public comment.
Small handheld devices may be
Good. Morning
back on the record.
We begin today with, uh, public comment.
Uh, our first speaker is Taiwan Sims. Where?
So good morning committee. We don't have,
is it a quorum here right now?
If I can ask, if I can ask, is that,
is there a quorum here right now, sir?
And if it's not, may I take a seat until there is a quorum?
Or we might have some proper, because I'm not finna be able
and I see it's not So can we just rest these until some,
till everybody come in, please.
Is that possible outta respect for the, for the people?
Excuse me,
Sir, this is public comment.
This is opportunity for you
to make your comments not q and A.
This is public comment. It's not q and a.
Thank you.
I follow the etiquette of this wrong, not assumed.
That's not assumed. These gentlemen over here enforce it.
Sergeant net arm. If I was disruptive right now,
I would be AP to leave.
They would call us people.
So I'm asking these people who represent us,
who keep system me can try to disrespect us.
This a proper meeting, but it's not.
And I was given that lesson by old man
who constantly comes here, Blakemore.
So I'm aware of what's going on in the room.
I've been in this room for 11 months, speaking to the issues
of what's going on with me.
I'm not going to speak that
because it's not public speaking.
Right? Right.
They want to continue because they want to visit, respond.
Well, this is,
I tell y'all.
Thank you for your comment. Uh, Mr. Sims.
Next we will have Lisa Bowden.
Lisa Bowden is, uh, on virtually, can you hear it?
Can you hear us, sir?
Sir, your time for your comment is up.
Sir, the time for your comment is up.
Would you please e either sit down or be quiet?
We'll ask the sergeant at arms
to remove you from the chambers.
Okay, Mr. Sergeant at arms? Mr.
Um, Lisa. Lisa Bowden.
Good morning, Sherry, if I Can hear you. Can
You hear me? Yes.
Yes. Sherry? Yes, I
Can hear you. Thank you. Please hold for
one second, please.
Not a problem. Please hold for one second. Ms.
Bowden,
sir, you had your three minutes.
You, you had your three minutes.
Could you remove the gentleman, sir, if you,
if he's not being, if he will not cooperate,
sir, with the profane language.
Uh, go ahead, do your thing.
Committee will stand at ease.
Could you please remove the gentleman from the chamber?
May I ask you all? Am I disturbing this meeting?
Is my behavior disruption all is my behavior, right?
Trust what I'm expecting.
Disrupt they, they want me to attack me.
They want to utilize the CCP against us.
They have, they have weaponized CP,
they have our enforcement.
She right there.
Hmm.
Okay.
Sergeant at Arms, please remove the gentleman from the
chamber so that we can proceed
with the business of this body.
Sergeant at Arms, please.
We would like to continue
with the business of this committee.
We'll ask that you all do your duties and,
and maintain order and restore order in this room.
Thank you, Sergeant at Arms for Restoring order.
Today, we'll have the Clerk of the City of Chicago
will give their budget presentation.
I'm sorry, we have, we still have one individual who is, uh,
on for public comment.
Um, mm-Hmm. Lisa Bowden.
Lisa, are you with us still?
Yes, I am. Okay. Very well.
You may proceed with your comment.
Thank you. Good, good Morning, Al Alderman Irving
and, uh, esteem members of City Council.
Um, my name is Lisa Bowden.
Uh, that's the northern pronunciation
or Bowden from the himself.
Um, I'm a resident and a voter from the 40th ward.
Um, respectfully, I come
before you today in support of funding
for protective equipment for our police officers, uh,
specifically for their vests and body armor.
Uh, this life saving tool wears out
after the first five years of being issued,
and our officers must then come out of pocket
for this, for this expense.
Um, at times costing $800
and above of the three largest cities nationwide.
Chicago is one of the, is the only one of the three
who does not completely fund this vital protective tool
for our police off, for our police workforce throughout
their tenure with the city.
Um, today I have, um, a advanced place student, um,
from Amison High School.
His name is Israel. Um, we're sitting in my living room
and observing, um, city council
and probably next weekend we'll come down to see council.
Uh, he has been working on a couple projects, um, in,
in relation to government.
And, um, so today is his first
time actually seeing the proceedings.
Uh, I had only planned on speaking for two minutes.
So, um, I will end with I that I urge, um, urge you
to protect our workforce, um, by funding this critical need
and to take an additional step to seek federal grant dollars
to release this undue burden from our workforce
at the end of the workday.
We all want our loved ones to come home,
and I thank you for your time and consideration.
Again, Lisa Boden, city of Chicago 40th Ward, thank you
so much for your time this morning.
Thank you, Ms. Boden.
Uh, my apologies for the mispronunciation of your name.
Um, well, good morning on this, uh, Saturday session, uh,
the Committee on Budget and Government Operations.
Uh, we've been joined this morning by clerk of the City
of Chicago, our clerk county Valencia.
Um, after Director Gray from Kofa reads her,
gives her presentation, if you could introduce yourself
and members of the staff that are in the well as tho
as well as those that are in the box.
Director, gray
Chairman Irving Otto, persons and guest.
Good morning. My name is Janice Sota,
gray, director of cofa.
I'm gonna give quick financial highlights
for the office of the city clerk.
The proposed budget for fiscal year 25 is 15.1 million,
which is 1.87% less than the fiscal year 24 revised budget.
The number of FTEs for fiscal year 25
remains flat at 92.
Uh, the city clerk's office is 39.9%
corporate funded personnel expenses, 8.06 million
non personnel expenses, 7.0 million.
Thank you. Director Ray Madam Clerk floor is yours.
Good morning. I am city clerk Anna Valencia.
With me, I have Kendra Thomas, chief Administration
and Finance Office.
Um, sitting next to me in the box,
I have Catherine O'Connell, my Chief of staff,
and first deputy clerk, Roberto Lopez,
chief Innovation Officer.
Robert Blackwell, leading manager of Principal Quant 16,
Riley Bolen, chief Operating Officer, Jamie Berry,
chief Strategy Officer Peter ek, managing editor
of City Council Journal.
Luis Fuentes, direct C Director of Citykey.
Lori posco, deputy Chief Legal Counsel, Arian Linton,
manager of Data Services.
And Jorge Ramirez, deputy Chief Operating Officer.
Thank you chairman for having me today and the city council.
This was a tough budget and there will certainly be more
tough budgets ahead of us.
Throughout my tenure, my team
and I have consistently sought to be part of a solution.
As Chicago faces big challenges as we continue
to navigate these financial challenges together,
my office is committed to continue serving Chicagoans
to the best of our ability and bringing forth innovative
and improvements to the innovative
improvements to government.
I'm proud of my team for putting in the work
to ensure the needs of every Chicagoan we serve.
We serve and the needs of the city are
met to the best of our ability.
For fiscal year 2025, we were able
to reallocate funds moving money to lines
where we will spend to complete ongoing
projects or initiatives.
We cut over a half a million dollars in spending, allow us,
allowing us to come in mostly flat while working under the
restrictions of the city's financial state
and covering the requirements handed to us under the CBA
and salary compression study.
We are also bringing in new revenue to the table
with an enhancement that will be more accurately categor,
that will more accurately categorize vehicles into their
appropriate licensing type.
Potentially bringing two and a half to four
and a half million dollars a year on top
of the 130 million revenue we already collect to the city.
For the city. Doing the right thing
isn't always the easiest thing.
When the circumstances of both our city
and its residents change over time.
We as government should change along with them.
In 2019, I led on fines
and fees reform, lowering the compounding penalties
of the city's sticker ticket,
introducing the redu reduced terms, uh, sticker
and facilitating an amnesty month
and partnership with the Department of Finance.
Now, as we find our city on the Financial Pres precipice,
in order to maintain a fiscally responsible perspective,
we made the hard decision to raise some of our fees
to ensure we are covering our operational costs.
But the rise of inflation increasing per personnel
and supply costs, it's no longer feasible for us
to continue working with prices set 15 and 20 years ago.
The fee increase in the this year's revenue management
ordinance will cover our cost of revenue
and bring in roughly 4 million a year
once fully implemented.
But let me tell you about some
of the easier choices we made this year.
The office of the city clerk continued
to build out our programs with the goal
of meeting Chicagoans
where they are providing unprecedented accessibility,
innovation, and efficiency.
We listened to feedback to make it easier to comply
with the wheel tax, find ways
to improve our legislative process
and develop better avenues for delivering city keys.
We upgraded Easy Buy to enhance customer experience
by removing the login requirement
and building a more intuitive e-commerce platform,
investing in our aging technology.
We plan to release an RFP next year
to build a new over-the-counter system, OTC
and conjunction with Department of Finance's,
new payment manager system we'll be making,
which will make buying a city sticker in person an easier
experience for our customers.
Considering the needs of the city as unique as ours,
we continue to work with internal external partners
to broaden the capacity of ELMS.
As we reach the completion of this project's,
major components as we look
to stabilize the system's implementation,
we're currently working with pilot committees
and departments to provide the city with the tools they need
to do their work effectively and efficiently.
This time last year,
our CITYKEY team was struggling to keep up with demand.
So we came with a plan to implement an application system
and build out a one of a kind online platform
application system.
In May, we successfully introduced phase one,
our appointment system, making our events manageable,
and allowing us to guarantee the opportunity to apply
for a city key with an appointment.
Just this month, we launched phase two,
our city key online platform,
making us the first municipality
to give residents the ability to apply for an ID online
and receive it through the mail.
All this while continuing our in-person events throughout
the city, our Mobile City Hall
and Next Gen initiatives also made a huge
impact in our communities.
We'll be able to bring government service directly
to our residents all summer with Mobile City Hall.
Through our partnership with Chicago Public Schools,
we've been able to inspire hundreds of students
through our next gen civic engagement program
where they very, they visit this very chamber
and get firsthand experience using their voices
and building out policies that matter to them.
Thank you to my team for your commitment
to serving the people of Chicago,
and thank you for your tireless efforts
to make government more accessible.
And thank you to this body,
the city council members for your collaboration.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. Questions? Questions.
Autum Lopez, followed by Alderman Quinn.
Thank you chairman, and good morning, uh, committee.
Good morning, city clerk. Good morning everyone that's here.
Um, couple things.
If you could provide through the chair list
of all your mobile key events by Ward
that you've had in the last two years, 23
and 24 to date, I would appreciate it.
Um, you mentioned Citykey
and phase two, which is the online, um,
platform, platform that's for renewing your citykey
or applying for citykey.
Um, it'll be an option to apply as well for Citykey.
It will be out in the next few weeks.
Okay. So understanding the situation that we've had with,
uh, the migrant asylum seekers and,
and the huge effort your office has done to try
to give them some form of identification.
Um, one of the things
that I've noticed in my community in particular is that, um,
as focus has been on that segment of the population, a lot
of other populations have kind
of been squeezed out a little bit.
Um, what are your thoughts on not having an expiration
date on these city keys?
Well, there is an expiration date, so sorry,
unless you're 65
and over for seniors, there's no expiration date.
But for, uh, if you're an adult mm-hmm,
I believe's every five years,
but every five years for an adult, um, has to renew.
So my question was
what are your thoughts on not having an expiration date?
Oh, not having expiration date. Correct.
Not having, I do think it's important to have a guideline
for their expiration date.
A lot of people may move or change
or actually for our children,
like they're gonna change features and what they look like.
So it's important to keep that updated.
Um, and we fall, you know, fall, um,
looked at the state statute
and all those things to come up with this.
So I think having that is important.
In terms of your question about the online platform
and all the other residents, I do believe my Citykey team,
our director here, Luis Fuentes, has done an excellent job
of trying to balance our approach,
making sure we're serving all Chicagoans.
And we've done a really good job of doing that, um,
throughout the tenure, even with the new arrivals crisis,
the online platform specifically is
more about accessibility.
So let's say you're a family
and you can't make it to a mobile event
or you have accessibility challenges, um,
this online platform, you can really sign up,
upload all your information, it'll authenticate it
through our security, through our vendor system,
and it'll be mailed to your home.
So just a more convenient way to get the city key as well.
And is that an actual plastic renewal, uh,
that arrives if you were to, is
The actual same, uh, city key card
that you would get at an in-person event,
is the same one you'll get at your home? Would
It be more economical to do what the Secretary
of State's office did a few years ago, which would be
to simply provide a, a sticker
with a five year renewal date on it from whatever's posted
on the original card?
We have not done the online.
This is all new to us, the online platform,
so we can certainly look at that for the future.
We're, this is kind of a, I don't wanna say a pilot,
but we have, uh, set aside 20,000 cards
for this online platform to see how it does.
So once we launch, we can definitely look at,
look at that over the year.
So I would recommend Madam Clerk
that we look at the sticker option, um, with your team,
because I think that there are plenty of individuals,
myself included, which I found out, uh,
that my city key card expired from the first
one unbeknownst to me.
Um, but I think that it would ease the burden on your staff
as well as our resources of printing out more plastic cards,
creating, creating more floating plastic out there.
Um, if we were just simply to send out, uh,
a five-year validation sticker, um,
because then if that just arrives in the mail,
like it does everything else
that your office sends out our city stickers
and whatnot, um, that could be a fully automated function
that really doesn't require much effort on,
on your office's part.
Um, so look forward to having that conversation with you.
Um, I'm shocked I didn't hear anything about
where we're at with our pet tags,
Our dog licensing.
Um, thats always a fun topic. Um, uh, what specifically,
Just how are we doing?
Are our numbers up? Are we seeing any kind of drop off?
Yeah, that's always been, um, a difficult program to,
to figure out what actually works.
You know, in the past we've done marketing on
CTA on billboards.
We did a renewal to a mass renewal letter that came up
with like a lot of bad addresses
and some heartbreak for people
who might have lost, uh, their dogs.
And we hit a nerve.
So, um, this year we are selling, um, as of September 30th,
we've sold 5,935
and brought in about $66,315 in revenue.
Last year we sold 8,956
and brought in a hundred thousand $265.
So it's probably gonna be a little down, um, still well,
as we're looking out building our OTC out the new system,
there could be an opportunity while we're building that out
to talk with animal care control and the park district
and seeing if we can finally link up our technologies
and do something more, um, effective, efficient,
and, uh, maybe help us see more money
coming in the coffers for that.
While you're having that conversation, I'd be curious
to see how we, how that correlates
to our rate the county's rabies tag sales.
Okay. Um, and look to see what we need to do legislatively.
Um, right now it's basically a voluntary option for people
to purchase, whereas if anyone's getting their
pet immunized, they're required to buy to have that, uh,
rabies tag purchased at the vet.
Um, so I'd love to be able to see our sticker be included in
that sale and in possibly the same manner in which vets
handle their rabies tags as well, which is a,
a front facing sale, uh, which they buy in advance
as opposed to as needed.
Um, lastly, um, your office is responsible
for city stickers.
The sticker that goes, uh, in our windshields allows
for parking as well as RPP
and all that other wonderful stuff.
Is your office responsible for bicycle licensing as well?
We don't currently have any bicycle licensing. Um,
Would it fall if it was legal under your office? It
Could. I think you would've to
set it by city ordinance
to allow that to be in the office.
Okay. Um, if you could provide for us, um, the RPPs
that you have by Ward, um,
and your office's enforcement measures.
I know, uh, my office
and yours have worked, uh, well to try to address a lot
of the, uh, abuse that we've been seeing on the streets.
Um, I think it's important to, for people
to recognize the work that your team does in conjunction
with finance, especially considering how small
and mighty, uh, your enforcement team is for RPP.
So I think it we're three. Um,
and then with regards to the RPP, um, we know that
that's always been a, a conundrum for the department,
and we're like running out of numbers in space and,
and things of that nature.
Um, is there any talk of having a, a
ana having an analysis of where we're at
and how we can keep that program both sustainable
and yet functional, uh, as more
and more communities start looking to that, uh,
as a parking possibility?
Yeah, we have not had a conversation about that with cdot,
but we're happy to have a conversation about that as well.
I know, um, alderman, um,
Cardona brought up in the briefing about, uh,
RPP enforcement too,
and how he, they're having challenges of enforcing.
And so we are working at, um, looking
at sending our investigators, they start at 5:00 AM trying
to get some of those overnight parks, our parking,
where maybe traditional hours don't work,
and we should look at hours that are later
or earlier in the morning to hit some of those folks
that may be parking in those regional parking zones, um,
without having the right, uh, zone.
And therefore families who live on
that block can't park on their block or near that block.
So we are trying to look at how do we change it up?
How do we think more of not just the nine to five window
that we traditionally work here in city government.
And then, um, that's something that I'll have, uh,
Riley Bola and my CEO talk to see that about,
about doing an analysis of the program. Okay.
I thank you very much. Uh, thank your city council team,
um, who do so much for us on, on our meetings.
Thank, and please make sure all of the, uh, uh,
healthcare funds are being met for Peter,
who I feel I'm giving heart palpitations to every other day.
Uh, something gets introduced. Yeah. Um,
Peter is a national treasure. Yes.
Thank you. Thank y'all Lopez.
Uh, quickly bounce back to a point RPP.
I know we had, uh, the ability locally to print off the, uh,
RPP um, day passes.
I know that there was some, uh, maybe this was last year,
year before last, there was some change in technology.
Are we back able to do that now?
So for Alderman Sellers, uh, we are still at a pause
because Department of Finance is doing RFP
for their point of sale system.
And so we will have to, we're gonna have
to buy all new equipment when that new vendor, uh, returns.
And so that new vendor we pick will have like the ability
for Apple Pay and things we can't do now.
And so we don't wanna make automatic sellers buy old
equipment right now that's not working,
uh, properly until the new system.
And that's been like a seven or eight year project
that the Department of Finance is now, I think finally.
And if they don't get it done next summer,
we'll only be able to take cash.
So it has to get done.
Okay. Well, and so you, you anticipate that completion,
you said this year course.
Second, I hope I would ask Department
of Finance when their new payment system is in.
'cause at last I talked to the comptroller,
they were in RFP status,
but again, that runs our contract runs
out I think next June.
And so if they don't get a new system in the city will only
have ability to take cash.
Oh, okay. So
that's definitely a question
we've asked the Department of Finance.
Okay. Thank you.
Alderman Quinn, followed by Alderman Martin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Madam Clerk.
Oh, good morning. Um, I would agree
your your staff is great.
Real easy to, to work with
and certainly appreciate all the help.
Um, one of the complaints I get from my constituents is,
is people beating the system on city stickers.
Can you speak to some of the things that you do to try to
curb that activity,
Um, in detail? Like not buying the city
Sticker, not buying the city sticker, right.
Registering the cars in Indiana, that sort of thing.
I mean, it's, it's a real pressure point I'm sure citywide,
but it's something I get on a regular basis.
I, I think it's also, so getting people into compliance,
one of the things that I think we'd love
to have a conversation with Department of Finance too is,
um, and that's been brought to our attention is when our
teams are trained, what are they, uh,
are they hitting all the different ticketing options?
Are they just looking for parking enforcement?
Are they actually looking
for all three parking enforcement looking at the residential
parking zone trained to look at city stickers?
Um, we hear that a lot
of the folks only really writing the city, city ticket,
city sticker tickets may be our lease
and not our, um, uh, contract worker.
So I think there needs to be another refresher course of
how they're enforcing, right.
In terms of compliance, um, one of the things
that we are gonna do next year
that we haven't done since 2019 are some, some reforms.
Um, we're talking about the revenue management ordinance
that we're changing on some of these fee increases.
I just want all of you to be aware of that.
Our seniors will be protected.
The seniors are, that are 65
and over for the residential parking zone
and also for, um,
our transfer fee that will be increasing.
They will be frozen. They won't have to pay those fees.
Um, and so what we're also hoping is for this amnesty month
that we're also going to be due next year.
We haven't done an amnesty month since 2019.
And what we saw was an increase in compliance,
I believe it was, uh, I think 8.7% increase.
Lemme just look at my notes real quick,
but we saw more money actually come in.
People pick the four a month reduced city sticker
because during that amnesty month, you can come in,
we won't give you a back charger late fee.
Right. And you can get the four month reduced term if you
choose one year or two a year.
And, um, we saw, um, a lot of folks choose adoption,
so we're gonna bring that back next year as
Well. Yeah, that was sort of my next
question is like, how,
how much outstanding money you think is out there?
So, well, last time we did this in 2019,
we saw an increase in 17.7.
City stickers, items sold an 8% increase in revenue, so
around $800,000.
And that was just one month that we did it. Yeah.
The other reform that we're gonna also try
to let folks know about is that Department
of Finance have a fix it ticket program that came out
of our fines and fees reform measure back in 2019,
but no one knows about it.
Um, department of Finance had some, um,
errors in their website.
We found we wanna better market that.
And if you don't have a city sticker
and you get a $200 ticket, if you,
for the first time you come into the clerk's office
and buy again a four month city sticker one year, two year,
we'll forgive that $200 ticket for one time only. Yeah,
That's great. So we need
to get that word out there too, is
that people can come into
compliance even if you get this ticket.
But I think we have to look at our enforcement measures.
I don't think those are, um, people are doing
that correctly or doing it enough.
Not that I don't want people to get a $2 ticket,
but that'll force people to know.
Um, and then how do we get information out there
that people know you need to get a city sticker?
I don't think traditionally just, you know, putting on,
on social media is going to work.
So the thing that we're looking at, especially with some
of these fee increases,
we're gonna get some information out.
We're gonna hit up the faith community.
We're gonna head up laund la uh, laundromats, uh,
grocery stores where libraries, where people go every day
to see, hey, there's gonna be
fee increases coming in January.
Also, do you know about the city sticker?
Um, and, and let folks know, we have worked
with the Secretary of State's office in the past for, um,
data, but their data's still not totally updated.
I know the Secretary of State's trying
to work on cleaning up that data.
And so when we did do a mailer once to, you know,
match our list, we got a lot of return mail and,
and it cost more to do the
mailer than we actually brought in.
Right? So we're still trying to figure this out ourselves,
but it's something that we're working towards.
Great. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you all. McQueen, uh, alderman.
Matt Martin, followed by Alderman Conway.
Thank you Chair. Uh, good morning, clerk. Good morning.
Good to see you. Thank you for coming in on a Saturday.
And I think more generally want to acknowledge that, uh,
in recent months, and certainly through the end
of this year, we're gonna be asking a lot of you
and your team when it comes to, uh, uh,
additional city council meetings, these Saturday meetings.
It's not easy. Uh, many of us, uh, you know, have families
and others at home that we're taking care of.
So I just want to thank you all, um,
sincerely for, for your work.
Um, uh, also just generally, uh, my office
and I very much appreciate the work
that you and your team are doing.
Very responsive. So please keep that up.
Um, one just quick question I wanted
to follow up on is the fee increase piece, uh,
that you referenced in the management ordinance.
It's just been a little while
since I had taken a look at that.
Mm-Hmm. Can you just refresh my recollection?
So the $4 million in additional funding
that you anticipate will come
in, say a little bit more about that.
Sure, absolutely. So our daily parking passes will go from
$8 currently to $15.
So it'll be a dollar a pass essentially
that hasn't been adjusted since 2009.
That'll bring in about $1,470,000.
The annual parking permit, we're going to raise
that in a two year increment.
So it'll be an increase so that it'll be step
for folks to get used to.
It'll go from 25 to 30 and 2025.
And then th and then from 30 to 35
and 2026, that has not have been adjusted since 1998.
That will bring in $940,000 in 2025,
and 1.8 million in 2026.
And then the fee trans, uh, the transfer reissue.
So if you wanna transfer city sticker to another car,
it actually used to be $20.
They lowered it in a previous administration to five,
we're bringing that back to $20.
That was an adjusted since 2016.
Um, that is 445,500.
So o by the two year mark,
we'll be at about $4 million of new revenue.
And, um, just again, for people listening, uh,
the annual parking permit
and the transfer reissue will be frozen for senior 65
and over, and also next year.
Um, we are gonna freeze the senior city sticker at 30
se uh, $36.
And so at, we have a CPI every year,
or I'm sorry, every two years, we have the CPI that's
by city ordinance.
It's, um, it, and that it's capped at 5%,
but the last, um, four years, it's been at 5%.
So that's been a 10% increase over the last four years.
And with our seniors on fixed income, I just think it's fair
that we keep that frozen for them.
And when I look at the numbers over the fat last five
years, it really doesn't change.
I stay between 130
to $133 million per year that I'm bringing.
Even as we see that CPI increase, it's not making
that much of a difference.
Um, that's why I wanna make sure we
we take care of our seniors.
Great. Um, the two more quick questions.
One, just through the chair, if there are any, um, if, uh,
comparable fees that have not been raised, um, say, uh,
since at least 2020
that your office like hasn't taken a position on,
but just would like to flag for our edification, um,
that didn't make it into this proposal,
if you could provide that through the chair.
Um, uh, so yeah.
Uh, fees, fees that have been on their current structure
unchanged, um, uh, since before 2020,
I think these are the only ones Mm.
Um, that we found that looked, um, I see where we're at.
I think in the future we are going to,
with our new technology OTC,
we are gonna look at the make and model again.
I know I heard that last year from a lot of folks of, um,
taking a fresh look at that make and model.
And one of the other things that we found was, um, with one
of our vendors was this ven encode this ven,
uh, decoder system.
It's an enhancement technology find
where we were undercharging some vehicles, certain vehicles.
And with that new technology change,
that's gonna bring anywhere from two
and a half to $4 million, we'll see that around next July.
So that was another great, uh, find for us in terms
of a new revenue to bring to the city.
So it's kind of looking through those, that lens
that we'll be able to see, um, some adjustments.
Great. And then my last question is, um, seeing
around the curve a little bit, is we continue
to see adoption of EVs.
I have kind of two concerns associated with that,
even though I think generally good
that we're reducing our emissions.
One is that they, uh, obviously are not paying, uh,
gas related taxes.
And I've heard that, especially at the state level in terms
of infrastructure funding
that we need to be sensitive to there.
And then second is, uh,
on average these are heavier than comparably sized vehicles
because of, um, you know, the battery.
Uh, is there anything that we should be sensitive to,
not necessarily next year, but say five
or 10 years, assuming we continue
to see a growth in EV adoption
that could have a negative impact on the revenue
that we're bringing in right now?
Yeah, so that's something that we wanna,
can look at in the make
and model table when we have this new technology system is,
you know, do those cars do traditionally weigh heavier?
So what should they be category like in the category?
Um, and looking at, we also know that they, thanks
to the emissions
that they don't put off there also is a benefit to that.
So we'll look at that, the new system, we'll come
to the council and get feedback, um, and plan that out
and prepare a new ordinance.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you Chair. Mm-Hmm.
Thank Alman Chair Martin. Uh, Conway. There we go.
All I'm, I'm getting there.
It's early. I'm getting there. No,
No, no, no, no. It's, it's okay.
It's okay.
Um, uh, first of all, I want to want to commend you on the,
on the new ELMS system and the rollout for it.
I think it has, uh, you know, in, initially,
initially we started working on it,
but then we got some great trainings from your office,
and I think it really is, has really brought a lot
of efficiency at least, uh,
in something that we, that we share.
So I wanted to thank you, uh, thank you for that.
Uh, dovetailing off some of the, some of the questions,
and I may have missed the answer.
Um, the, the residential parking permit at, at $25 a year,
um, that, that seems like a,
like a woefully low number and,
and also, uh, caused a lot of headache
and heartache for our office.
So didn't know, uh, if there was any consideration
of raising that or when that was last raised.
And you can maybe speak to that.
Yeah. So we are gonna raise annual parking permit zone
from 25 to 30 and 2025, and then 30 to 35
and 2026.
Um, so it will over two years be increased by $10.
And that was last adjusted in 1998.
So, so the 25 was in 1998 and
25 was 1998.
So go to 30 in 2025, and then 35 and 2026.
Wonderful. That's Mr.
Chairman, that's, I I yield my eight minutes
and 40 seconds. That's all I have.
Thank you. Wow. We're gonna write this down.
Write this down. I got another thing I'm gonna write
down if this comes to pass.
Alderman Riley, do you have anything?
Oh, man, I, I thought, I thought we were gonna have
Start on page 12 of my questions. Oh, yeah.
I thought you got your answers back, but good. Go ahead.
Actually, I did, chairman, I just wanted to, uh,
compliment the clerk and her staff
for all the great work they're doing,
and also to thank them for, um, taking this budget seriously
and bringing to us a, uh, responsible submission
that also includes some reasonable, uh,
revenue enhancements.
So, um, that said, Madam Clerk, uh, thanks for the good work
and thanks for bringing in a responsible
submission. Thank you, chairman. Thank,
Thank you Al. All righty.
Alderman o say, thanks
Chairman.
Good morning, clerk. Valencia, good morning.
I'd like to start out by, um, thanking your staff, uh,
both those here in the box and the gallery
and those that, um, hopefully are at home today.
Um, always very responsive to my staff.
Uh, strong communication between our offices, um,
and always so polite
and patient, uh, here, uh, especially with me.
And I know sometimes, uh, in the 11th hour I'm coming up
with something, sorry folks.
Um, I wanna acknowledge, um,
uh, I appreciate the fact that we're,
we're looking at raising some of these, uh,
fees, as was just mentioned.
Uh, significant revenue being generated from that.
Fees that have been the same going back many, many years.
Um, also, um, you really work in this budget
to make sure that, um, you're doing your part as,
as we have difficult decisions to make, uh,
with this significant, uh, shortfall.
I wanted to ask a little bit about, um,
electronic record keeping.
Something that's always has well, should have all
of us very concerned.
Um, and I know you put a lot of work into that.
Could we go into that a little bit about what we're doing
and, sure.
So I, uh, wanna acknowledge quant 16, Robert Blackwell
and, and their team has been an incredible vendor.
And we've been on this journey, um, for a while now.
Uh, but we are currently in like the last phase.
So we have built out the electronic voting piece.
We are have portals for all of our city council members
to be able to privately put your own ordinances in like you
would anywhere else.
You can do the ign, uh, co-sponsor pretty easily.
We built out the online platform for our public
so they can see that and search through it.
And we're still working out tweaks on making sure people can
see that we have, um, a lot
of great partners like the League of Women Voters
and um, the Civic Federation, some others
that are giving us some feedback on that online platform
to make sure it's working very seamlessly.
The last phase we are now in is our committees.
So taking something like Committee on zoning is a huge lift
because they get a ton of paper
and ton of department, uh, finance committee,
all these other committees.
Um, we are gonna try to take that, you know, digital.
'cause right now there's a lot of inefficiencies.
If you look on the back end of my, uh, department,
if you come and look, it's a lot of a very heavy, um,
labor intensive, it's paper-based system.
So it's proofreading. Literally.
I have people who are proofreading out loud.
Um, these positions haven't been updated in 20 years or so,
and some folks can't do other people's work, uh,
because it's based on their, um, union position.
So I have 65% of my workforce is actually afscme
and they've been a great partner
and this co to modernization.
So we always say we're trying to get them more tools
to work smarter, not harder,
because sometimes they could be there till 1:00 AM weekends,
3:00 AM then you're paying a lot of also overtime costs
and pe we could pay all the overtime you want,
but these are human beings.
If they mentally break
or they burn out, um, then that's,
then you can't do anything.
So we're hoping on the backend with this final phase
of getting all the committees on board to go digital,
do electronic voting for committees as well.
Um, you can, if you're a committee chairman,
they can do your agenda.
They can take your roll call votes for you.
That can all be, um, to the public, uh, timely.
'cause it used to be three days of tallying votes
and you wouldn't see how people voted for three days.
Um, 'cause we had to manually input that,
which no longer exists.
Um, and then our law department,
our law department is now coming on board.
The mayor's office will, is coming on board
to build out their online portal as well.
And so that's gonna be all next year.
And then we go to the change management piece.
So it's really, um, to Alderman Conway, I'm glad you're,
you're a fan of this 'cause we're gonna need your cheer
leadership in this, but it will be really trying
to encourage the council members, our committees
and departments to change our behaviors
because we've had a paper-based system for decades
and going to something digital will take time.
So we'll have to work together to come, um, to come together
and how that will look like for the final phase.
And there's security features built around this too
for the electronic piece in terms of,
I know that could be a concern.
Do you wanna, do you wanna hear
those security features? I, I
Actually do. Sure, sure. Um,
Roberto, our, uh,
chief Innovation Officer, do you wanna handle that question?
What's the question? Alderman?
Security. The security features
around council modernization, like, okay.
And then we can't get hacked, right? Basically,
Roberto Lopez, chief Innovation Officer,
thank you for that question.
So we consistently work with, um, the, um,
department of Technology
and Innovation, um, to assess the risks related
to any system, um, to make sure that we're consistently,
um, mitigating any potential risk.
Thank you. Thank you very much, clerk Again,
appreciate always, uh, your partnership.
Thank you. Thanks chairman.
Thank Chairman O'Shea. Any other questions?
Anyone else for questions? Uh, you got one more? Okay.
Uh, we've got a Nugent followed by Vasquez, followed
by Vice Chair Lee.
Okay, go ahead. Good, good morning chairman
and good morning Madame Clerk and your team.
Um, thank you for your, your budget.
I think it's a very thoughtful budget
and I just, uh, wanna take a moment
to thank you and your team.
It's so hard being this short.
Can't reach the floor when my seat's up.
Um, sorry woman. Uh, I,
I just wanna thank your team for being really responsive
and, and very helpful through city Key process.
And, uh, I recognize that we have an awful lot of meetings
with, um, with the appropriate legal notice
yet it's still often,
I know probably a big rush for you and your team.
So I just wanna thank all of you, um,
your grace under fire, your whole team.
I think the responsiveness from your
team is, is really good.
The, we had a lot of city key programs with you,
uh, over the past few years.
It's been a real welcome in our community.
So, um, thank you
and look forward to the continued partnership.
Thank you. Thank you President Pro tem.
Uh, let's go with, um, Vasquez. Good morning.
Thank you. Good morning. Oh, what's in the bag?
Uh, egg tuck, egg sandwich breakfast.
Oh, just by yourself? Uh, this, uh, I know
Next, next.
This is a trial version.
Yeah. Wait, wait, nice.
Wait, I missed public comment.
Uh, so, um, yeah, yeah, no,
Very well, very well Go ahead.
After Saturday everyone. Um, first I just wanna thank you,
uh, clerk for all the amazing work you do.
It's actually pretty hard to list all the things you do.
Thank you. Whether we're talking what you've done
with City Key, um, just the mobile events
that we're having everywhere we saw during
Covid, how it was helpful.
We saw it during the migrant mission, how it's been helpful.
We see how neighbors who don't understand all the services
that the city can bring to have those kind
of events have just been crucial.
Um, and then we've got residential permit parking.
So, uh, it's been very challenging
and I think it's different in a lot of wards to really go
through the process for residential permit parking.
Although there's petitions, people have to figure out
how many signatures they're collecting
and what area and all that's been.
I understand why those things are challenging.
The other thing is just getting the parking passes
and as we're looking
and thinking about how we can all continue to get revenue
as we're basically having people
semi privatized public space.
Um, I, I've got a couple questions.
If through the chair you could provide, um, I guess
how much has been sold in parking passes per ward, just
to get a sense of what that looks like.
I'd appreciate it. Is that
Cool? Okay. Yeah. That we can do
that. Alright.
And then I know that, um, some
of us have had conversations about wanting
to do the parking passes through our ward offices
and being able to, you know, print
and do things as much as possible digitally there.
And I know that there's this whole process of trying
to like modernize the system first,
but what I'm trying to figure is how to expedite that.
Um, some of it is software, but some of it is hardware.
Are there funds that we could be using,
whether municipal bonds
or anything else to just stock up, get the hardware
and get us ready to go?
Because I think it would relieve some pressure from folks
that are coming to City Hall or Gale Street
and maybe expand the amount of revenue
that could be coming in
when neighbors can just come up to us.
Yes. Have you been in my leadership meetings?
So, um, we are, that's where we're going.
Um, we've worked really close with the office of, um,
budget management and we're looking, um, working
with them on the funding for our new
over the counter system.
And we're rapidly going to work on an RFP,
we're already starting to work on the scope
to go out next year to find the new solution, um, uh,
with the vendor to then build out our
new over the counter system.
And as we do that, we can do it in phases.
Um, we are looking to the future for digital dailies, uh,
text alerts, uh, virtual city stickers,
like all these things are of the future.
And, and we certainly can do 'em with the right technology.
And then when Department of Finance comes back
with their vendor for their new point of sale system,
which is the way we pay right now,
you can't do Apple Pay in the city of Chicago
because we don't have the hardware.
Once they have that new system,
we can replace all the automatic sellers
or you can replace all the automatic sellers hardware.
'cause that comes out of, I believe, your, your budgets
to pay for that hardware.
But you'll have new technology that will help expedite the,
the point of sale, which I know has been one
of the slow pieces of selling RPPs in, in your ward.
So yeah, so we're going to that We're looking, you know,
chat box function, all those things, seeing
what AI can do in terms of enhancement
for our data services side.
That's where we wanna go first.
We just have to get, um, the new technology started. Okay.
But my team got citykey done
and out the door in like six months when we had to do an RFP
and I, I'm going to be fearlessly
and I don't even need to be on, on top of it
'cause they're on top of it themselves.
Um, they're, but they're really smart
and looking at all of how we can expedite the system. Okay.
And, and I guess a couple things.
When you mentioned working on funding, I think sometimes
that can mean a lot of things.
Unfortunately here we've secure,
We've secured it and we have an agreement.
Okay. So we have secured it and we're in agreement.
It's just depending on what that's going to look like.
But I, um, I trust, um, we have a great, um, budget person
and Alexis White, uh, who I know very well and is here
and she's awesome at,
and she's been great about keeping us in the loop and,
and helping us guide
and navigate all these, uh, paths forward.
So, so that's all great too for like the formalizing
how folks can pay getting that to distribution sites.
But the other part is that also being brought up to speed
with software, meaning yes,
we'll get a neighbor that tells us like two blocks.
We don't know how many city stickers
and they gotta try to figure out the countdown of is
There way Yes, we can, we can build all that.
I mean, we're still in the scope phase, so Yeah.
With the software that we're gonna be looking for,
we want something that will be flexible
and that we can add to it right now with what we have.
'cause IS an assessment of the OTC, it's, it's too archaic
to layer anything on top of it.
Okay. So that's the issue.
It's like we have to replace the foundation
to then layer anything else on it.
Sure. So that's why we can't even look at the make
and model table or we can't do digital dailies right now
because if we layered it on,
it wouldn't work the way we would want it to.
Right. And then we're wasting, it gets
Clunkier. It gets
funkier. So, so that's where we have
to replace the whole skeleton foundation first.
But as we do that, we will be happy to do a working group
with the city council members that are interested in it
so we can test out and,
and see if this is the way that you wanna go.
Just like we've done with council mod. Yeah,
No, I, I like I said, I, I appreciate us
getting to that way.
I think it also relieves the pressure on some
of the staff in a way that allows 'em to focus.
'cause I think, I know we reach out to people
and we gotta wait for how
long they've gotta get the numbers.
And so all those things I think just make it more efficient
and I bet would be a relief for staff as well.
I see like small grins
as I'm saying it. 'cause folks they are,
They're very excited about it and yeah.
Um, yeah, we're very excited where we can go, even
with the just new e-commerce platform
that's gonna roll out on uh, Tuesday next week
or Wednesday next week, that's gonna be a whole new
streamlined process too.
And you'll see like people are gonna be
able to easier use it.
It's more mobile friendly. So we are making those
adjustments as we can. Okay. Awesome.
I this, I got, this one's a little bit of a spitball,
but we had a conversation yesterday with like BACP related
to some of the like vendors, like street vendors, uh, I mean
where we're getting a whole influx, right?
There's a migrant mission. You've got folks
who are either peddling or trying to figure out some level
to raise their own revenue
and it becomes challenging for someone
who doesn't have the work authorization
or all these things to even get licenses properly
that I'm wondering if there might be opportunities
for Citykey to maybe be that kind of like gray area
or go-between to say, Hey, we see
that you're trying to sustain yourself.
We also have to have some kind of tracking in place
and we need to figure out what that can look like.
Like I said, I don't know what's possible or not,
but just wondering if there's things
that y'all are thinking about as you've done so much work
for Citykey and some of the migrants that maybe there,
there might be some creativity
that could be cut thought of in government.
Because my concern is,
and this came up yesterday,
that if people are looking at some
of these street vendors in a punitive manner
and you're just telling 'em where they can't be,
all you're gonna do is either move them somewhere else in
another neighborhood or they're not gonna do that
and they're still gonna be peddling outside of supermarkets
and that doesn't give anybody any level
of comfort into the direction the city's going in.
So I just wonder if y'all had any ideas of,
of things you might be able to do as city key to position.
Um, not on the top of my head, but we can talk offline
and, and get more, kind of get more into
what you're envisioning and,
and always happy to have that conversation.
Our online platform is going to come out in a couple weeks,
so that's gonna be a new tool to get folks the city key
and so we can, we can, um,
discuss more offline with my team. Awesome.
And the last question I got is related to like
really we've done a modernized US and city council here,
and not just on the voting but elms
and everything else that as we're looking at year over year,
the budget process itself,
we find ourselves this year in a situation that
because the administration pushed things back two weeks
now we've got a smaller amount
of time to actually pour through numbers.
When we talk to folks like the Better Government Association
Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, civic Federation,
they've only had a couple of days to go through hundreds
and hundred pages of books when we know the departments
actually submit data about their budgets
to the administration at like the end of July.
And so, as someone who's been somewhat of a steward of data
and helping us out, how would you feel if part
of the process through the management ordinance
actually made it where that data was sent
to the clerk's office as well
so the council would've access to it?
Yeah, so we've actually talked to the budget director, um,
very early on in the budget process about that.
Um, when data submitted, how can you see if like,
or if an ordinance is submitted,
let's just say throughout the year an ordinance is submitted
and there's going to be, um, you're gonna see
a budget impact on an ordinance.
Like could you get an analysis of saying what does
that budget impact look like?
Mm-Hmm. On the budget even
during the middle of the year, early in the year.
So people can make informed decisions on whether they're
gonna be able to vote for an ordinance.
Mm-Hmm. So that's a lot of data processing,
but we are building this system to look at that.
And so we did talk to budget, uh, team about that
and could, this is something we
can bring back up to them. Yeah.
'cause what I'm talking about actually easier than that,
there's currently a portal that they all submit this stuff
to the administration that it's
literally getting the exact data.
It is not even conjecture or forecasting just the raw data
because when we do get data,
it's in a PDF form rather than Excel sheets rather than
anything we could use to actually start
doing the homework on this stuff.
So some of it's just providing the access to the portals
that are already there to make sure that
that information shared with the
council in a way that we can use.
Yeah, let me talk to my team about it.
'cause we are, you know, closing up on this, um, piece
and there's a funding issue as well of
what we have scoped out with our vendor.
So we'd have to talk about that,
but maybe it's something we layer on later. Yeah.
And, and I guess the last one,
which I think we brought up kind of on some of the meetings
Hold, hold on for a second.
I wanna understand what you're asking for. Yes.
Um, you're asking for everyone
to be able to have access to the data that the departments
generate for their budgets prior
to the budget actually being introduced?
Absolutely. Okay.
Yeah. So basically I think
I just, I just just want to, uh, I think that
we'll have this conversation offline,
but I, I, I, I do, I got some challenges with that,
but I'll, I'll we'll have that conversation offline. Yeah.
Yeah. That's definitely something for me, for my support,
for a budget I'm gonna want in future budgets,
because anyone can work the numbers, right?
The administration gets a whole year to figure out things.
Alders, have a team that works on potholes,
and then you expect us in two months to figure out a budget
that the more time we have with that data,
the better we're equipped to flesh out ideas.
But yeah, happy to have it offline.
Uh, thank you very much for the questions.
Thank you for all your work, love all of it.
Looking forward to support more of it.
And thank you, uh, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Uh, Altman Man. Hopper.
Thank you. Chair. Hi clerk. Hi.
Thank you to you and your team.
Um, we've been through a lot this year.
Uh, I appreciate all of the, uh, city key events that you
provided to the Ward, um, in the last year and a half.
It's, it's been incredibly, um, popular
and I'm glad to have my own card too.
Awesome. Um, I had a question about,
you know, it, it stuns me how as an altar person, we have to
put up our office from scratch, basically.
And that includes record keeping for all of our employees,
including our part-time employees.
And I'm excited about all the things that you wanna do
to modernize the department to make it more efficient.
It's incredible that it's taken this long to do that.
And I've also been in, in your office, and I see the workers
and what they have to do every day, um,
and how labor intensive it is.
Um, but anyway, we wanna modernize our office too, uh,
regarding record keeping.
And, um, and, uh,
and so I'm just curious to know,
has there been any conversation about how we can
do it more efficiently?
'cause if I wanted to modernize my office,
I would have to use menu money.
And also I would want it to fit into your process.
Um, is there a way that we can make it more efficient so
that it would be helpful for both our ward offices
and for your department?
So the modernizing we're doing right now is, uh,
really only council, like the council portion.
So if you wanted to introduce the ordinance
or get co-signers, all that, that part, you know,
we're covering that expense
because that's part of the council modernization.
If you're talking about record keeping in terms of like,
bookkeeping or, uh, like payroll, all that. Yeah,
Payroll. Because
you know, all the things that, uh, are related
to payroll, not just time, but also benefits.
And, you know, that's, that's something that we would have
to keep track of.
Um, and we are also doing all the
things in the ward as well.
It just, I'm just curious if any other colleagues
are struggling with this.
Um, also, I don't, I don't know if there's a way
that we can make it better.
Um, just generally, I think it's important for us to
take good, uh, records, right?
Yes, absolutely. Um, so I know the city council members,
'cause we do have Sheila and Divinity now.
Thank you for the extra person. Um, do do that type of work.
But it, that system's different than the system.
My, my office works. There hasn't been any conversation
about changing it.
Um, but that would certainly, you know,
if council came together
and wanted to look at that,
that's something my office would be willing to implement.
But it would really need to come from the council, uh,
and for you to want to change the system as a whole
and we implement it.
Yeah, I think, I think about Shaula every
payroll. She does a lot.
Thank God we have divinity now too. It's right.
It's helps with two, uh, was only one person,
but now we have two people, which has been great for backup.
Yeah. Well, uh, I, again, I thank you for your whole team,
and Ian has been really so incredibly helpful.
Now you're here somewhere, um, uh,
So you're probably watching the
streaming and taking questions.
So thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you. In
The box. Thank you. Autumn, uh,
autumn. CTO Lopez.
Thank you. Thank you chairman.
And thank you city Claire for being here.
Um, I, um, I appreciate the efforts to modernize your office
as well, um, as proposals to make sure that we,
we can balance our budget.
Um, just a few questions in terms of,
and I, I, uh, appreciate the, uh, city key program
and, uh, the efforts to, um, also make it more efficient,
more effective with online platforms.
Um, there was a, um, um, uh,
and I know right, right now you can do a ma
an online appointment.
Unfortunately, as you know, the, the demand is pretty high.
And, and, and the staffing obviously is already overwhelmed.
I appreciate that you coming to our offices and,
and set up, um, uh, workshops.
And so, so far my question is in line
with some similar efforts on the, um, at the office
of the Secretary of State, uh, where we've seen kiosks
and uh, and, um, similar efforts to modernize.
So, um, that's my question in terms of, um, you know,
for instance, being able to have appointments here on city
council, when people come to, uh, the city clerk's office
and perhaps are looking to do, um,
their idea not staffing is,
is a really difficult staying flat.
So perhaps similar Air Force that maybe you have thought of.
Uh, but I agree, I think is, is important to provide, um,
with efficient and more modernized systems.
So that's what my first question to you.
Yeah. So that's why we, um, that's
how we started the work on the online platform last year.
And we'll be releasing the next couple weeks, uh,
where you can actually get your citykey online.
So you can go to a library, um, through your mobile app
through, or your mobile phone, through a computer at home.
You can upload all your documents, upload your photo,
and it'll be mailed to your house.
So we want it to be more accessible to people who may not,
who may have a, uh, the, an ability to
get to a mobile event.
We'll still have our in-person events
that will never go away.
But the, uh, online platform will be another way
to access it, um, more easily.
And then with the appointment system, yes,
we still have folks, um, getting, getting, you know,
the appointment's going fast 'cause it's still in demand.
So we're still kind of working through that, that process.
'cause we just launched that in May.
So we're still trying to work the kinks out there.
And in terms of our products being in kiosk,
that's something we can definitely consider.
That's why we also redid our e-commerce platform.
That's definitely more easier. Mobile, mobile friendly.
Since the pandemic, we were at 16% of online sales,
we're now at about 25% of online sales.
And so that will only increase over time,
especially when we overhaul our technology system
that is our backend for data services
and selling city stickers.
So that's also going to, once we get that new platform
and technology, we'll be able to do a lot more text alerts,
a chat, uh, box system, going to digital dailies, going
to a digital city sticker.
Um, those we're gonna really push that out, um,
for consumers to make it easier to buy all of our products.
Thank you. Thank you City Clara.
I do, uh, like I said,
appreciate your efforts and all your staff.
I know they come several times to award and, uh,
and provide important services.
Um, so yeah, definitely, uh, would like to help out in
that sense, being able to maybe have some sort of
with a kiosk and in person, at least here in city council.
'cause I know a number of people come
and they just still have to wait for an appointment.
So, just a suggestion. Okay.
Um, in terms of, you know, I know that you have proposed,
you know, um, increases on fees, you know, um, to keep up
with some of the services and the demand.
Um, can you, I just wanna, um, hear a little bit about,
about the era, uh, the era mob increase proposal.
I know that, um, it seems like for 2026 that kind
of maybe double some of the revenue for the office.
So I know that you are, um, you're losing about
in contractual services about half a million dollars or so.
So if you can tell me, you know, kind of
what those losses have represented for your office in,
in terms of contracts
and how this new revenue will, you know,
be allocated if approved by the council.
Yeah. So just to clarify, we cut about, um,
a little over half a million dollars
in non personnel spending.
So we cut our budget and then we reallocated funds in
certain areas to meet the needs
of all the projects we have working on.
So we have enough to cover those expenses.
And then in terms of some of the fees that we're raising,
um, we are raising the daily parking passes from eight
to $15.
So it'll be about a dollar per pass
that was last adjusted in 2009.
It'll bring about $1.4 million and a little bit over that.
Uh, our annual parking permit will be 25 to 30 in 2025.
And th and then 30 to 35 in 2026,
we'll see about $1.8 million in 2026
of new revenue from that.
And that'd be a, a a two year step increase so
that people are prepared for that change.
And then there'll be a, our transfer reissue is going from
five to $20.
That originally was fi uh,
originally it was $20 in a previous administration.
They lowered it to five. We're bringing that back to 20.
That was in 2016, last adjusted.
Um, the annual parking permit was last adjusted in 1998.
So altogether it'll bring about $4 million in new
revenue, um, by year two.
And a reminder too,
I don't know if you were here when I mentioned this,
but senior 65
and over will not pay the annual parking permit increase
or the transfer reissue.
They'll be frozen from that, um, increase.
Thank you. So, and, and then for that increase,
but potentially increase, what are the, some
of the services I'm, you know,
and I, I appreciate the, the support for the seniors.
I, I'm glad that, um, that you mentioned that,
um, as relief.
Right. So are there any areas where you see opportunities
for relief as you know, again,
that will be in higher fees for constituents.
We wanna be equitable in the decisions
that we make. Absolutely. So, you know, not sure
We're, do we, so we are doing a couple reforms
around the fee increases.
One is, uh, the seniors will be freeze from those two
increases I mentioned the residential parking zone
and the transfer issue.
Also, seniors next year will be frozen, um, at $36.
They will not increase their city sticker
price with the CPI.
So that'll be frozen for them starting next year.
And then we are having an amnesty month next year.
We haven't had an amnesty month since 2019.
Um, and we saw a new revenue
around over $800,000 in new revenue
when we have the amnesty month.
'cause a lot of people came into compliance
that were non-compliance before.
So we'll be doing that next year.
So if you come in by a city sticker,
we'll forgive your back charges
and your late fees to get the city sticker.
We also are working with Department
of Finance on their Fix It ticket program.
It's one of the recommendations that came out of the fines
and fees report that I did in 2019.
Um, but not a lot of people know about it.
So you wanna remarket that
and let people know that if you get a city sticker ticket,
$200 your first time ever, you can then come to our office,
buy a city sticker,
even a four month city sticker will forgive
that $200 ticket one time to get you into compliance.
So those are all the reforms we're doing
around this as well for next year. Mm-Hmm.
Thank you. City clerk. Um, I know that, you know,
a pa part of the revenues that residential parking permits,
and I know as one of the initiatives for next year, um, is,
you know, the mobile unit
and also, uh, just more partnerships right,
between departments in terms
of like the coordination with the finance department.
I know some in residential areas, like we have,
for instance, an area where we have, um, in the summertime,
a lot of activities, a lot of events, right.
And, you know, sometimes the enforcement piece, um,
is something that residents, um, you know,
if they're paying a higher fee, probably will expect,
you know, be able to have a better, um, better service
and be able to park in their residential areas.
What kind of coordinations we envision
with the finance department, you know, with other ways,
you know, in order to be mindful again, of equity,
but also to make sure that we provide a adequate service
with our, when it comes to permit parking.
Yeah, we heard this from a few of the aldermen.
And one, we have three investigators.
So we don't have a big unit,
but we can send them out to some, uh, areas
that you may be seeing problems in your ward.
So just reach out to Ian Lindberg on my
team and we can set that up.
We're also need to look at with Department of Finance of
what hours we're sending people.
'cause what I've heard is a lot of the overnight parking,
so when people are getting home, they can't find spots
and people are parking there overnight.
So can we hit them either in late evening hours
or early in the morning?
Um, not really during the traditional nine to five.
'cause that's not when we're seeing it.
So we just have to think differently and more innovatively.
I also think there needs to be more cross training with all
of our, uh, department of Finance contractors,
because I've heard that people are just going out only
for parking tickets or they might only be looking
for certain things, but we need them to look
for all the categories.
Um, making sure that we're cross training all those folks
to look at the city sticker and the residential parking zone
and the daily pass plus whatever else they're looking
in terms of parking.
Yeah. Thank you.
No, I've, that's definitely a thing, especially hours,
maybe when the hours of enforcement, right?
Usually, like you mentioned, evening hours or so.
So I think that coordination will be important.
Um, uh, in terms of the, the, the sister agencies
and part and business partners to expand the city
key program, uh, what have you had any specific,
or maybe, um, a group
or an area where you're looking for, of course.
Like there are areas of the city where, you know,
as you know, we have, uh, populations that are maybe in,
in higher demand per se than others.
So, you know, maybe one of those, one
of those business partners and city agencies
that maybe you're starting those conversations.
And again, in the south ways,
I think there's certainly a big need.
Yeah, we are all over the city.
Um, and, you know, wherever we're asked go, we had worked,
we worked very closely with CHA, we were there
during the DNC for Altman Burnett when folks couldn't get
the ID to get in the parameter.
So Homeland Security and Secret Service asked us to come
and print for a lot of the CHA residents
so they could use the city key.
Um, gaining access.
Um, we are partnership, really close partnership
with Chicago Public School, city Colleges,
one summer Chicago for our youth.
Um, and, um, department of, uh, people with disabilities.
The mayor's office has been great.
We have a permanent,
we're using their permanent site on Ogden for, uh,
senior specific hours
and for people with disabilities to, to, uh, get that.
And then we're also looking at, um, talking
to the RTA this in January about the senior path.
'cause we can't, we need to see how we can maybe integrate
that free rides for seniors into the city key card.
That's been something they've been asking
about a lot of seniors.
So we're gonna try to see if we can integrate their
technology into the city key card so we can print on top
of those cards and they can have their free ride
pass along with their sidiki.
Absolutely. Thank you so much here, clerk.
Thank you, chairman. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh, Che Lopez, uh, I'm a follow up
to a question that, uh, that the Alderman asked.
Um, what the, in your investigators,
what did they empowered to do?
Um, they are empowered.
So usually we get, um, a list from 3 1 1 about, you know,
uh, specific complaints.
Um, but they are empowered to, uh,
write city secret tickets, residential parking zone.
And I believe they're empowered to do more than that.
But I'm gonna let Riley Bo
and our Chief operating officer speak on it.
So I don't misspeak.
Uh, good morning. Riley Boland,
uh, chief Operating Officer.
Thank you, alderman. Um,
they're all non-moving, uh, violations.
So city sticker tickets, RBP tickets, um, standing, uh,
parking in front of like a fire hydrant.
Those, so
The, so they're investigating generally complaints on the
RPP, but they are empowered to write any other, uh,
municipal code violation, uh, related to
Depart department code? Correct.
If it's correct, if it's a, uh,
a non-moving violation, um, yeah, it's 3 0 1 complaints.
That would be city sticker related or, okay.
Uh, plate sticker, things of those. Okay.
As long as it's not moving. Alright.
Thank you much. Uh, ultimate Con, we had a quick follow
Up and I, it's, um,
and if, if you don't know this off the top of the head,
it will off, it will come through Vasquez's,
uh, request of the chair.
Do you know how many directionally
how many RPPs we sell per year?
Yes, I do know that. I don't need
to the number kind of a directional number.
We have the RRP PA directional
number or is that like a
Estimate? Um, no, I'm say if she knows
the nearest
10,000. So residential
Daily passes, um, January 1st, 2024
to September 30th, 2024.
We sold 171,284.
Um, we're projected to sell 215,000 this year.
And that's, that's just the daily, that's
Just the daily passes. How
about the, um, the, uh, city
Stickers? Yeah,
city stickers, um, we're projected for 2024,
1 million, 160,000.
So far we've sold 850,830.
Okay. Great. That's all I got. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Was that directional enough for
You? Yeah, that's exact.
I, I guess,
Uh, chair Harris, you had something?
I don't have a question now. Um, alderman, CTO Lopez kind
of asked and answered all my questions.
Um, but I do have, you are one of the biggest revenue
generating agencies slash departments, uh, at, in the city.
Um, would it help if you had enough people
in certain departments
to help get revenue up to increase revenue?
What would that look like for you
For additional, uh, spots
You had additional bodies to be able
to help us get the rest of? I'm just
Question. It's a loaded
question. It absolutely
Is. I will tell you, we
started, when I started at City Clerk,
I was at 1 0 1, we're now at 92 mm-Hmm.
Um, we have eight vacancies.
And I will tell you, under the last administration,
one year we entered with 14 vacancies.
Like because of this hiring freeze
and it about killed my team.
Like, we have to be strategic when you're doing these,
I think hiring freezes
because when a revenue generating department, we calculated
each person could bring around $1.2 million of revenue.
So out of the eight vacancies, seven
of 'em are union positions.
Those union positions, when someone vacates or retires
or leaves, it takes 60 days
before you can start beginning the process to fill.
I don't think people realize union positions can take up
to six months to hire.
It's, they have to go through testing
then all these other things.
And if someone, which we had someone start
and they were two weeks in and then they quit
'cause they got something else, then you have
to start the whole process over.
So we are working with department, the budget team,
because we would like to keep on pace to hire.
We do not wanna end with eight vacancies this year.
Mentally, like my team, we could offer all the overtime
and we will get behind in thousands of emails.
We can offer Saturday overtime, which we did before.
Um, but people wouldn't, would stop taking it after a while
because they have lives and they're burning out.
So I do wanna just caution this body that a hiring freeze,
I understand we have to do whatever we need to do
to save dollars, but let's do it strategically
with departments, especially revenue generating departments
to allow us to not to get too behind.
So if we could be able to hire those, um, start
that process, at least the seven union ones this year, um,
into next year would be great.
Um, and I know that would be helpful.
Let me make a comment. It was my understanding
that revenue generating positions were not
included in the hiring freeze.
So what you're telling me is that's not the case.
Are you all, you have vacancies that you all are,
have not been authorized to feel,
and the rationale was that it was part
of the hiring freeze. Well,
We are talking to budget
and they did allow one to go through,
and so we're gonna try to space it out
and I think that's a conversation we'll have after.
Um, I wanted to have a conversation after their hearing,
but that is something that I think is important.
And our council division is not revenue generating,
but we do still have two council division.
Um, and now we're gonna have three actually.
So we're gonna, we need to start those two
because we are seeing more an uptick
in more council meetings.
So that would be helpful to be able to start those as well.
How many positions do you have open now if
Eight and seven are union?
Okay. Eight and the revenue. But on the council side,
Oh eight, no, eight total. Eight
total. Uh, five are revenue generating. Okay.
And then the other two are council division.
Um, I don't have any other questions.
I just wanna thank everybody in the box
and your staff who is just simply amazing and awesome.
Um, you know, we, as city council people,
we kinda work closely closest, probably
with your office than any other.
So thank them. It's a thankless job.
And when I'm going home, some
of your staff are still here working up
until midnight generating documents, uh, for us so
that we can continue to move government forward.
So everybody in the box,
thank you guys for everything that you do.
You are truly appreciated.
Um, and I love each and every one of you,
and you just really have an amazing group in your office.
So thank you. Uh, and thank you all
for everything that you do.
Um, I would, I would say this,
I've been doing 18 budgets
and I, it's always been my understanding
that the executive officer had the
right to do his own budget.
Has that changed, Mr. Chairman?
Well, I know that they work in conjunction, uh,
with budget and I can, you know, kind
of speak a little bit from looking at the process on a, uh,
inside basis watching the
treasurer's office go through a few things.
Um, I'll say this, uh, I do believe that
there needs to be more of an understanding
that these are independently elected officials.
They have their, uh, respective constituencies
and that their budgetary priorities
and things as far as I I'll say hiring and,
and the ability to manage their offices, uh,
needs to be unrestricted.
Similar to, for us as we are, we're given a number,
Hey, man is within the number.
And, and whatever you all do within that, as long
as is legal and complies
with the roof, should, should move forth.
So from that respect, uh, I, I do believe that, uh,
the offices, especially the citywide electeds
and our offices, um,
and we don't have those challenges as we work
through her office on our payments
and all on the hiring end.
And then on the payment side with the comptroller, again,
as long as the stuff is within the ordinance that guides us,
we generally don't have any problems.
But I do see though, uh, on the, uh, s in there and,
and what I would categorize it as more
of the treatment like a department versus an office.
Exactly. And so, um, that's something I I think
that could definitely use some, uh, some work.
Um, and I will, I I'll defend both of my constituents, uh,
on that, uh, on that particular matter, uh, as,
as the clerk is actually a resident of mine as well.
So yes, we are, we
We saw each other trick or Treating.
Yeah. So, but again, I, I think that is, that is critical
and understand with you supporting No, no, I,
I, I, I agree with that, that
These offices need a little more latitude than to me,
that, that, that, that we give them, um,
they do get elected, um,
and they shouldn't be treated like a regular
department head who's appointed by the mayor.
Agreed. Thank you. Thank you.
And I just wanna go on the record.
We have a great relationship
with the budgeted team and they're great.
The hiring process could speed up a little bit more.
I've never had to go to the mayor's office for, to, to say,
Hey, we have an A form.
Can you please approve this? A form?
Then you go to the department of hr
and then you gotta go back and it's like,
it slows down the hiring process.
And then we can't serve you all fast enough.
It's just bureaucracy, red tape, that should just be cut.
I'm super concerned about the, the, the five positions
that are in revenue that,
that are revenue driven, that aren't,
Yeah, I think with the budget team,
we have a great working relationship to, to do our salvage
and we stay on target for salvage.
But in terms, I don't feel like I need to go
to the mayor's office to ask for this person
or d HR to be like, we should just be able
to stay on salvage and have our hiring plan and go.
So we're not restricted to all of you.
When you're asking for things from us, we can't give you
because we don't have the people power to do it. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you Chair.
Thank chair, and uh, vice chair, lead to close.
Thank you, chair. Good morning. How are you?
Welcome to Saturday.
Saturday chambers. Saturday chambers.
Saturday chambers, um, clerk, uh, Valencia.
I, I, I will join the, the course
of accolades for your team.
Um, I, I won't belabor the point, but you guys are awesome.
Um, and I know how hard you all work.
Um, our offices talk to each other all the time.
Um, I especially appreciated the, the advanced briefing, um,
on what you were gonna be presenting for budget.
I think that's always really helpful.
And you've always been somebody that has, uh,
been very communicative and collaborative.
Um, and, you know, we, I gave some feedback, um, you know,
for things that I thought, uh, were,
were gonna be a little bit more difficult for some
of my residents as far as the increase in the RPP,
um, dailies.
Uh, and that just, it is what it is at this point.
You know, the city is in a very
difficult position right now.
And, and, uh, to echo what Alderman Riley was saying,
I do appreciate that you, you came forward with, um,
your best effort here.
And, and, uh, you, you did that in a way, um,
that I felt was very responsible at the end of the day.
Um, I just have a couple of questions.
One, regarding, um, RPPs, um, do we issue RPPs for
students with out-of-state plates?
I do not. No. Riley, do you wanna answer that?
Hi, Riley Boland, uh, chief Operating Officer.
Thank you for the question. Uh, yes.
We actually, uh, issue city stickers for anyone
who has a valid registered vehicle.
So you can have a Iowa, Iowa license plate,
or Minnesota, we will still, uh,
provide you with a city sticker.
And if you live in an RPP zoned block
or neighborhood, we can put the annual zone on
that city sticker.
You would just need to show proof of ID
and also proof of address, whether
that's your Illinois driver's license
or your passport with like a lease
or your mortgage statement. So
The vehicle doesn't need to be registered in the
city in order to get
That. No, it does not.
And that's be, that's specifically for students,
That's for anyone
that is any resident of the city
of Chicago. So not I didn't know that.
I thought, I thought your vehicle had
to have a city registra, uh, city sticker.
I mean, uh, the vehicle had to be registered in the state
of Illinois, um, to get any sort of city sticker.
So I've, I've been misinformed about that this whole time.
Um, okay. Learn something new every day.
I, yes, I do, because I was getting angry
at the people on my street.
It was Wisconsin plates
or something with Florida plates,
access center, Florida plates.
All right. I I will, I will stop trying to,
I will stop trying to enforce that I did.
'cause I looked at their
sticker and I was like, wait a second.
This has their exact, um, their exact license plate.
Um, how, how many more, um, applications
for RPPs are you, are you seeing a big increase in that?
Um, people wanting, uh,
RPPs in their, in their neighborhoods
Probably can answer.
Yeah. Um, unfortunately,
we're not the ones receiving the applications
that really goes through the comptroller.
We're the administers of the RPP system.
So really we are the ones that are taking the legislation
and then inputting it into our system.
So we're able to sell it through OTC.
Um, but we do work hand in hand with finance
and CDOT as those, uh,
those RPPs are passed or going through committee.
I just think increasingly, you know, parking is one
of the most sensitive things I hear about in my office.
I'm sure many of my colleagues, um, can, uh, can relate.
Um, especially as, you know, I've got the Remo Theater,
I've got a, a bunch of other venues.
Um, and it encroaches on, uh, on parking, um,
for residents especially, you know,
when they come home from work if there's late night events.
So, you know, oftentimes I am, I am saying to people like,
if you are interested in, uh,
creating a residential permit parking zone, um, happy
to consider that if you get enough people on the
block to agree to it.
But there is a, a, a cost associated with it at night.
You know, we, we like the revenue, don't get me wrong.
'cause, you know, I think we're on the hunt for revenue,
but I think increasingly we're, we're gonna need
to have more conversations about how we address this,
especially on the enforcement side.
So, you know, I'll echo what, um,
alderman Harris was saying, uh, if there's a way for us
to get you more people for enforcement.
I, I think that's probably the biggest complaint that I get,
um, from people who have taken the effort
to get the petition signed and paid the extra money
and put the, put their, um,
their daily stickers on there when they have guests
and they have their permits on there,
and then, you know, they never see enforcement out
and every day they're, they're seeing other people
parking, um, on their street.
And it's very frustrating.
So anything that we can do to continue to support that,
I do think that, um,
if they're revenue generating positions, they, they,
they shouldn't have been subject to the free.
So we'll be interested to talk
to the administration about why that's happening.
Thanks. Thank you very much for all that you guys do.
Thank you. And also on your, if you have special events
or special, um, we could talk to you about,
there's special event parking that we do around Wrigley
and about, and the South Loop with, uh,
Al Mendo too, 'cause a Bears game.
So if there are special events happening
or venues, uh, follow up with Ian
and Riley to talk to you about that.
Maybe that's something we need to look at. Yeah.
To provide something we can talk
about that in their residents. Yeah,
That would be great.
Thank you.
Think vice chair. Uh, just, I got two things.
Uh, at, at one point there was conversation around a
pass for RPPs for certain industries.
For example, there was like real estate.
Um, whatever happened with that. Um,
My chief of staff can talk about that, which
by the way, is her birthday today.
Oh, happy birthday. And she's spending it with all
of you now. I made a ru
Uh, good morning. Catherine
O'Connell.
Uh, first deputy city clerk and chief of staff.
Um, I forgot, I'm sorry, I forgot the question.
Oh, the, um, Oh, we see what you've been doing. What,
What happened to the real,
what happened to the real estate?
Um, special RP, yeah. RPPs.
Yes. We actually ended up sunsetting that program.
I wanna say it was in 2018
or maybe 2019, we sold three.
Um, it was a $500 essentially city sticker
that would let you park anywhere in the city.
It, you had all zones included.
Um, it gained some traction under
the previous administration.
Um, and then it just kind of fell flat.
And after we only sold three,
we ended up discontinuing the program and let it sunset.
Is that a, is that something
that's diff difficult to implement?
No, I don't, I don't think it's particularly
difficult to implement.
Um, I think it would just be helpful if we knew that the,
that the audience was there for, uh, for it to sell it.
Uh, it does take up real estate in our OTC program.
Um, so if, if we knew that there was a demand for it,
we would certainly be happy
to have conversations to bring it back.
Okay. Why? Sure.
Yeah. Just to throw into that, um, the other request
that I generally get, uh,
'cause I have a lot of seniors in my neighborhood, is
that they have caregivers that come into the, uh,
neighborhood and if they are on RPP streets
and they're having to buy daily passes for them, so
that might be another group.
I mean, if we're revisiting this at all, yeah,
I think it may, it may bode well
because we, I I get the, I get the professional services,
I get the, uh, home care worker.
Um, and quite frankly, um, many times we personally,
if we go to a area and we're heavenly inundated with RPPs
and your different blocks, different zones,
and there you are, and we, we too could become, um,
the victim of a, of a, a legitimate ticket that, you know,
we're working in our official capacities doing things.
So, um, I I think that that may be something
that we may need to either, uh, you know, put back on
and may look at categories of individuals who may qualify
for, uh, for such.
And, uh, you know, setting an appropriate,
appropriate free fee was where did 500 come from?
Was that why, why do we think 500 was the
appropriate amount for that?
Catherine O'Connell first Deputy
City clerk and chief of staff.
Thank you for your question. Uh, chairman, I, I don't know.
I can't speak to that. It was set
during the previous administration with the city clerk.
Um, I think they just felt like it
was an appropriate number.
Uh, but I, I can't speak with any direct knowledge to that.
But I will say that we do, um,
we don't currently offer any
discounts for home care workers.
However, we do offer them the option
to purchase daily passes, uh,
for the patient that they care for.
Um, we ask that they bring us a letter on the company
or organization's letterhead stating that they are caring
for such patient, such patient at set address.
Um, and we will allow them to purchase the daily passes
to alleviate the burden of the patient having to come in
and purchase the passes on their own.
I think the other thing too, one thing we've always tried
to do is with the Amazon and UPS, we can't,
or Amazon at least, we are still trying to figure out how
to get them because they registered all their vehicles
outside of Chicago, so we can't technically enforce them
to buy the city sticker.
'cause they, they're smart about registering
outside and not in Chicago.
But that's something we're still tackling with
because they don't pay anything to, uh, deliver
or take spots up on our streets
or tear and wear our streets.
So like those, uh, type of delivery services
is still an interesting thing to, that we still
Can't figure out. So what, uh,
then that leads to another question.
What, what is the legal requirement for the purchase
of a city sticker?
You must be registered vehicle in the city
of Chicago, or, or, I'm sorry.
Wait. Riley, chief Operating Officer. He can tell us.
Hi, uh, Riley Poland, chief Operating Officer.
Thank you for the question. Uh, in order
to acquire a city sticker,
you need a valid vehicle registration. No,
No, no, no, no. I'm not, I'm
not asking why
Do you have to register? Why,
When, when must I get a city sticker?
When you graduate, when you were living
In Chicago, when, when must you registered here?
Yes. Uh, 30 days within establishing residence
or, uh, establishing residence business and
or if a vehicle is new to you
And it has to be registered in Chicago,
The vehicle does not have to
be registered here in Chicago.
So for A city sticker, no. Oh, okay. Oh, so
You rrp you don't need the city sticker to, you don't need
to be a, a, a vehicle registered in the city of Chicago
to get a city sticker.
But that is not, if, for example, if the person in, uh,
Vice-Chair Lee's example, didn't need a RPP pass,
9 99 times out of a hundred,
they're not getting a city sticker.
Right. So the question then becomes, is there a way for us
to require an individual whose vehicle is registered outside
of the city of Chicago to have a city sticker based on some
other theory of, uh, usage
or some other manner?
So it would be, it would also be doing business
with the city, but also with our current system, uh,
OTC and not being able to integrate with other systems.
So whether it would be the Secretary of State
or other DMVs across, we wouldn't be able to really
know how many folks or,
or businesses, uh, Amazon in particular.
The, the data that we get from the Secretary of State,
we're only, uh, the way they register their vehicles, right,
is by location, is a fleet, is a, is a fleet plate.
And we don't have the ability to see where,
or how they're registering
or what, where they're registered.
Um, we don't have access to that.
So that's why Amazon can also be sometimes difficult
to potentially, um, put them
or get them through into the wheel tax program.
So one might argue the same thing
with the rental car companies, like out at O'Hare
and Midway the, the same conversation.
That is just something that we may need to research
to see if there's an opportunity for them to participate,
um, in, in our, our vehicle sticker program.
So. Okay. Um, go ahead.
Just along those lines. Thanks Chair.
Along those lines, I'm just curious how,
when people move into Chicago,
how do they know they're supposed to get a city sticker?
Great question. We have no marketing
dollars for, as a city.
I think the most inequitable thing here, um,
for municipalities to grapple with is we have a lot
of great services no one knows about.
'cause we have like very little minimal money for marketing,
and I understand why we're in a, a budget deficit.
So we have to really think about how we do that.
Uh, a while back when we were doing a, a bunch of compliance
and fines and fees reform,
we were putting things in gas stations, we were putting,
trying to, um, find where people interact, right?
Where do they go? Um, so
that's still a million dollar question if we,
it's a struggle 'cause the Secretary
of State's data is not totally up, like up to date.
I know they're working on this data management
and when their data is better, our data will be better.
And, um, that will help us find kind of who's out
of compliance and in compliance.
But that's still an ongoing issue.
Interesting. I don't know
how we can work together to make that better.
I would love to be able to give our new residents a welcome
package and help 'em
Understand what we do. Yeah, we can do, like,
we have a digital, uh,
toolkit we can send you to like, um, use
and let people know about.
Um, we can, you know, give you,
Um, I'm just not sure how we would know if
somebody moved into our
Ward. Uh, yeah. A lot
of people find out when people,
like if you're an RPP seller, they'll come in
or if they're asking you and they're
new, you can hand them that.
Or anyone who walks in the door, uh, may not know.
But that's still like an issue.
We're trying to figure out how
to let people know about citykey, how
to let them know the city sticker,
how do we get about our services out there?
Yeah. And let us know how we can
help. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
Well, we'll be sure to get on the Manna Hopping Wolf
welcome wagon and, uh, do that.
Uh, again, uh, thank you for your service.
Uh, thank you for all that you do.
The ideas that you brought forth, the modernization, um,
with, uh, us here in in council, uh, the electronic voting.
Uh, I know we've been, we're going kicking
and screaming, but I know we're going.
So, uh, again, I, I think the innovation
and the technologies that you're bringing to help, uh,
modernize and make the, uh, operations more efficient
where people can see what's going on, uh, your offices
to be commended for that.
And I would expect it,
I would expect nothing less than a great, I'm you are, uh,
you are a west side or so.
I would expect nothing, uh, less So again, thank you.
And, uh, you all are excused.
We're gonna take a short break to bring in the
office of the Inspector General.
Thank you so much everyone.
Morning before us.
Uh, now we have, uh, inspector General Weisberg.
Uh, we will, uh, begin
with the short presentation from Kofa, followed
by opening statement
and introductions from Inspector uh, Weisberg
and her team director, gray
Chairman Irving, vice Chairman
Lee Alder, persons and guest.
Good morning. My name is Jana Sota Gray, director of kofa
Office of Inspector General.
The FY 25 recommended budget is 14.2 million,
which is 0.12% higher than the FY 24 revised.
The FY recommended budgeted FTE is 1 21.
This represents a reduction of three FTE from FY 24.
The FY 25 budget is 72.3%.
Corporate funded personnel accounted for 12.09 million
and non-personnel 2.1 million.
Thank you. Thank you Director. Um, inspector.
Thank you. Good morning, chairman Irvin
and members of of the city Council.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before the City Council Committee on the budget
and government operations in 2024.
The Office of Inspector General continued the growth
and progress for which we have planned
and built since my term began in 2022 through the end
of the third quarter of this year,
OIG processed more than 9,000 intakes an increase over this
time last year of more than 40%
in our investigations section.
We are working more cases
and doing so in a more timely manner.
As of the end of the third quarter, we have both opened
and closed more misconduct investigations than
at the same time last year.
In our audit and program review section, we continue
to identify opportunities
to make city government operate more effectively,
efficiently and equitably.
We've seen a marked increase in the frequency
of city council hearings on our audits in the committee on
ethics and government oversight, including on audit reports
concerning permanent inspections by the Department
of Buildings and the Department of Family
and Support Services outreach to residents
of unhoused encampments, our public safety section,
whose efforts led to OIGs being the first
and only component of city government
to be released from our obligations under the consent decree
entered in Illinois versus Chicago in 2023,
published reports on topics including the Chicago Police
Department's preparedness for mass gatherings.
And at the end of the third quarter,
we had reviewed more than a thousand police disciplinary
investigations conducted by CPDs Bureau of Internal Affairs
and by the Civilian Office of Police Accountability.
Our Center for Information Technology
and Analytics has built
and is maintaining 41 public facing dashboards in the
service of our transparency mandate.
Animated by the principle that information about the
government belongs to the governed, the number
of users viewing those dashboards on our information portal
has increased nearly a third since last year.
Our data analytics team also maintains tools for
and works with other OIG sections, leveraging our access
to city data to empower our
investigative and evaluative efforts.
I continue to believe that among the ways we ought
to pay down the deficit of legitimacy at which the city
of Chicago operates with its residents, is
by holding bad actors accountable.
When they break the rules, regardless of their position
or title, we have dramatically increased the frequency
and rigor with which we pursue violations
of the city's ethics rules.
Over two thirds of all probable cause findings ever
by the Board of ethics in OIG investigations
have occurred in the past two years.
So far. In 2024,
we have successfully pursued probable cause findings in 10
ethics investigations
and the board of ethics has announced it would pursue fines
totaling over $120,000 this year arising out
of OIG investigations.
This is an enforcement effort of a different order
of magnitude for too long.
The rules that stand between us
and a government, no one has any reason to trust,
have been categorically under enforced.
We have changed that. Meanwhile, we are going everywhere.
We are invited and some places we're not to talk
to Chicagoans about our work
and to listen to Chicagoans about
the work we ought to be doing.
So far in 2024, we have visited 27 of your wards
dramatically increased our digital engagement.
Distributed public awareness materials, including to each
of your ward offices in five languages, English, Spanish,
Polish, Mandarin and Arabic.
Arranged awareness raising billboards and digital PSAs
and run awareness raising signs in English
and Spanish on CTA buses and trains.
Looking ahead to 2025
OIGs proposed budget reflects cuts in certain personnel
and non-personnel costs as mandated by the city.
In light of the budget shortfall in our budget planning
process, we were asked to reduce non-personnel costs by 3%.
And we did so by substantially reducing our proposed
allocation in account 0 1 4 9, a confidential account
for software maintenance
and licensing to accommodate this reduction.
We are not planning
for new information technology initiatives in 2025
and will delay new software purchases
as necessary in personnel.
Three positions have been eliminated from OIGs proposed
budget in investigator position in our
investigations section, a senior performance analyst in our
audit and program review section
and an investigative analyst in our public safety section
from the unit charged
with reviewing closed police disciplinary cases,
we selected those positions for proposed elimination
to meet the cost reduction target for OIG determined
by the Office of Budget Management.
To be clear, these positions were not selected
for elimination because they are extraneous or unnecessary.
We selected those positions, which had been vacant,
pending approval to fill them, um,
to avoid laying off employees
by eliminating filled positions.
The work done in each of these positions is vital
to managing the large volume
of OIGs misconduct investigations in a timely manner
to identifying waste
and inefficiency in city programs in our performance audits
and to doing the vital work of,
of overseeing Chicago's police disciplinary system,
including, for example, our work on our work on allegations
that CPD members have belonged to
or associated with extremist or anti-government groups.
We have made small increases in certain non-personnel
accounts in anticipation of our workspace relocation,
and to reflect our prioritization of training
and credentialing of OIG staff to ensure the rigor, quality,
and credibility of our work
and have offset those increases in other areas
where we have reduced needs or available efficiencies.
We currently have three vacant positions,
which will carry over, all of which we will look to fill
as quickly as possible into 2025 to investigator positions
and a technical support position.
OIGs proposed budget would fund the office
above the floor established by the municipal code,
which sets a mandatory minimum for OIGs budget at 0.14%
of the city's overall budget.
The cuts in OIGs budget at this point are not insig,
are not insignificant, but nor are they crippling.
We will continue holding city actors accountable when they
abuse the public trust, shining light into the dark corners
of City Hall and finding ways for the city
to better serve Chicagoans.
The Municipal Code of Chicago sets a floor
for OIGs budget in order to protect OIGs structural
and operational independence.
That independence is the hallmark of Inspector general work
and the lifeblood of effective oversight.
We will continue to guard our independence fiercely,
including in initiating our work
and in allocating the resources appropriated by this body.
I look forward to the work we will do in 2025 in pursuit
of a government which more closely resembles the
one Chicagoans deserve.
Thank you for your time today.
I welcome your questions
and chairman, I, I neglected
to introduce our folks in the box.
Apologies. No problem.
Uh, we have Nate Wachman, who's our general counsel.
Tabba Richardson is our deputy IG for public Safety.
Melissa Vela is our deputy IG
for information technology and analytics.
Darwin Jones is Deputy IG for Audit and Program review.
Brad Snyder is Associate General counsel for investigations.
Raul Valdez is Director of Special Investigations.
George Lauder is deputy IG
for investigations in the back row.
Michelle Wright is our Director
of Diversity, equity and inclusion.
Bree McDonald is our finance officer
and Eloise Markham is our, uh, manager of human resources.
Thank you. Um, I wanna start with one question.
You talked about your budget floor. Yes sir.
Um, and your budget floor being a percentage
of the overall budget.
Um, I, as our budget has increased, I think we,
in the past five years, we,
our budget we're at 17.3 billion.
However, um, does that include, uh, special revenue,
uh, grant funds
because it is my belief in anticipation
that those numbers will begin to go down
because we've had this huge influx
of ARPA money and other things.
And what does that floor mean?
Uh, as your, um,
as the overall budget will probably begin to shrink,
The, um, the total budget that is used for purposes
of calculating the floor does include grant funds.
So it is the total, the, the total amount of money
minus two deductions that are specified in the ordinance.
The so subtracted from that total,
which includes grant funds, are the, um,
sister agency payments, which we receive pursuant
to intergovernmental agreements this year with the PBC.
That's about $202,000.
And then the second deduction is the, um,
the pension payment, the difference
between the current pension payment
and the one that was in the 2014 appropriation,
which was the first year that we had a budget floor.
Okay. So you, you don't, uh,
c you're above the floor now
and as the floor gets lowered, um,
that then becomes a decision for us to either maintain
above the floor or, but we must fund at least to the floor.
Correct. Okay. Alright.
Any questions for, uh, general
Weisberg Conway?
Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. On mcc senior people
Over There that are Oh, I looked the wrong way.
Okay. I looked that way then they
didn't, you know, they respond.
Who, who was up first over there?
Lopez followed by, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Chairman Martin, this is your committee. Go ahead.
Thank you Chair in general. Uh, good morning.
Morning to see you. Uh, as we told the clerk's office,
my thanks to you and your team for coming in on a weekend.
I know this is a typical, uh, the challenges
that we face are significant, so we appreciate your time.
Um, to start, how's your office doing, um,
with the move, uh, to, to offices?
I know that was a big topic of conversation this
time last year.
Has it been a challenging process, a smooth process?
Um, it is always interesting for our purposes
to be on the user end of city services.
Not the evaluative end, but the user end.
Um, we are tentatively scheduled
to move the first week of December.
We've made, we've made a lot of progress.
We've had some challenges,
but we are, I think on track for early December.
Are there any significant hurdles that, uh,
you want this body to be aware of at this point?
Um, no, I don't think so at this point.
I think we have, um, we've, we've resolved most
of those I think at this point.
Okay. Um, how is your office overall?
And this is something that we talk about every year doing in
reducing the number of investigations that take over a year
to complete, particularly in the public safety section,
which is obviously a high profile one.
Um, well, our public safety section does not conduct
misconduct investigations specifically.
They do evaluative projects on the police department
and the police accountability agencies.
Those projects vary significantly in length
depending on the subject matter.
Obviously our own misconduct investigations,
which do sometimes include CPD members as subjects.
Um, we have, we have, as we've discussed the last couple
of years, taken steps both in increased staffing
and in systems improvements internally to reduce the number
of those investigations that go on for over a year.
Um, we have substantially reduced that number.
That number will begin to go back up as we, um, get
a year into some
of our large proactive investigative efforts,
including specifically our efforts
to investigate potentially fraudulent PPP loans
issued to city employees.
That's a very, very large volume of investigative work.
Um, we are closing those cases
and we are reporting those in our quarterly reports
as they come, but we are approaching the point at which a
substantial body of those cases will,
will reach a year old and we will report those out.
Um, was hoping you could delve into a little bit more
detail with the software maintenance
and licensing reductions
that you had mentioned in your opening comments.
Understanding that, uh, the, the
budget office has asked all departments, um, to,
to look at areas to cut, especially outside of personnel.
Um, what do you understand at least
for the next fiscal year, the implications could be
of this reduction if ultimately it's codified?
I appreciate the question. I wanna be a little bit
thoughtful about the answer because that is one
of our confidential accounts.
But, um, we have, we have already begun to realize,
and we've identified I think some further opportunities
for savings in software maintenance
and licensing by using software solutions
that are licensed already to the city.
And so rather than having separate license agreements on
certain software solutions, we are able
to use licenses on some city products
that is sometimes appropriate
and sometimes not based on our confidentiality obligations,
depending on what the software solution is.
So, um, that is not always available to us.
But we have, for example, with, uh, with Tableau,
which we use for our data dashboards,
our data visualizations, we've been able
to realize meaningful savings by using
licenses through the city.
So I anticipate, you know, my thinking about
non-personnel budget cuts is I,
I would like us when necessary to identify cuts which
don't cause us to, uh, undermine the foundation
of work we have already done.
And which wouldn't require substantial sort of startup costs
if and when those, those allocations
are replaced down the road.
And so my thinking is that we will, if those funds are cut,
um, we will not likely be in a position to
engage substantial new data analysis
or data transparency initiatives.
Um, but I am confident that we will be in a position
to maintain our information portal, for example,
as it as it operates currently.
Understood. Um, earlier this year,
I believe your office announced that it was the first
and only department to have achieved a hundred percent
compliance with your obligations under the consent decree.
Understanding that yours relative
to especially the police department, is relatively small,
nevertheless, is something
that we should acknowledge and celebrate.
Are there lessons learned from your compliance efforts,
successful compliance efforts that we should be mindful of?
Particularly as the administration has proposed such deep
cuts to the office of Constitutional policing
and other reform efforts within CPD?
I think that there are some scalable lessons.
You're absolutely right.
The scale of our obligations under the consent
decree was substantially smaller.
It, it does allow sort of a laboratory, uh,
of ideas in terms of compliance.
Um, reform takes resources, uh, and,
and we are not gonna wish ourselves
into consent decree compliance.
We not only did we prioritize compliance
as an operational matter, um,
but we devoted personnel to it.
So the management team in our public safety section led
by IG Richardson, um, devoted very substantial time
and personnel bandwidth to our compliance efforts.
And I, I think that that is the only way to do it.
Understood. Um, my last question is around,
um, kind of the scope of your office's work generally, um,
and as it dovetails with auditing that can and,
and doesn't always need to be done through your office.
I had, uh, uh, our,
our first budget town hall earlier this week,
and one of the questions that a number
of residents asked was, talk with us in general terms about
what auditing, especially proactive auditing,
is done across city departments.
'cause I think there are, are beliefs
that there's always waste fraud, uh, that
that can be better identified and protected against.
Uh, we of course highlighted the work that your office does.
Um, but I was wondering if there are any complimentary
efforts that you're aware of across departments
or in particular departments
that we can highlight in particular people who are not, um,
associated with OIG,
but still are internal auditors that are doing proactive,
ideally annual audits to
pour over in a fine tooth comb the operations
and expenditures and departments beyond some
of the bigger audits and reports that your office completes.
Absolutely. I, this is a sort
of force amplification question,
which I think is a really good one where,
where we all have finite resources.
We ought to be doing the most we have with what we've got,
including by working collaboratively.
So I appreciate the question. I'll say a couple things.
One, um, as you know, the auditing
that we do is performance auditing, not financial auditing.
It certainly provides us with opportunities
to identify wasteful spending, inefficient uses
of resources, uncollected fees, et cetera.
And we've done some of all of that just in the last quarter.
Um, but we have looked for and found,
and we will continue to, to look for more opportunities
to work with entities like, for example,
the internal audit group at the Chicago Police Department.
Um, we have met, um, we have had quarterly meetings
with a team at OBM to talk about
where our recommendations have direct budget implications,
and we've been providing regular sort of notice
of those things to OBM for budget planning purposes.
Um, we meet at least annually with the city's
outside auditors to make sure
that anything we are seeing in our work kind
of factors into their analysis of the city's balance sheets.
Um, so I wholeheartedly agree
that there's a lot of opportunity there.
Those are the things we have been doing.
I I would be happy to have suggestions for other,
other kinds of that collaborative
work that we might be able to do.
Okay. I, I think that merits conversation also offline,
um, because we have, um, the workforce allocation study,
which will hopefully get off the ground
after, uh, an embarrassingly long runway
to just execute that contract.
I think as we, um, confront the city's fiscal challenges,
particularly as ARPA ramps down, I sense a growing desire
and a need to find ways to augment your work, um, with some
of the auditing you talked about.
Um, and would welcome your office's suggestions in addition
to, uh, us suing you as a sounding board.
So thank you in advance and thank you chair. Thank
You. Thank
you. Uh, chair.
Um, I, I want to follow up on a point you made.
We tave been talking about workforce allocation, um,
and, uh, the,
and we've been talking about the police
department workforce allocation.
Um, has, has your office done any
looks or analysis
or anything in that lane that, uh, chairman Martin spoke of
Internally for our own workforce? Or outwardly?
No, outwardly for, I, I mean,
'cause you know, part of, you know,
I've always said this since I've been here that I,
I view your office is the internal audit function
of the city of Chicago and with the police department.
And we actually like said, Hey, not only do we want you
to do that, we want you to give you a whole unit
to focus on this aspect of our municipal, uh, franchise.
Yes. So, like, have you all looked at workforce
allocation in the department,
done any work along those lines
or have the capacity to do work along those lines?
We have, we have recently done substantial work
around police department staffing specifically.
So we have, um, we have a data dashboard,
which has been newly rebuilt
and expanded, uh, to do the best that any of us can do
to answer staffing questions.
Really the question of how many members
of the police department are working in a neighborhood
and when, and we have, um, so that, that is a dashboard
where users can look by community area
or by ward by time of day, by presence
for duty status, et cetera, by unit.
And then we have an accompanying analytical report
that looks at some of the challenges built into CPD data,
which complicate the staffing question.
But have you been, have you made any analysis
or recommendations based upon the information
that you already, I know you guys have a lot of data,
but what, what's step, step two in that is, hey,
you may need to look at this, so look at that.
Have you all done that step in, in the process?
The, um, we have not made recommendations about staffing
allocation within the police department.
It is regularly the case that in our audit
and program review projects in our performance evaluations
of city departments, we often recommend, um, sort
of resource allocation
to address shortcomings that we're seeing in performance.
But nothing necessarily in the police department. Correct.
Is that, um, something that's on your, um, I,
I haven't seen your audit plan for next year,
but is that something that's in the audit plan
or contemplate in the audit plan?
Not specifically.
I think that, um, in light of the city's commitment
to the staffing study, I'm not sure that it makes sense
for us to sort of come behind
and do the, you know, i,
I wanna be wary of duplicating efforts.
Um, so no, we don't have a staffing specific topic
on the draft plan at the moment.
Mr. Chairman, how long has
that staffing study been on the table?
Uh, so this would be the third, uh, attempt at the city.
Uh, they, I think there was a, a mostly completed one
that was not released and then a partially completed one,
uh, in the last term, uh, that ended.
So this is our third bite at the Apple.
It is supposed to, the,
the council earlier this year passed an ordinance specifying
timeline with the ultimate goal, uh, uh,
with the analysis being available to us
and the public by this time next year,
we're approximately four months behind schedule already.
And that was for the easiest part to simply select a vendor
and execute a scope of work
that vendor had already been identified
before the ordinance was passed.
Um, is that a, is that a function that your
office is capable of fulfilling?
Um, I,
I'm hesitating because I, I,
I want to think through carefully.
You're a loss of words. I don't believe
You. Well, no, so rarely
happens. So rarely speechless.
I think, frankly, um, uh, you know, we are not well placed
to make operational decisions for the city.
It is our job to evaluate the city's operational decisions,
um, and we can't do
that if we have made those decisions for the city.
Um, that said, I, I am hopeful we have been in touch a bit
with some of the, the, the sort
of civic groups which are engaged in this,
in the staffing study process.
We've been talking with them. I've,
we've met somewhat regularly to ensure
that the data analysis
and analytical work that we have done so far is feeding
that, is supporting that effort so
that they are not starting from scratch.
I think that is where we are best situated in that effort.
I, I, I wholeheartedly agree with your, with
what I understand to, to underlie your question about
how long this has been pending, that, um,
we could be waiting a long time for the staffing analysis.
It may be coming, but as my mother would say,
so is Christmas, and in the meantime, we got,
we've got resources to
allocate, finite resources to allocate.
So I, I am hopeful
that the work we are doing will support that effort.
We will continue to look for ways to do that.
That was, uh, that was a, that was a slick moonwalk,
but I'm gonna let you go with that one.
Thank you. Uh, hold on. Chairman, he had put his hand,
he had put his hand up,
and then I'll go to, uh, go to, uh, go
to chair D Yeah. And this is
A point of information, really.
So Prism is the third party vendor
that the city has finally contracted with to ex to,
to perform this analysis.
They've done so with several other cities.
So I think they have a built in, uh, set
of expertise in performing this work that, um, our,
our current inspector general's office does not.
And then second, it's being funded, uh, by a collection
of civic organizations.
So thankfully they can move much more quickly, uh, in,
in compensating and ultimately executing the work than if we
went through our normal procurement process.
So I do think even though this is an important set
of questions to ask both with CPD
and other entities, I think in this situation,
let us just move more quickly on the path
that we're on right now.
Okay. Very well chair.
Just, just a clarifying question, Mr.
Chairman, this is a staffing study solely for CPD,
or is it a staffing study for the entire city?
You know what I'm allow, uh, chairman,
can you answer that question?
I'm not a hundred percent with everything
Just CPD, but unlike other staffing analysis,
it would look beyond the Bureau of Patrol to all
of the subdivisions within CPD. That's the scope.
Are you involved in that, uh, intimately. Alderman Martin?
Um, dear Martin, I'm not
more than anybody else on council,
and happy to bring you up to speed offline.
I'm not, I'm not a member of any sort of working group, um,
uh, with this, but happy to talk offline.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Is that you concluded? Okay. Very well.
Aut Lopez, followed by aut CTO Lopez.
Thank you Chairman. And again,
good morning members of the committee.
Good morning Inspector General to you and your team.
First off, lemme just say, please smile.
Only one person smiled back there when we're being
introduced, so it's Okay. Um,
We take our work very seriously. Alden,
I that I I know you do trust me. I'm serious.
You do. Um, I have a first question I have is
in the staff reductions, you mentioned
that those were positions that you were waiting to fill.
Did you have candidates that were in the pipeline
for those three positions?
Believe we were in the midst
of a hiring process for at least one of them.
Okay. Um,
because I'd note, I, my calculations are correct,
that was roughly $175,000 in, in salary cuts
between those three positions.
That's about right. Um,
but I also see in the budget
that we have a hun almost $188,000 in salary adjustments.
Um, was there a decision on withholding
or minimizing some of those salary increases in order
to maintain or to keep a position
or two for the purposes of whatever they were,
uh, set in your department?
We had all of our salary, all
of our upwards salary adjustments.
So we had, um, positions, we had three positions
that were reclassified to appropriately reflect their,
the duties of those positions.
So we had a project director title that was functioning
as our director of diversity equity inclusion.
So that was aligned with other city titles.
We, our director of special investigations position was
reclassified from a, a project manager position, um,
when those titles were basically eliminated.
Um, and then we have a, we had a, um,
administrative position that was reclassified
to a finance associate to better align with their duties.
Those salaries were set to match other,
other similar titles elsewhere.
Um, all of our, all of our other salary increases were part
of the city's salary study.
They were step increases associated with,
with the grades in which people were placed
following the salary study.
So we did not forego any of those increases, um, which,
which belong, all of which, like are caused
by people moving up the steps in their grade.
Um, I understand everyone's concern about, uh, being able
to audit departments and things of that nature.
And I think, um, your department has
done some very great work.
Um, we've seen even with your predecessor, where the ability
to evaluate the delivery of service has led to some
very important changes that have helped most notably
with the trimming of trees where we've been able
to maximize a 60% increase with the same budget.
Um, do you have the
capability to do a cost analysis, not of the workforce,
but of the delivery of the service across all
of the major city departments that most
of our residents interact with?
Sometimes is sort of the answer to that,
and it depends a bit on our audit topic.
We are not always in a position, in fact,
we are often not in a position to assign a dollar value
to an inefficiency
or an ineffectiveness
that we identify in our performance auditing.
Um, sometimes we, we, we are in that position
and we are often at least able to kind
of assess the financial scale of an operation.
So, um, when we look, when we audited, for example,
the workers' compensation, the,
the civilian non-sworn workers' compensation program,
we noted that we were looking at, uh,
what had been major failures
and controls in a program
that has open claims worth
something like half a billion dollars.
So we are able to sort of identify the scale of the problem.
Oftentimes, we are sometimes in a position to,
to do that more specifically.
When we audited, for example, construction
and debris recycling, we identified about a million
and a half dollars that should have been put in an earmarked
fund to, to fund those programs.
It hadn't been, as a result of that project,
the fund was set up and the, and the dollars were earmarked.
What would it take to be able to have that kind of, uh,
analysis by department?
I, I understand that, you know, we're kind
of like cherry picking certain programs
that grab people's attention based on the resources you
have, but what would it take to be able to do that?
Um, across, again, those major departments, when you look at
what 3 1 1 requests we receive most often, if you,
you took the top 10 garbage cart, graffiti trees,
so on potholes, lights, rat road abatement, so on
and so forth, um, we know that we could create a metric, uh,
to identify the cost of delivery of that service, of
that singular service to that singular individual.
Um, the only way we could figure out if we're efficient
or not is if we have year over year analysis of that,
or even month over month, year over year of that same, uh,
service by those same criteria.
What do you need to make that happen?
Because I think that really gets to the question that some
of my colleagues, colleagues are asking.
Mm-Hmm. With regards to your ability to audit
and show whether
or not we're being efficient, does that require both a a,
a staffing up up,
staffing up your department?
Does that require the depart other departments
to be more forthcoming with all of their information?
What does that, what do you need to make that happen?
Uh, yes to both of those questions.
If, if we were to do a sort of service by service
cost audit across city departments,
that would require more staff to do it,
and it would require, um, better access
to higher quality data.
Okay. I, I would love if you could provide us what,
what data metrics you would need from the departments if you
can, because that is something that I, uh, that costs for
services, something I've very much been, uh,
vocal about in my time here.
So I'd like to see what we can do,
because I think, especially
as we're talking about budget cuts
and things of that nature, um, we can do more with
what we have if we just use
what we have better across all, all of them. I,
I will heartedly agree with,
apologies for interrupting you very quickly.
I maybe the best way to do that would be that we could sort
of design a, a, we could sort of design a project
around looking at this cost for city service question, um,
to include on our, in our plans for, for 2025.
Awesome. Uh,
and then lastly, I know there's a lot
of discussion when it comes to, um,
public employees and hate groups
and things of that nature, particularly in, uh, CPD,
but we also know that we have other city employees
who engage in the exact same behavior.
We have employees who even in this own chamber
and the staffs here, are engaging in activity with
organizations and people that are contrary to our values.
Um, what are we doing to ensure
that they are also being held to the same level
as those other individuals that often get used
as poster child for that kind of activity?
Well, we, uh, certainly, uh, are happy to take,
and we do receive complaints of that sort about members
of other city departments.
Um, I will say that the, the rules
that are implicated are not the same everywhere.
So, for example, um, the city's personnel rules do not apply
to, to sworn members of the Chicago Police Department,
and they do not apply to members of city council.
So not everybody is sort
of situated in the same rule landscape, but, um,
but we, we can
and do receive complaints like
that about non-Police City employees.
Oh, I know. Um, then I would just end on this chairman.
You know, I think if you could provide us through the chair,
um, some of those changes that need to be made
to make it more uniform, um,
because I don't think any department,
any public employee should be exempt from being
held to the same standard.
I think that would give, uh, this body a good model upon
which to move forward,
because you can't hold one group
to a certain standard while allowing other people
to quite literally, uh, organize protests
and put city employees in harm's way, uh,
under the same logic. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you. Thank y'all. I'm Lopez.
I I would though, um,
I understand where you're going with that.
Uh, I, I, but I do, uh, want us to
understand, and I think, well, we,
we can evaluate those recommendations once they come from,
um, from the Inspector General, um, and,
and probably have some conversations about,
especially about members of council
and, um, what one may, um,
perceived to be protected speech,
while we may have differences of, of opinion, uh,
and support for others.
So I just, I don't want us to make ourselves so rigid
that we can't, uh, people can't feel free
to express themselves,
especially when they're representing others.
That's, you know, off of that.
Any other questions?
Did you have this follow up? Is your first one? Go ahead.
I haven't gone yet. Okay. Go ahead.
No, I, I, I will say, um,
as a former public corruption prosecutor,
and I know we worked at the state's attorney's office
contemporaneously, uh, I appreciate your willingness to try
and clean up this town
and being willing to get your hands dirty to do it.
Um, and
but beyond that, uh, uh,
chair Martin actually asked all the questions that I had.
So, but, but thank you, uh, madam, uh,
inspector General for your work. Thank you. Thank
You, Thank you.
Any additional questions for the Inspector General Reley?
Thank you. Thank you, chairman,
and, uh, good morning, general Wisberg. Good
Morning. Um,
most of, actually,
all my questions were asked and answered.
I I do want to just put a pin in, in a couple of things
that, uh, you pointed out in your narrative, um,
specifically the fact that you've dramatically increased the
frequency and rigor with which you pursue violations
of the ethics rules, notably over two thirds
of all probable cause findings ever by the Board
of Ethics in, in OIG investigations
have occurred in the last two years.
And obviously I, I know that you've prioritized
those efforts and that's why we're seeing that.
Um, how much of that,
and you, you allude to this later in your narrative,
but how much of, of, of, of, of that is a result of
more aggressive investigations versus, uh,
a greater volume of complaints?
Is it a combination of both
or is it just that you're,
you're really bird dogging Every complaint that goes
through, uh, ethics?
It, it is a combination of both.
We get substantially more intakes than we used to.
And I take that to be a good sign.
I don't think that is because more things are going
wrong in city government.
I think it's because more people know who we are
and what we do and where to find us,
and they are willing to imagine that something might be made
of a complaint that they make.
So we are certainly getting more intakes,
and I take that to be a good sign.
Um, the increase in ethics enforcement is a very intentional
result of our, of our bird dogging every ethics case.
I think that I, I, it is no mystery to me.
We, those cases were not prioritized.
Enforcement of the city's ethics ordinance was historically
not a priority of this office.
It is now, those rules have gaps and they are imperfect,
but they're what we've got, uh, to hold,
to hold people accountable when they abuse the public trust.
And so that has been a very intentional effort to,
to investigate those more seriously and more often.
And, and that's what we've done.
And why do you suppose
the ethics ordinance was categorically under enforced?
Um, I won't speak for my predecessors.
I will say that the,
that our ethics investigations are procedurally more
complicated than some of our other investigations,
because in our ethics cases, we reach a finding, we send
that finding to the board of ethics.
The board of ethics determines whether there is probable
cause to believe that a violation has occurred.
They then bring the subject into a appear
before the board in an ex parte proceeding.
Um, if there is an, if they find a violation,
they then recommend a fine.
If there's no agreement to the fine that goes
to an evidentiary hearing
before an A LJ,
it is a substantially more procedurally complicated process.
I I imagine that that may have dissuaded prior efforts.
Uh, it, it does not dissuade us.
And, and probably some of
that may have a resource issue as well.
Perhaps the office is better resourced now than say it was
20 years ago.
The office is better resourced,
better staffed more positions. Yes.
Okay. And the reason I, I, I wanted to raise that issue is
that, um, I,
and I know this is an exercise
that every department has been asked to go through.
Um, and frankly, uh, I'm one
of those advocates in the council that wants
to see some deep cuts, uh,
in certain areas of city government.
Uh, I would argue yours is not one of them.
And for the same reason, a number of us
draw really bright lines around revenue producing positions
that the city typically tied to a code enforcement.
Um, this is another one
of those important investments while, uh,
your department is not one that's generating revenue, um,
you're most helpful on the other side of the ledger, um,
when it comes to waste in inefficiency.
And so I just wanted to,
although this is, is not consistent with my remarks related
to this year's budget proposal, um, yours is a department
that should not be asked to eliminate positions.
Uh, in fact, an argument can be made
that you could use some more.
Um, I'll take them.
And the hearing that you're having to, um,
delay investments in technology
that make ironically your office more efficient is,
is frustrating to me.
Um, and in the grand scheme of this
massive multi-billion dollar city budget, um, the changes
to your department are a rounding error.
And so, um, I think the budget office should take a second
look at your submission
and give you a little bit more latitude
to properly staff that office.
You guys are best equipped to help us find efficiencies
and cuts in budgets like this.
And it's in precarious financial situations like this
where I think your department can be an even greater asset.
And so, um, I'll be advocating for that when, um,
the administration looks
to put Humpty Dumpty back together again
and offer forth a budget that will actually pass.
Um, so again, thank you for all the great work that you
and your team do, uh,
and I hope that we can continue to make, uh,
investments in your department, um,
because you do a lot of good for the taxpayer.
Um, thank you. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you Alderman. Um, chairman,
if I could just very quickly, alderman, I know
that your office sent us some questions in writing.
I'm hoping you received our responses.
We will submit those formally through the chair as well.
I appreciate that. And yes, we did. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Humpty Dumpty. Yep.
We, we'll have to write this down, uh, someplace
that Alman Riley did not.
I got it. I did not want to cut it. We'll write that down.
Uh, Altman Vasquez, followed by Chair Dow.
Yes. Thank you. You could add a plus one
to comrade Riley's big government pitch, like,
uh, thank you so much.
Uh, I, I agree with everything Ottoman Roddy has said,
and I think the work you all do is crucial.
Um, I've got a couple questions related
more directly to the budget.
Um, uh, general, could you break down for us
how your department's budget is calculated
for purposes of the budget floor?
Uh, looking at the budget overview document,
it looks like there's a fringe calculation of pension
and benefit payments, which are usually considered part
of finance general and not department budgets.
So does that, that have an impact on whether
or not the budget meets the mandatory floor?
Right. If they're considering the fringe
compared to where normally it would not. So
If you could give 'em a show. We
see we've already had that one,
but give him a sword when he
wasn't in the room when that was asked.
Yo, but the fringe part specifically
The whole thing, but go ahead, just gimme a quick, so
Quickly. Um,
I, I actually think there's a little bit
of clarification that could be done about our floor
calculation in the ordinance.
The way the ordinance describes the calculation is not
exactly how it's done in real life.
The fringe question specifically, so you'll note
that in the summary book there is this reference
to the fringe amount, the fringe rate listed is
for 2023, not 2024.
I think that that is likely just a typo in the book.
I think it, I think we are operating with the 2024 fringe.
The fringe is part of, um, it is,
it is part of the expenses which must fit below our floor.
So if that, if the short answer to that, if
that's the question we're after, then the
answer to that is yes.
Okay. Are the fringe bene the fringe cost associated
with our employees must fit within our,
within our calculated floor?
Is that, so is that, so the reason why I ask that is,
I guess the corollary for us is like ward offices, right?
We've got cola, we've got benefits that aren't,
we don't calculate fringe as part of that expense.
So is that completely separate for your office
and is that as intended?
Um, whether it's
as intended is not a question I can answer,
but that is how it's calculated. Okay.
Um, next question.
There's a new budgeted position of senior equity officer,
which seems consistent with other departments.
Can you explain what the position hopes
to do in the context of the OIG?
Absolutely. That is not actually a new position.
That is one of the reclassifications that we talked about.
So the, the budgeted position for that title used
to be project manager, which was sort of one
of the generic city titles,
which was largely done away within the salary study.
So that position currently occupied
by Michelle Wright has its origins in our office.
In the consent decree, our office adding a director
of diversity, equity and inclusion was one
of our requirements under the consent decree.
And we certainly have kept that position even
after complying with our obligations.
And it, the position does a couple of things.
It serves really three facets to that job.
That person serves as an internal subject matter expert
and consultant to ensure that all of the work that goes out
of the office has sort of an equity lens applied to it.
Our investigative work, our evaluative work,
everything going outta the office, that's one thing.
The second facet of the job has to do
with providing training internally around, um, equity
and bias and leader inclusive leadership, et cetera.
And then the third facet of the job is to serve as OIGs
point of contact for
and liaison with the other equity
operations in city departments.
Okay. Awesome. Um,
next question I have is related to arpa.
So as you know, any folks who've been watching hearings, uh,
when we're talking about fighting more efficiencies,
ARPA keeps coming up, is finding a way to drew clawbacks.
But I, I think what that then opens up in conversation
is a more investigative look into the ARPA programs,
who's getting the money, what's happening
with those contracts in a way that allows us
to make smarter, you know, and, um, more judicious decisions
and figuring out like, is there something could be moved?
Are there things to be concerned about?
And I'll be honest, some
of the answers we got Wednesday when we brought up ARPA
actually caused us to be even more concerned.
And so I was wondering to the level you can share one,
what those investigations into some
of the ARPA are looking like,
and equally as important, how quickly we might be able
to get any level of information on what you're seeing.
Um, this is a good question.
I know we, we've spoken a little bit with you
and your staff about some of these issues,
and I'm hoping we'll continue to do that.
We can certainly maybe continue those
conversations in more detail offline.
I'll say, as a general matter, um, there are,
I think both investigative questions and,
and evaluative questions.
If, if there is a misuse of those funds,
that's a misconduct issue,
just like the misuse of any city funds.
There is also certainly an auditable question,
and this is the one that our teams have talked most about,
about how that money is being used
and whether it's been used in an efficient way.
You know, what sort of return we are getting are those
expenditures or investments?
That kind of question. Um, from my perspective, in terms
of oversight, you know,
those questions are important about these funds,
just like with all other funds.
The the other thing that I think strikes me
as critical about this question is the transparency question
there, I think has been not nearly enough transparency
around how this very, very large pile
of dollars has been spent.
And so, um, that continues to be something we are,
we are working on to see what we can do
to help people get a clearer view
than, than we have had so far.
Yeah. And I guess, I guess to be realistic to some
of our colleagues, and I, I'll say myself, I,
I wish we get results a lot quicker.
Yes. Because when we're talking about, for example, 240
to 250 million that we were kind of rushing to obligate,
which could have been used to cover gap, trying
to get those kind of answers and, you know,
because of the work that you do and the nature of it, a lot
of it is viewing it in hindsight in a
way that it's just a reality.
And so I just didn't know if there was any possibility
to get any level prior
to us making all these decisions during this budget. Yeah,
I, this is, this is something that I think about a lot.
Um, you're right, most of our work is
retrospective in nature.
That's absolutely right.
The, the channel of our work
that is different is our data transparency work
that is real time and forward looking.
And so we have, um, we have a, you know, a set
of data dashboards around city budgets
and around tiffs in an effort to help you all and your staff
and your constituents navigate budget season in a
better informed way.
Um, that is not sort of our institutional superpower
that kind of, that kind of real time data analysis
and forward-looking analysis.
But I'm conscious of the need for that.
I'd be happy to to talk more about that. Okay.
Um, thank you. I guess separately, this was kind
of a little more hindsight and current moment.
The way our budget process actually is year over year,
we've got these budget processes that I wouldn't argue,
and I don't think there'd be a ar argument against,
aren't the best way for a city
to figure out budgets finding out the day
before Halloween what a budget looks like to try
to figure out by end of year.
I don't think by anybody's measure is a way
to do it properly, is a way to find efficiencies, is a way
to be effective in government, is a way to figure out how
to appropriate is a way for two coequal branches
to have a negotiation.
Um, it it, it's pretty, I'm just gonna keep,
it's pretty abysmal and I've seen it year over year now,
and every year I've talked about a year-round working group
or some level of oversight or some of us getting data
and getting what the departments are presenting
to the administration so we can actually do homework
during August and be here more equipped for these.
So as you're looking in hindsight
and have, have you done any investigation on
the volumes of improvement we can do here
to get this process right?
And would you be able to share
those kind of recommendations?
Because as we look at this budget to get the support
of this body, I think there's changes in the management
ordinance that need to happen that would
enshrine those kind of improvements.
So I'll I'll say first I agree.
Um, a transparent
and effective budgeting process
for the third largest city in the nation is not one
that's gonna happen in 60 days.
Yep. We're certainly not doing sort
of zero based budgeting with questions of
how much things actually caught.
Uh, we're not, we're certainly not doing those things.
I, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Um, I think there are enormous data transparency problems
around the budget for all
of the reasons you've talked about.
Um, I think it's very, very hard, um, for Chicagoans
who are paying their tax bills to sort of trace
where those dollars are going
and what they're buying once they get there.
So I agree all around in terms
of project work we have done on that topic.
Um, I'll say we have, um, this is kind of a piece, a piece
of the question, a big one
because we spend so many dollars on personnel.
We have a topic on our draft audit plan
for next year looking at the way personnel budgets are built
and this notion of salvage, which as you know, means
that city departments are budgeted a certain amount
for personnel, but then not permitted to spend that amount.
Um, which yeah, strikes me as both an operational
and a transparency challenge, to say the least.
So that is the piece
that we have done a little bit of project planning around.
I'd be happy to talk further offline about other things
that you think might best benefit soonest from
Look. And some of it
is, even if you're able to get, like, I think
this budget specifically
because of almost a uni unanimity against the $300 million
property tax that the mayor has proposed,
provides the opportunity for us to go, if we're going
to get the support we need structural agreements
that we all have and can enshrined in these documents
and how we actually form the process.
To your point, the data transparency
and portals take a little bit longer,
but to say, Hey, going forward, we require these
by these date to even get that going.
Those kind of recommendations
and anything of the sort,
if you could provide through the chair would be helpful.
'cause again, I think this body, when we gotta go back
to our constituents, I'm not under any illusion
that there won't be a property tax.
I mean, you've gotta pay for services that
what government's about.
But to give people the confidence in city government
that we are any level of responsible with their dollars
that they give us to appropriate, we need to come back
to them and say, Hey, not, not only are we trying to get out
of this mess, we're not trying to get back into them.
So we're gonna make these changes going forward.
That whatever you can provide a suggestion
would be infinitely helpful.
So thank you for all your work and thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Thank you.
Alderman Vasquez for property taxes. That's the new one.
I got that one. Alright.
Depends on the number, sir.
It ain't 300, I'll tell you that. Everything's
Gone. All, it's all,
it's all we
we're gonna, we'll, we'll get there.
Um, uh, Altus, uh, I think we are you ready?
Um, chairman down, followed by Alt CTO Lopez.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello, Mr. Berg.
Uh, you made in your remarks you talked about, uh, the need
to, um, prioritize training
and credentialing of OIG staff.
Yes. And I guess that's reflected in the
increase in the reimbursement travel section.
That's right. And also in your professional, uh,
technical meeting section.
That's right. Can you talk a little bit about what kind
of training, what kind of credentialing, um, you're
and what percentage of the 87 staff members
that you have require that?
Absolutely. I appreciate this question.
Um, we have prioritized this
because I think that it's critically important to the, the,
the impact of our oversight work.
At the end of the day, we are in our,
in our programmatic work, we, we are in the business
of making non-binding recommendations to city departments.
And the only thing that gives those recommendations any heft
is our sort of institutional credibility
and the expertise that we can bring to the oversight work.
And so we have,
that is why we have prioritized this training
and credentialing specifically.
Um, the, the primary effort is around training
and credentialing through the national organization,
the National Association of Inspectors General,
which is sort of the governing body, um,
for Inspector General work across the country.
That, um, the association has a credentialing process
where people can get certified in different tracks depending
on their job within an Office of Inspector General,
it's the national professional standard.
And then once people are certified through an institute, um,
they have ongoing professional education requirements
to keep their certification.
So that is the primary, um,
that is the primary effort we have.
Um, our, our intention is to get every
OIG employee involved in that programmatic work certified.
As soon as they become eligible, some
of those certification tracks require some time in the
job to go to the institute.
So that is the approach we have
taken in the last couple of years.
We'll continue to do that.
We also, um, train
and credential our, some
of our public safety section staff members
through the National Association
for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.
They also provide training and credentialing.
And then beyond those two specific programs,
we have other professionals within OIG
who have a wide variety of other professional licensure,
which they, um, do accompany education to maintain.
So for example, we train people, we train our auditors
through a variety of, of audit based organizations.
We have, um, certified fraud examiners.
All of our attorneys have ongoing continuing legal
education requirements.
So, um, the Association of Inspectors general certification
and ongoing training is the primary one.
And then there's this wide variety
of other subject matter specific.
So do, uh, do you expect that we will see this kind of,
uh, in some, in the case of travel, it's like double
and in the case of the technical meetings,
it's like almost 50,000.
Will we be seeing that on an annual basis?
Or is this like training that gets done every other year?
Uh, every four years?
My hope. So I'll say those are increases which we have
offset elsewhere in other non personnel costs.
So we have offset those
because this is a prior, uh, a prioritization.
My, my hope is that we have now, at least in terms
of its proportion of our budget, we have sort
of right sized these costs.
So my expectation is that we have now planned appropriately
so that on an ongoing basis, we can get everybody trained
and keep everybody credentialed.
So I am not expecting, um, similarly large,
albeit offset increases going forward.
All right. Thank you. Um, you know, your budget is,
uh, lean and mean.
So I, I don't have, uh,
any other questions related to the budget.
I do have a question related to, um,
the next steps perhaps to rectify, uh, the presence
of CPD employees who have ties
to extremist groups
and government, anti-government organizations.
Uh, I don't know where the, that work is now,
what's the status of that?
But I'm wondering if you could address that
and if there are any financial implications for that effort,
The status of that work.
Um, I'll say two things that work out
of our office arises from the, um, ordinance mandate
for our public safety section
to review these individual closed disciplinary ca
investigations conducted by the Bureau
of Internal Affairs and by copa.
That work is ongoing as we, if, if
and when we see future investigations
that implicate allegations of association
with extremist groups, we'll continue
to review those in the same way we, we have been doing.
The second thing I'll say is we issued a more sort
of programmatic product earlier in the year
to the mayor's office with a recommendation
that the mayor's office convene a task force,
including representatives of appropriate city departments,
including the police department,
the accountability agencies, the civilian Commission
for Public Safety and Accountability, um, et cetera,
and other, other appropriate stakeholders to design
and implement a comprehensive whole
of government approach to solving this problem.
This is not a problem whose solutions will live within the
four walls of the police department alone.
There are training and budgeting, as you say, implications
and hiring, recruiting process implications, et cetera, all
of which we need to sort of marshal all of those efforts,
uh, in order to prevent, eliminate,
and detect extremism in the ranks of the police department.
So we've made that recommendation to the mayor's office.
The mayor's office has declined to convene that task force
and has declined to take any specific
action on the recommendation.
When did you make that recommendation?
In the third quarter.
Second quarter in June. June of this year.
Alright. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you Chair. Do, uh, chair Joe Lopez.
Um, thank you, um, chairman
and thank you, um, to Inspector General for your work and,
and, um, um,
and also for, uh, for the insights
that you're providing to the council members.
Um, I also agree on the sense that, um, the office
of the Inspector General provides a critical, uh,
over oversight and is the watchdog of the city council.
And in times like this, I do think it is critical that we,
um, do everything we can to make sure that those, um,
investigations and that oversight continues without, um,
without a interruption.
So in terms of those positions that were caught,
some contractual services, I hear you that you seem,
you know, to feel confident that we will continue with
that work and the critical work.
Um, and that's good to hear.
Um, I for one,
have a question actually related to the budget.
I heard, you know, um, uh, chairwoman DA will mention
around efficiencies.
You know, I know one of the departments, for instance,
has their own HR department,
their own human resources department.
Um, I do think that, um, I also seeing not to correlate it,
but also issues with diversity in some of those departments,
um, I would like to see, for instance, efficiencies like
that, um, that perhaps the department can look into it.
Have you received anything around those lines
that maybe in terms of audits
and staffing, uh, that can help making sure
that we don't have the cutting agencies
like yours, for instance?
I think that is, um, that is a valid, uh, concern
and perhaps something that,
I don't know if you have been looking into,
We, we have done some project planning around, um,
efficiencies that might
and might not be realized by sort
of combining administrative
services across city departments.
For example, as you know, the Office
of Public Safety Administration was designed to
realize efficiencies
by combining things like HR functions
across the public safety departments.
So we, we are planning some project work
around questions like whether
that has in fact led to any efficiencies.
Mm-Hmm, thank you.
Yeah, definitely interested to see,
and especially now that there's any, any opportunities
that you see, um, especially when it comes to efficiencies.
I also, uh, improve or diversity within departments.
I think that's very critical.
So there's no bias agreed in terms of some of the overtime,
um, a, um, budget
and maybe overtime that is used.
I, I know there are certain departments
that use overtime more than others.
Police department for instance, uh, you know,
yesterday when we heard about, um, some overtime
or non-essential, um,
and oftentimes hard to reimburse, uh, allocations
of resources from the city, let's say festivals and,
and overtime for things that are not, in my opinion,
essential and could be, uh, savings for the city.
Are there anything like that that you see perhaps,
uh, where we can do more?
I think we talk a little bit about the filming office.
This is a $600 million, uh,
industry here in the Chicago, in the city alone.
So anything along those lines that you see
that we can be of use?
I, I appreciate that question.
I think it's related to two things we have talked about.
One is the sort of staffing allocation question that, uh,
chairman Irvin was raising, raising across city departments.
And the other is the sort of budget process, the question
of zero-based budgeting.
I, I think, um, over time, I,
I don't think anybody's aiming
for eliminating overtime in the city budget,
but we want that to be a kind of predictable,
manageable, uh, cost.
The road to predictable
and manageable overtime cost runs
through good staffing allocation.
If we have the right number of people doing the work,
then we should have controllable predictable overtime costs.
And so, um, I think that when we, one of the, one
of the things that makes something like the CPD staffing
study so critically important is
that it should provide a sort of foundation, a sort of
starting point from which we can make sensible overtime
production, uh, projections.
I think the same is true in other city departments.
Um, and, and if we could get to a kind of budgeting
and staffing and personnel dollar planning process,
if we could get to a place
where we were making proactive decisions about
what work needs to be done
and how many people need
to do it when we are building department budgets,
I think we would find ourselves in a
better place when it comes to overtime.
Thank you. Um, I, you Inspector general, um,
I do think in terms of the cost benefit analysis
and some of those efficiencies, like you said, comes down
to make sure that there's good personnel
and personnel that is following the values
and principles of our city as well as city code.
So I do think that I heard, I think I'm glad that Lum
and Doo mentioned the recommendations that you made
around extremism and,
and members of the Chicago Police Department
that have engaged in such activity.
And I just wanna caution people in the city council
chambers, there is a difference of, um, members engaging in,
in, um, and members
of terrorist organizations and free speech.
There's a huge difference there.
And I do think it is important that, um,
as city council members, right, um, we engage with those,
um, with those kind of parameters.
Uh, inflammatory remarks are always, of course, uh, worth
of headlines, but don't serve the purpose of the public.
So in terms of the, um, parking meter deal, I think
that there is a concern around arbitration that, um,
perhaps could cause the city even more money.
Um, I do think that these are kind of contracts that are,
um, harmful for the city.
I think they also have participated previous administration
in such an engaging contracting
that may have also have conflict of interest.
So anything like that that can help us, uh, prevent fu uh,
this sort of, um, fiscal mismanagement to put us in a,
in a really tough position.
Yeah, I I, I'm glad you raised the parking meter deal.
I think the, the ghost of the parking meter
contract looms very large over a budget process
where the city is a billion dollars in the red.
Um, that was a catastrophically bad deal for Chicago
and for Chicagoans.
And, uh, it came to be
for lots of reasons, including
that this body did not have adequate time or resources
or data or information
to exercise appropriate legislative oversight.
Um, and
so when we think about a more transparent budgeting process,
when we think about appropriate checks and balances
and allocation of power within city government,
the problems we are solving for
are ones like the parking meter deal.
Um, all of us will be out of city government
before we have seen the bottom of, of the harm that
that single deal has has brought to the city.
Um, we put,
we published a product on the parking meter deals recently
looking at the fact that against, in the context
of this incredibly expensive, incredibly harmful contract,
the city was not even able
to achieve the minority owned business enterprise advantages
that are required in city contracts.
Um, and I think that frankly compounds the, the damage
and the harm of what was already, as I say, a,
a disastrous deal for Chicago.
And so I think that that is all to say everything
that went wrong there is, I think, a critical reminder
of what's at stake when we talk about improving transparency
and improving legislative oversight and budgeting processes.
Thank you. Uh, thank you.
Uh, inspector General, that's what I think is, um,
is critical that we follow such recommendations.
It is, uh, extremism in the police department
that is costly to the city every year.
I think we can see the, the size
and the, um, harm to the budget every single year
by allowing bad conduct to continue in those departments.
Same with these deals, you know, that, uh,
cost us every year and are harmful for the city.
So in terms of my, my other is about, um,
and I think for instance, in our community,
we are dealing still with mismanagement of the past.
Uh, we have seven schools that are closing
and organizations that continue
to engage in the same behavior.
Is, is really, um, is really, um, troubling
that we have organizations that continue
to make money while there are debts that the city now has
to be dealing with, um,
and I mentioned like charter school for instance,
but there's also been thit dollars that have been allocated
and then promises that are not fulfilled, right?
I do think that those also costly when we promise,
when there are development that promises thousands of units
that yet are yet to be built.
And those I think are costly when we put in the money on the
front end, how can we hold accountable to such interest,
again when we are now in such a difficult position?
I do think that we gotta look line by line to look at
what we can do to help and maybe
recover some of those funds.
Uh, yeah, I, I agree with you.
I think there are, um, well, I'll say I,
I think there are costs of two kinds when we start
to make investments
or we commit to making investments, which, which where we,
the city doesn't follow through,
there certainly are dollar costs there.
Where there are projects where that have sunk costs.
We've already spent dollars
and then we don't sort of finish the work.
We don't get to the end
to realize the benefit of those investments.
There's a dollar cost to that.
I also think there's a legitimacy cost.
I think when the city commits to doing something
and then doesn't do it, I think that contributes
to the other kind
of deficit at which the city operates this deficit
of legitimacy at which the city operates with its residents.
So I think there are, there are tremendous costs in both
of those ways where the city
doesn't follow through on its commitments.
Thank you. Uh, thank you Inspector General again.
Um, you have from our office, um, uh, an ally to look
and how we can make sure that, you know, uh, if anything,
you got all the support that is needed to oversee
and provide recommendations.
Uh, do we like to challenge the city council to follow
through those recommendations?
Especially on the report,
it was clear about extremism in
the Chicago Police Department.
I do think that not only is costly is unethical,
and I think our city, after the hearing
that we have in this red chamber, have a responsibility
to fulfill those commitments
and take action on that important matter.
Thank you so much. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you, alderman. Any other questions
for the General Inspector General Quinn?
No, he's gone once. Quinn, you go first. I'm not.
You're not Quinn. I,
He's probably been called worse.
He's probably been called for
Guys do kinda look alike.
I mean, Hardman Oe
Derman car today Though.
Thank you, chair. Good morning. Good
Morning.
Uh, a few minutes ago we were talking about,
um, investigations.
And you had mentioned you had presented some information
to the administration and they declined.
Could, could we talk about that?
Could you elaborate a little more on what exactly that is?
That was Yes.
On the task force recommendation specifically? Yes. Yes.
So, um, this is a public product and,
and we can certainly circulate it through the chair.
We, um, we issued, we wrote a letter to the mayor's office,
which outlined, um, the history of the handling
of extremism cases within the Chicago Police Department,
which looked at the way the issue
of extremism in law enforcement is
being handled across the country.
This challenge is, CCPD is not
alone in facing this challenge.
This is an issue being faced by, you know,
there are 18,000 law
enforcement departments in the United States.
A lot of them are facing this issue as our defense,
defense departments, et cetera.
Um, so we look at the history of the issue in,
in the Chicago Police Department.
We look at kind of the, the historical profile
of this issue nationally.
And then we looked at efforts which are underway in other
cities and other departments to, as I said, uh, identify,
detect and prevent extremism in, in law enforcement ranks.
Chicago has fallen behind the, the sort
of national standard, uh, on dealing with this issue.
This is, this is an issue
that I think is very straightforward in some ways,
very complex in others.
The straightforward piece of this, from my perspective, is
that we cannot ask people
to trust a police department whose members are allowed
to dabble in extremism.
The very complicated court is in implementing good controls
because there are first Amendment issues that add,
that are implicated and lots of other questions as well.
Um, I don't think,
I don't think we do ourselves any disservice by pretending
that it's not, not a hard problem to fix.
It is a hard problem to fix.
Um, so we recommended
that the mayor's office convene a task force.
The mayor's office, I think to its credit,
has talked a lot about the need for whole
of government solutions to big and important problems.
The mayor's office has convened other task forces.
For example, while this recommendation was pending,
the mayor's office convened a task force on reparations.
So that's certainly a model which has been,
which has been used elsewhere.
So we recommended that the mayor's office convene a task
force to build that sort of whole of government approach.
Um, and the response from the mayor's office, uh, continued
to, I think it would be fair to say, continued
to articulate a commitment to dealing with this issue,
but declined to implement the task force recommendation
and did not commit to any other action.
And when we, uh, following up on
what my colleague just just talked about, um,
when we talk about extremism,
do we work with the Chicago Police Department to try
to identify where there could be cases?
Um, we have had extensive engagement
with the police department on this question.
Um, I think, and, and we will continue to do that.
This is not, as I say,
this is not a problem which lives wholly within the four
walls of the police department, nor will its solution.
Do we have subpoena powers to try to uncover, identify
and remove
individuals who might take part in extremism or hate?
OIG has administrative subpoena power COPA
has administrative subpoena power.
The Bureau of Internal Affairs does not.
You know, we often talk about how there's a lack
of trust in many communities with law enforcement,
and that only
helps perpetuate that.
Um, I'd like to see where
Copa OIG
and the police department can work better together to
identify and address. Um,
I should just say with with
apologies for interrupting you.
I agree. And, and that in fact was the spirit
of this task force recommendation that everybody ought
to get around the same table and,
and build a comprehensive approach here.
And I think we should form a task force to look into that.
That's a good idea. Um,
I really appreciate your work, your staff.
Um, you really do a good job as, as was mentioned.
Um, do we have
the opportunity for any grants in, in, in the
cuts we saw in your budget this year?
Is there any opportunity to apply for grants
that could help, uh, in the form of technology?
It's a really good question, and it's one
that we have been talking about this year,
I think, really for the first time.
So we have a couple members of our senior staff, um,
our director of special investigations,
and our director of Diversity, equity
and inclusion who have been doing some, some training
around grants, and we are doing some kind
of awareness building work of what's out there.
I think the answer is maybe yes,
that's not something OIG has really pursued before,
but I do think there is some potential there.
Okay. Um, thank you again for your hard work.
Thanks everybody. Thank you,
Chair. Thank you, alderman.
Thank you Alderman Quinn, I'm just messing with you.
Uh, alderman, uh, I got it. Conway. Yeah.
Um, to, to follow up on, on Alderman O'Shea's comments
as well as, uh, Alder Alderwoman dolls, uh,
I certainly agree
that trust in law enforcement is paramount.
Uh, as someone who worked with
a thousand plus great Chicago police officers in the state's
attorney's office and also, uh, had the obligation to
charge, try and convict three of them as well.
I just wanna make sure
that I am understanding this correctly.
So you asked Mayor Brandon Johnson to form a task force
to prevent, identify,
and eliminate extremist associations within the Chicago
Police Off Police department,
and his office declined. Is that correct?
Yes. Thank you. That's all I have.
Thank you. Alderman Conway Al.
So we don't get the wrong impression here.
Just to be clear, would you know if the community
C-C-P-S-A
and the equity office of the Mayor's office,
if they were working on this,
would your office be aware of this?
I believe so. Okay.
So maybe we should,
before we, uh, cast aspersions on the, whether
or not the mayor declined or mayor's office declined
or did not decline, I would like to hear from that office,
the accountability people.
Well, I, that's an important observation.
Um, the mayor's office responded to our advisory in writing
that's published along with the advisory.
In that response, they decline the recommendation
and do not commit to any action.
We are in regular contact
with the community commission on this issue.
Um, we are in regular contact with, with some
of the council committees on this issue.
Um, so I, I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth here.
The, the Mayor's office response is
published along with our letter.
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Um, any other questions for s general?
Okay. Uh, I just got two things, uh, in reading your, uh,
documents, uh, in our budget book.
One thing, um, I know you have the opening for someone
for diversity and inclusion, which I think is good,
and I know is part of consent decree,
but also in the same breath, uh, looking at the makeups of,
of the department, um, there seems to be heavily male
and, um, not necessarily a lot of minorities.
What are you all doing to address that, uh, in your, uh,
in your hiring and in your efforts there?
Appreciate this question so quickly.
The, the diversity, equity
and inclusion position is not a new position,
and it's not a vacant one, it was just a reclassification
of a project manager title.
Okay. So existing position retitled, um, in terms
of increasing our own workforce diversity, that's something
that we have been working hard at with both our director
for diversity, equity
and inclusion, along with our new, we have sort
of a newly structured,
Probably There. Um,
we have kind of a newly structured
and better resourced human resources operation.
And so we have been engaged in proactive recruiting efforts,
um, to increase the diversity of our applicant pools and
therefore our, our hiring pools.
Okay. And the, um, the second point, uh,
and I think this is more toward the, um,
efficiency, uh, component
and the financial, um, allocations.
Um, it, it seems like you all don't,
for lack of a better term, want
to dive deep into some of these items.
Uh, and I think that we're, what we're saying is that, um,
we, we kinda want you guys to dive into departments,
look at financial stuff, not necessarily that rise
to the level of misconduct, and I know you mentioned
that earlier, but to, you know, look at stuff
as if any other, you know, internal audit function would do,
and, you know, provide recommendations, uh,
to that, to that extent.
Um, now I, I have not seen your audit plan for 2024,
but is the office resource to a point where, given the size
and complexity of our organization, uh,
that you can effectively do internal audit work,
uh, for the city as a whole?
Uh, certainly not. We are not built
to be the city's internal audit function in a,
in a comprehensive way, nor nor do we do financial auditing.
Um, with respect to our performance auditing, I will say,
um, I appreciate your, your noting our annual audit plan.
The draft plan for 2025 will be out shortly within the next
week or so, and I would very much appreciate the opportunity
to talk with any of you.
Um, all of you. I'll come to every one of your 50 offices,
uh, to talk about what is on that plan
and what you think is missing from the plan, including what,
so for each proposed project, we list potential objectives.
And so it really is an opportunity to get a sense of
what we are thinking about looking at.
And, um, I would welcome conversations
around a sharper focus around, um, efficiency
of dollar spends in this budget environment.
So that'll be out in a couple of weeks,
and we enthusiastically welcome
feedback and conversation about it.
Okay. And I, and I think, uh, uh, uh,
chairman Martin will, uh,
convene those type of conversation.
We'll follow his lead in that respective, uh, area.
Last point we'll talk about is the, uh,
ization in the police department.
Um, I, I know in this, uh, budget proposal,
there's some contemplated, uh, adjustments there.
Um, number one, uh, where, where do you
as, uh, from a, from an evaluation perspective, think
that the department is, uh, how are they progressing
to getting toward the civilian of positions that, um,
should be civilianized
and what are the next steps we need to help complete that?
Ization is, um, uh, it, it is, it is just cheaper.
It's less expensive to hire, train,
and retain civilian employees than it is sworn employees.
And where we have finite staffing resources within the
police department where we can have civilians doing jobs
that put police officers out on the street being police,
we should, um, CPD has been very,
very slow in a pro in the process
of civilianizing positions, very, very slow.
Um, I think that is a missed opportunity
in lots of directions.
That's a missed opportunity for budget reasons as well as,
um, person power out on the streets.
What, what, um, what reasons have they given for the,
the lack of swift movement in that direction?
There are often concerns raised around, um,
collective bargaining agreement constraints, uh, chain
of command concerns around having sworn employees report
to civilian employees.
I, I, I will say, I frankly think that, that some
of those concerns are overblown.
I think, I think they're overestimated in, in the size
of the obstacles they pose to effective civilian.
Okay. Um,
and have you all done any additional, uh, reports,
uh, in that respect?
We have an ongoing project on, uh, sworn members in, in
civilian usable positions.
Okay. Uh, to that extent, um, have you all,
uh, taken on any, um,
I don't wanna call it an investigation,
but an analysis of efficiencies in, um,
departments, primarily our infrastructure departments,
where these, again, uh, you know, they say, why do,
why do you know people rob banks instead?
That's where the money is. And in our case, uh, for the,
the money is in money is in public
safety and in infrastructure.
Um, have you all looked at any specific e efficiencies
or items that we could look at in
our infrastructure departments?
We do have a number of infrastructure projects on our,
on our draft audit plan for 2025.
Some of them certainly implicate this question of sort
of allocation of resources.
Okay. Alright. Well, I, I await to, uh,
see your draft audit plan and, um,
and, and, and look forward.
But again, I, I definitely believe
that we've gotta get more into, uh, the operations.
Uh, however, I, I, I think the, the one thing that I,
I said that these aren't the, the sexy projects, you know,
getting in the weeds on some things, uh,
but it, it's necessary, I believe, for us
to get more efficient.
Uh, we are, you know, resources are finite.
And I think, I think everyone's coming to that conclusion
that resources are finite, that we, we need
to make some adjustments in, in, uh,
how, how we spend money.
But at the same time, if we get more efficient, uh,
then we don't, we can, you know,
accomplish say more with less.
So I think that your office can play a, a vital role in,
in helping us to, to look at the efficiencies in,
in government and what we can do to become more efficient
to help save taxpayer dollars.
So again, if, uh, if there are no other, uh, questions, uh,
then, uh, general Inspector General
Rebel, you all are excused.
Thank you. Thank you, chairman.
We're going to, uh, we'll just take a short break
for our next, uh, group.
We're going to do this time, uh, please listen up.
We're gonna do the, uh, departments of,
we're gonna do the board of ethics, the police board,
and the license appeal commissioned together.
Um, those are three things that don't intersect.
However, I think, uh, given their, uh, budgetary amounts
and impacts, uh, we can, uh,
we can have those conversations together.
Uh, after that we'll take, uh, uh, we'll take a break
after we finish, uh, finish that portion,
I'm sorry, license appeal Commission,
the police board and the Board of Athletes.
They're very small names since you guys presented.
They okay. Yeah,
they're gonna need more seats.
They're
Good afternoon.
Uh, we are going, uh, back on.
We have a, uh, joint, uh, joint departmental effort here
between the Police Board Board of Ethics
and the License appeal Commission.
Joining us from the police board is,
is the president, Kyle Cooper.
Uh, joining us from the Board of ethics is Steve Berlin.
And joining us from the License appeal commission is
Laura Perry.
Uh, we will, uh, allow them to introduce themselves,
read their opening statements,
and introduce the staff that are with them, followed by
questions starting with, uh, chair, uh, Martin.
Mr. Cooper, please proceed.
Thank you, chairman Irvin.
Good afternoon, chairman and members of the City Council.
My name is Kyle Cooper and I'm the president
of the Chicago Police Board.
With me today is the executive
Director of the police Board, Mr.
Max Caponi. As you know,
the board has five main powers and responsibilities.
It decides disciplinary cases brought
against police officers.
It rules on disagreements between the Chief administrator
of the Civilian Office of Police Accountability or COPA,
and the Superintendent of Police
regarding Officer discipline.
The board also decides appeals by applicants
to the Chicago Police Board have been to
who have been disqualified from the eligibility list.
Due to the results of a background investigation,
the board makes policy recommendations
to the Chicago Police Department,
and finally, the board leads monthly public meetings
that provide a unique opportunity for community engagement
with the superintendent and the
other civilian oversight leaders.
As of today's hearing, the Chicago Police Board has
adjudicated five disciplinary cases against Chicago police
officers in 2024.
These cases range from wrongful shootings
to failed drug tests.
In two cases, the board found the officer guilty
of the charge misconduct and discharged him
or her from the Chicago Police Department.
One officer was found not guilty,
and in one case was resolved via settlement.
In the other case, the charges were withdrawn
because the officer resigned
before facing the disciplinary process.
Over the past year,
however, the board's role in handling serious cases
of discipline has changed as a result
of Judge Mullen's March 21st, 2024 order.
This order confirmed an arbitrator's ruling
allowing Chicago police officers below the rank of Sergeant
to choose to have serious disciplinary cases heard
by an arbitrator instead of the Chicago Police Board.
This case is currently pending
before the Illinois Appellate Court,
where the Fraternal Order
of Police is challenging the rulings
that one arbitration proceedings be open to the public,
and two, that accused officers may be suspended without pay
while the arbitration case is pending.
While the city filed its appellate brief last week,
it is not challenging the officer's
right to choose arbitration.
Therefore, it appears that arbitration option
for most serious cases of police misconduct is here to stay.
This new reality has already impacted
cases before the board.
Currently 13 cases are on hold
because the accused officer have requested
that an arbitrator, rather than the Chicago
Police Board decide their cases.
These cases will remain on hold until the establishment
of a public arbitration process, which could take years.
Nevertheless, I am pleased to report to the city council
that last month, four new disciplinary cases against FOP
members were filed with the Chicago Police Board.
The police board will continue to serve
as an impartial decision maker in these cases,
performing this duty with independence
and openness, as it always does.
Regarding disagreements between the Chief Administrator
of the Civilian Office of Police Accountability
and the Superintendent of Police,
the board has decided seven such cases in 2024.
In these cases, the board has ruled in favor
of COPA six times and has ruled in favor
of the superintendent once.
In addition to disciplinary
and disagreement cases, the police board also considers
appeals by applicants
to become probationary police officers in the Chicago Police
Department who have been removed from the eligibility list.
Due to the results of a background investigation,
we have seen a substantial increase in the number
of appeals filed this year,
and the board to date has decided 55 appeals so far in 2024,
and expects to decide dozens of more cases
before the year is out regarding the consent decree.
The board remains committed
to the reforms in police accountability
and transparency that are contained in the decree.
And in fact, in the most recent report,
the Independent monitor found
that the police board has been in full compliance with 11
of the 14 paragraphs for which the board is responsible
and in preliminary compliance
with the three other paragraphs.
Finally, the board's public monthly meetings,
which are broadcast live by CAN TV provide an important
forum for decisions on police related issues.
In addition to issues addressed by the Superintendent
of Police and the Chief Administrator of copa,
the board has hosted presentations on various topics.
This is a two-Way dialogue,
and at every meeting, the public can
and does raise questions and offer comments about, and,
and the board tracks these comments and community input
and follows up with the police department
to ensure responsive responsiveness
to the community concerns,
and our meetings generate significant public interest.
In fact, KNTV has informed us
that the September meeting had over 32,000 live viewers.
And the April meeting, which was shortly
after, um, some of the Dexter red, um,
press conferences occurred, and more than 50,000 attendees.
Notably, the board's budget is modest compared
to other public safety departments.
And in fact, the board's 2025 budget request is actually
lower than this year's appropriation.
The Chicago Police Board's objective in unbiased work is
essential to maintaining accountability, transparency,
and trust between the Chicago Police Department
and the community it serves.
And by handling disciplinary cases, disputes between COPE
and the superintendent and facilitating public engagement
through open meetings, the board upholds a commitment
to justice and responsiveness that benefits all Chicagoans.
Our role as an impartial decision maker is vital
to fostering a safer, more transparent and inclusive city,
and we are proud to support the city
of Chicago in advancing these values.
Thank you very much for your consideration of my comments
and the board's budgets, and
after you hear from two other opening statements, I'm happy
to answer any questions that you may have today.
Thank you, uh, president. Um, Steve?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Uh, good morning, chair Irvin
and members of the Committee on Budget
and Government Operations.
Uh, I should first introduce, uh, uh, one
of my staff members, Ritha Jackson,
who's executive assistant level two.
Um, as I like to say, especially on a Veteran's Day weekend,
Ritha is one of the enson that runs the Navy.
So, uh, good morning, uh, chair Irvin
and members of the Committee on Budget
and Government Operations.
I appreciate the opportunity to address you.
Now in our 37th year, the board
of ethics administers interprets and forces enforces
and recommends changes
to the city's governmental ethics ordinance.
We promote integrity and accountability in city government
by giving thousands of pieces
of confidential advice annually, educating city employees
and officials, vendors, lobbyists,
and others, subject to the ethics ordinance,
regulating their conduct
and enforcing the ordinance
by adjudicating cases involving apparent ethics violations.
The board has five major program areas. First is education.
To date, 91% of the city's workforce, 54%
of the city's appointed officials, 45 elected officials,
and all but two registered lobbyists completed their 2024
online ethics training programs,
or have completed them, which are created
and administered by our agency.
The deadline for officials and employees is before January.
The first violators are subject to $250 fines
and having their names and violations made public.
We found 162 employees
and officials in violation of the law for failing
to complete their 2023 online training is required
and find them a total of $16,100.
Our all new 2025 employee slash elected official program
will be available in February.
Our 2025 appointed official program will be available in
March and the 2024 slash 2025 lobbyist program.
They actually have a July 1st, uh, year, uh,
will be available in January
in May, 2024, just a few months ago.
We resumed twice weekly in-person classes
for the approximately in-person classes
for the approximately 3,600 city employees
and officials required
to complete those once every four years
as classes were suspended during the pandemic.
To date, 1,975 have attended.
We revise all of our educational programs annually,
and they all cover sexual harassment.
We also offer personalized training for community groups,
ward offices, vendors, and city departments.
Upon request, we publish 37 educational guides on our
website and revise them regularly.
Four of those are new this year in 2024.
Uh, in 2025, we will focus on public outreach
and offer speakers for neighborhood meetings
and ward nights citywide.
Next is confidential guidance.
Uh, in my 32 years with the city that I've learned
that the most effective way to prevent misconduct
and foster a culture of ethical conduct is to enable
and encourage people
to seek confidential ethics advice before they act.
Thus, our advisory function when coupled with education,
is our most critical responsibility.
Since November of 2023,
we've issued 4,281 advisory opinions.
77% of these went to city personnel.
Uh, as is common, we issue the most to city council,
then followed by the mayor's office,
and then the Chicago Police Department.
15% went to lobbyists or potential lobbyists,
and the remainder went to attorneys, contractors,
candidates, and campaign contributors,
or those who wish to be campaign contributors.
We've issued two formal opinions as required by law.
We publish formal opinions on our website
with confidential information redacted,
and that's a common practice among government ethics
agencies in the United States.
We have a searchable index
and summary of the more than 925 advisory opinions, formal
opinions issued by the board since its inception in 1986
as an executive order board.
It includes links to all the opinions, full text,
most opinions, however,
that we issue are informal and confidential.
And persons who receive board opinions, whether formal
or informal, can rely on them in the event
of an investigation.
We work with other city departments
and sister agencies on their own ethics policies
or gift policies.
We meet regularly with ethics officers from the city's
sister agencies such as the CTA, the Chicago Public Schools,
the Chicago, uh, community, uh, Chicago City Colleges, CHA,
metropolitan Water Reclamation District, et cetera.
And the Cook County Board of Ethics, I should say,
to discuss matters of common concern.
Then as financial disclosure, there are 3,989 officials
and employees who filed 2024 annual statements
of financial interest.
We distribute, collect,
and make those forms publicly available,
and they go back seven years.
In 2024, we found 72 employees
and officials in violation of the law for failure
to timely file and assessed a total
of $15,350 in fines.
And by law, uh, we have to make their names violations
and fines public for 2025.
Again, we will again work
with ethics liaisons in all departments and ward
and committee of offices to ensure a maximum compliance.
Next program is lobbying regulation.
All individuals who lobby city government must register
with the board annually.
Uh, lobby, actually, I shouldn't say who lobby,
but who meet the thresholds.
There is a $350 annual registration fee
and a $75 fee per client after the first the board.
However, waives fees for those lobbying on behalf
of not-for-profit organizations
and lobbyists file quarterly reports.
Currently, we have 865 lobbyists registered with us,
and we've collected $385,275 in
2024 registration fees since November
of 20 23 14, lobbyists were determined
to have violated the ethics ordinance for failure
to timely reregister with the board
or to timely file activity.
Reports four were assessed $4,000 in fines collectively
five were determined to have violated the law for failure
to complete their annual ethics training on time
and find collectively $32,500.
We made their names in violations.
Public note also
that the city's lobbying laws changed significantly.
In July of this year, the board published a guide
to these new laws.
Last program is enforcement,
and we have two, two types of enforcement here.
The first is adjudications of investigations submitted to us
by the Office of Inspector General.
Since November 1st of last year,
the OIG has submitted 14
completed investigations to the board.
Uh, one matter actually involves four different subjects.
The board found probable cause in 11 of those 14, uh,
two will be taken up in December,
and another has been continued pending Federal litigation.
Subjects then have the right to meet with the board
to attempt to reverse the finding.
If they cannot reverse that finding,
the board can assess violations, find violations,
assess fines, and publicly settle the matter,
or either the subject of the board can proceed
to a confidential administrative hearing
after which time the, um,
administrative hearing officer will issue their findings
of fact to the board and findings of law to the Board.
And then the board will issue a final determination based on
the findings by the A LJ.
In 10 cases, the board voted to determine
that the subjects violated the law
and assessed collectively more than $55,000 in penalties.
That's just in the past year alone.
In three of those cases, the board determined
that the subjects committed minor violations in two
of those cases, and in three cases pending from prior years.
The subjects are challenging The board's findings
in administrative hearings.
And then last are board generated enforcement actions.
Aside from late filings
and late trainings, the board finds probable cause,
and that's a confidential finding
where evidence made available to it
or in the public domain indicates that the ordinance was
violated, but no factual investigation
by the Inspector General is needed.
After making that finding, which is not a finding
of a violation, the board affords the subject the right
to attempt to rebut the finding.
If the finding is not rebutted,
the board can find violations
and publicly settle the matters for fines,
or if no settlement is reached,
make its determination public and impose appropriate fines.
The subject could then appeal to the Circuit Court
of Cook County Final Board determinations are appealable
to the Cook County Circuit Court,
even in Inspector General cases since November of 2023,
the board has handled 12 such cases.
Five of these involve contributions
to the Mayor's political Committee by registered lobbyists
in violation of a 2011 executive order issued
by then Mayor Emmanuel.
But those cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
That, however, resulted in the codification
and expansion of that 2011 executive order by this body,
and the board can now enforce it.
In another case, the board find the committee
of an unsuccessful mayoral candidate $10,500
for accepting contributions that exceeded the ordinances.
$1,500 limitation.
Uh, four cases were referred to the Inspector General.
In another case, the board fined a lobbyist $500 for failing
to disclose a contribution
to the Mayor's committee as required.
Uh, and then a last case,
a final case was dismissed when a campaign contributor
received reimbursement of an excess contribution.
All of these cases are described in detail
on the Board's website and on the board's website.
We have a detailed guide to Ethics enforcement procedures
because as our colleague,
the Inspector General mentioned earlier,
it's a little bit more complicated than a standard, uh,
office of Inspector General investigation
and names are made public as permitted by law.
And after my colleague Laura Perry speaks,
I welcome your questions as well.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. I'm Laura Perry.
I am chair of the License Appeal Commission.
I have with me today in the box, uh, Michelle Guzman Flores.
She's our staff assistant, our only employee, um,
the License Appeal Commission.
Here's appeals of decisions regarding the issuance
and discipline of liquor licenses made by, uh, BACP
and the local Liquor Control Commission.
State law requires a municipality with a population
of 500,000
or more like the City of Chicago,
to have its own license appeal commission, uh,
to hear appeals of those cases.
So there are three commissioners by state law.
One Commissioner is appointed by the city, that's me,
and the two other commissioners are members
of the Illinois Liquor Control Commission.
They are appointed and paid for by the state.
Appeals are brought to challenge revocation, suspensions,
or fines of existing liquor licenses imposed by the LLCC.
And in these matters, disciplinary proceedings are reviewed
and appellate arguments are entertained from the parties.
Um, LAC also hears appeals stemming from applications
for new or renewal of existing English liquor licenses.
And unlike the revocation suspension
and fi fine appeals where there's only oral argument
and a review of the materials
or record from the disciplinary hearing in these appeals,
um, they're conducted de novo, which means by a new trial.
Um, they generally consist of opening statements,
documentary evidence, uh, testimony,
and occasionally video evidence followed
by closing arguments from the parties.
In all cases, a detailed written decision is
made by the commission.
Parties may file appeals in state court for review
of decisions that we make at, uh, at the LAC level
through the Department of Finance.
LAC has collected $500 in filing fees to date,
the commission is budgeted for the one full-time position.
There are no vacancies.
And as always, our office will work with the Office
of Budget and Management
and members of City Council to continue
to monitor operational costs
with an eye toward equity within our systems
and our vendor contracts.
Thank you.
Thank you, chair. Um,
first we're gonna have Chair Martin followed
by man.
I'm drawing blanks today, ma'am, on my Ottoman Bars.
Thank you Chair, and good afternoon everybody in the box.
I just have a few questions specifically for you, Steve.
The first is, and if you don't know this off the top
of your head, happy to get this through the chair.
Um, wondering how much money the board, um,
has collected since this,
how much money the board has collected, uh,
since the start of this term.
Uh, that being May of 2023 in fines pertaining
to campaign finance violations.
I understand, you know, there's some reference in your
opening statement to that.
I was wondering if you have an overall dollar amount?
Uh, you mean fines collected or fines assessed?
Good, good clarification.
Answers to both would be great. Um,
Let me get that through. Let
me get that to you through the chair.
Okay. Yeah. Thank you.
And my other question concerns, um, the board
that you work alongside.
So the board is supposed to have seven members
who adjudicate alleged violations of the city's code,
ethics code among other responsibilities.
And it plays a crucial role in building
and maintaining public trust in Chicago government.
On July 31st of this year, uh, the terms
of two board members expired,
and they have not been reappointed by the mayor.
Uh, nor have there been, uh, any other individuals, uh, uh,
who have been appointed by the mayor anew.
Uh, it's my understanding that under current law,
these two members will serve
until their replacements are appointed
or if they step down, uh, of their own volition.
Uh, I'd like to know, uh, in your opinion,
do you feel it's important
that the mayor reappoint these two individuals?
Uh, and if so, why?
Uh, that's a very good question.
Alderman Martin or Chair Martin, I do believe that, uh,
I do urge the mayor, uh, in our board urges the mayor
to reappoint these two individuals.
First, they are outstanding board members.
And I should say for the first time in all the years I've
been with the city, we have an all lawyer board, uh,
which is an interesting thing.
Um, one of, one of these board members is a,
is a retired judge.
Uh, I think it's important
because it sends the message of stability.
Um, in other words, it's true
that under the way the law is written,
these board members whose terms have expired continue
to serve in the same capacity as though
they had been reappointed.
I just think it sends a message of stability
and a message that, um, that the board
of ethics is a critical part of city government.
Um, if these two members are reappointed
as quickly as possible,
Could there be a scenario in which, um,
there are decisions, significant decisions,
that those board members are asked to weigh in on,
and that they are subsequently not
reappointed at someone else?
In that hypothetical situation, could you speak to, um, uh,
any issues that you might see in terms of, uh,
the public's interpretation of such a hypothetical action?
Yeah, I mean, that theoretically could happen.
I will tell you that, um, it takes, in my experience,
it takes a while to find people who are willing
to serve on the board
because of the restrictions that they are subject to.
So the odds of that happening, I would say would,
would be pretty, would be pretty minimal.
On the other hand, um,
I could envision a potential situation
where there's a matter that comes before the board
and the board has to take it under advisement,
which is not uncommon.
And the board may take two or three months to
and analyze all the evidence that's,
that's been presented to it.
And in that two or three month period,
there could be a change in board personnel.
And I think that kind of instability, um, would send a,
a negative message to the public.
Uh, it would send, it would send a message that, uh,
that board members can be, um, appointed or,
or dismissed, kind of willy-nilly.
And, uh, because board members serve by law four year terms,
and they're staggered terms like the Supreme Court, uh,
then I, I think as I, as I said
before, I think it's really important for
all currently serving members to be appointed
and to know exactly when their terms end. So
Are you aware of any reasons why these two individuals,
um, have not been reappointed
and relatedly, do you have any concern
with them continuing their tenure on the board?
Uh, first part of your question is no,
I do not have any information as
to why they have not been reappointed.
Um, secondly, they have both, uh,
very proudly indicated their willingness
to continue to serve.
And of course, they've indicated loudly
and clearly their, uh, desire to be reappointed.
Okay. Well, the,
the last thing I'll say on the topic is it's also my
understanding that these two individuals, along
with their five other colleagues have performed important in
necessary work on the board at a time when, um, uh,
faith in city government is not at its highest.
Uh, it's been many months, uh, since their terms expired.
And I believe that those two individuals, as well
as the rest of the board in the entire city, deserve
to have, um, clarity on what, uh,
what their continued service looks like moving forward.
So as I've done on multiple occasions, I, uh,
will reiterate, including publicly, uh, my desire to see,
uh, the mayor reappoint these two individuals so
that they can continue doing important work involving, uh,
maintaining and strengthening ethical
government across Chicago.
Um, so thank you for, um, for, for, uh, your,
your sentiment, your insights,
and I hope that those reappointments occur swiftly.
I know my committee, uh, stands ready
to take those up as quickly as possible.
Thank you. And thank you chair. Thank
You.
Thank you. Chair Altman Barris followed by Altman Lopez.
My question is for the police board,
as the courts will likely reaffirm officers their right
for arbitration instead of the police board,
what cost savings?
I wanna know the cost savings.
What cost savings will that give the city of Chicago
since the police board will likely be obsolete?
Uh, well, well, thank you for that question, Rahman.
I would, I I will answer your
question directly in terms of cost savings.
So in our proposed budget for 2025,
we have a hundred thousand dollars cost savings
that is primarily related to personnel and court costs.
So that's the court reporting costs that are associated
with hearings that officers who were facing discipline
before the police board would have to incur, as well
as the costs that are associated with hearing officers
and levels of, of the amount
of hearings that they would have.
So in our 2024 budget, we had, uh, a budgeted
around $193,000 for personnel costs related
to hearing officers, appeals officers in the
2025 proposed budget.
We have a reduction of
around $53,000 in that, in that respect.
And then with respect to court reporting, we reflect a,
a $42,000 reduction in the proposed
budget for the police board.
Um, that is to be said that while officers are likely
to have the option to choose arbitration as opposed
to the police board, as we have seen in the last couple
months, we still have officers who are choosing
to have their cases heard before the police board.
And I would just say that
that is still my strong recommendation
that officers do continue to choose the police board
as an avenue to have those cases heard
for a variety of reasons.
One, I think the board does a really good job
of independently deciding these cases,
but those cost savings that you talked about are reflection
of the fact that it is likely
that we will see the police board will see a reduction in
the number of cases that will go before the board.
So it's around a hundred thousand dollars
from this year to next year.
Thank you. I'm Lopez.
Thank you chairman, and good afternoon, everyone
to the three amigos.
Um, quick question, um, first to Steve,
do you categorize the unofficial inquiries
in any particular fashion,
or do you just keep a running total of
how many hypothetical questions you are asked?
Well, uh, when you say, uh, well, hypotheticals, um,
would be, hypotheticals are included in all manner of, um,
we, we have formal opinions
that could be based on hypotheticals
as well as informal opinions.
The, the informal ones, excuse me,
But does informal opinions go?
Yes, uh, we do categorize them
and um, every month we report on the numbers
and the leading, uh, we have all this data crunch,
but the leading, uh, topics of opinions that we issue
and unsurprisingly every month, in fact, I,
I'd say pretty much every month
that I've ever been in this job, gifts
and travel are always one and two.
Can you provide through the chair what the
categories were for this year?
Yes, we can do that. Um,
because I'd like to see, you know, we know that there is a
ethics ordinance that is languished twice
now in the rules committee.
Um, and I'd like to see if any of the issues
that are being raised by, uh, members
or by personnel are impacted by the ordinance
that is waiting to be heard at some point.
'cause I think if we can help alleviate some
of the questions by en enacting a law
that addresses these issues, that probably would do us all,
uh, some good in terms of, uh, government, um,
as far as license appeal.
Two questions. Um, one, can you provide us a list, uh,
by ward of the number of appeal applications, um,
that are out there for this year?
You mean the, um, appeals
that have been filed with our office?
Yes. 4 20 24. Yes,
We Can do that for The chair.
And then I have
a question as well, when appeals are
initiated, are local aldermanic offices made aware
or invited to participate in those conversa in
in those processes?
Whenever an appeal is filed with our office,
our staff assistant notifies the ward office
that there has been an appeal file.
And how does the ward, the various wards participate?
Are they allowed to offer testimony?
Because I know it's not exactly a, a
court type scenario,
but how, how do generally ward offices participate? So
It depends upon what type of a hearing it is.
So if it is, um, a hearing about,
um, an appeal for discipline revocation suspension,
then it is more like an oral argument
before an appellate body.
So there's not gonna be any new evidence or testimony.
And the ALDERMANIC input at
that point would've been in the disciplinary hearing,
the underlying disciplinary hearing, uh,
before the MLDC, there won't be, I'm
Sorry, the what? There won't
be any, I'm, I'm Sorry. The MLDC. Could
You, I'm sorry, the disciplinary commission.
Thank you. Um, so
an alderman won't have input at the LAC level, however,
I like how you're dancing around that, by the way.
I'm, I'm Trying
To, I'm trying to make the distinction be,
because if it has to do with a new
or renewal, then that's a trial de novo new trial.
So we are gonna hear all evidence from both sides.
And then when the city presents its case,
the attorneys can call the alderman
and, uh, the alderman can provide testimony directly
before the licensed appeal commission.
So can the person who's applying, of course,
I'm sure they probably would never call the alderman if
they were denied in, in, in
that predicament, but never know.
Um, just trying to see.
And, and oftentimes when we have bad actors
who are still pursuing their licensing
or still trying to pursue their ability to,
to undo whatever has been adjudicated with them, um,
alderman offices community support usually has a way of,
of not exactly making it to the final step.
So I wanna just, I would love to know
what we can do to address that.
Is that a state issue? Is that a leak where, where that, uh,
inability stems from?
So if you could provide that through the chair or,
or let us know how to clarify that.
I can, I can answer that right now.
Um, we're set up by state law,
and the state law dictates what we can take
as input Okay.
On those hearings. So it would have
to be a change in the state law. Okay.
Could you provide us a copy of that? Sure. Thank you.
And now for the police board,
you weren't getting off that easy.
Um, you listed five major areas
of, um, responsibility for the police board,
notwithstanding adjudication and all of those things.
Uh, but one of the other areas of the board,
as I'm sure you're aware, is policy
and the advising of, uh,
pol policy creation and things of that nature.
What policies has the police board in the last
year come forward with?
So thank you for that question, alderman.
So in the last year, and I'll just go at a
high level and then go specific.
So in terms of policy, the police board doesn't have a,
a formal role of putting forth policies.
Actually, I'm, I'm gonna stop you right there.
'cause you do, um, you have the authority to come up
with policy, um, and I'm gonna say this
because I told literally almost all your predecessors,
including one who became mayor, that you have the authority
to come up with policies and never do so.
What, what policies have you generated as a police board?
So, so in the last year, none, I will say,
How about in 2023?
In 2023, I would have to look at the disciplinary cases
that contain policy recommendations.
So to the extent that the board has come up
with policy in the last, let's call it five years,
those policy recommendations are couched within the public
decisions that the board makes
that are available on the board's website
that are then at times communicated to
Policy. So, so I'll
say, how many
nondisciplinary related policy decision, uh, pol policy
perspectives has you, has the board come up with?
Uh, if you're asking
for a timeframe, I, it might be helpful.
I'm not aware of any. In the last year
that I've been the president of the police
Board, I, I will, I will say that since Laquan McDonald,
there have been zero every year to to date, year to date,
um, and that was something that was brought up even when
Lori Lightfoot sat where you are sitting right now, um,
I think there's a growing frustration
to follow on my colleague's point, the cost savings of,
of your department at a $500,000, you are
a blip in a $17 billion operation.
Um, and I mean that respectfully.
Um, but I think that when you have a department
that feels like it is layered
and overburdened, um, it's, that's $500,000
that if we are not necessarily being as productive
and useful as we need to be, then that is just one
of many cuts that we probably need to look at in this body.
Um, if the adjudication, uh,
abilities are changing
because of the court case, then I think absolutely things
can be shifted to a different body to deal with.
A third party arbitrator can handle
all of them at some point.
Um, but I think that if that's the case and,
and you're not picking up
and dealing with policy, uh, proposals
to help better the police department, then
it's really setting, uh, the police board up for becoming a,
an irrelevant non-entity moving forward.
So I, I appreciate the, the question alderman.
I would say, you know, if we had a scenario where zero cases
of police discipline were put
before the board, there was still a variety
of activities that the board undertakes.
As I previously mentioned, there was around 54 appeals
that the police board decided for applicants
to become Chicago police officers,
that the board decided this year, I expect that number to be
to 70, 80, closer to a hundred
as we get towards the end of the year.
So that's still a significant, um, amount of work
that the board does in that respect.
The board is also responsible
for handling disagreement cases between COPA
and the superintendent.
Um, in our last meeting,
there was a significant disagreement case that was decided
with respect to, um, the, uh, Reginald Clay shooting.
Um, there's also, uh, a function
that the board plays in terms of
managing the monthly police board meetings that take place,
which is a unique form that allows both, um, the public
and the superintendent and COPA
and other stakeholders to participate in.
So if we took those serious cases
of police disciplinary conduct away from the board,
which I don't think we've seen even in the last couple
months, we've had officers choose to have their cases heard
before the board, and I think for good reasons, one,
because there is no current
arbitration process that's set up.
So officers who stand accused
of misconduct are currently in a limbo if they don't decide
to have their cases heard before the board.
Um, I think that there's still a, a very important
and critical role that the board will continue
to play in the accountability system,
Understanding your defense of the board.
I get it, but half of what you just mentioned can be put
to other, other departments
or put in other mechanisms, especially when it comes
to human resource matters, as have having an ability to, uh,
appeal a decision whether or not they are hired or not.
Public forums, we have two different committees here in city
council where we could actually have the superintendent come
and speak and hear directly from community too.
So I would just tread lightly on that subject.
Thank you, chairman. Thank you all.
Thank you all. Lopez. Any other questions for our panel?
Other questions for the panel? Very well.
Well, we thank you for, uh, joining with us.
Uh, we are trying to be efficient. I know it's Saturday.
We thank you for coming down on a Saturday, uh,
to spend a little time with us.
Um, but again, we know that the work that you all do, uh,
in various forms is, uh, vital to the, uh, city of Chicago
with our various public safety and, uh, business concerns
and our overall reputation.
So, uh, again, thank you all for joining with us today.
And, uh, if there are no other questions
or any other on this matter, you all are excused.
Thank you, chair. Thank you.
Take a short, uh, recess while, uh, Copa comes in.
We will, uh, uh, we'll take,
well number one, we're gonna bring Copa up.
We did, uh, I know we didn't have lunch on the schedule,
but we do have lunch coming.
When it does arrive, we'll take a short break, allow
of people to grab something and then, uh, come back.
Uh, but um,
and that lunch will be in the, uh, in,
in the budget office down here on two, uh, when once
that food arrives.
So we're having pizza and, uh, chicken.
So whereas, and two, my office on two here.
Once, once, once it gets here.
So, so we'll start with coping then.
We'll just take a little break once food arrives.
Yeah.
Good afternoon. And, uh, committee on budget
and government operations back on, uh, we have
before us the civilian Office of Police Accountability, uh,
better known as copa.
Uh, we'll have a short presentation by Kofa
and then we will present, we'll go into, uh,
opening statement of Kopa with the introduction of the, uh,
commissioner and her staff, uh, director Gray
Chairman Irvin, vice Chairman Lee Alder,
persons and guest.
Good morning. My name is Janice Oda, gray, director of kofa.
Okay, so CO's proposed budget is
15.1 million, that's 10% lower than fiscal year 24.
Their FTEs are 153.
That's down three from FY 24
Personnel services make up 13.2 million
while non personnel services account for 1.9 million.
Thank you.
Thank you much, director.
Good afternoon. Thank you. Um, I
Appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Uh, very much appreciate the, the welcome.
And I'm Andrea Kirsten, the Chief Administrator
for the Civilian Office of Police Accountability.
copa, not to be confused with cofa.
Uh, I'm joined today by my first deputy e from ED
and, uh, numerous members of my leadership team.
I'll start from the front right Chief of staff,
uh, Jay Westin Sea.
Next to him is our Director of Administrative Services,
Dasia McDaniel, uh, deputy Chief
and Investigations, Sharday Jackson General Counsel,
Robin Murphy, another Deputy Chief of Investigations,
an Angela Hart's glass, uh, deputy chief, uh, assigned
to our policy research
and analysis division on the front left.
Justin Escamia, uh, going to the back right is our Director
of Public Affairs, which really functions, functions
as our community engagement efforts.
That's Carlos Reba.
Next to him is director of Mediation, Daisha Mohammad.
And then thank you for leaning forward,
our Assistant General Counsel, Angela Snell
and our director of investigations assigned
to our transparency unit, uh, Shannon Hayes.
The complex and challenging issues of police reform
and accountability remain among the most important
and often polarizing issues impacting our city.
Effective oversight
of law enforcement requires a robust accountability system,
transparent and consistent communication with the public
and an open and collaborative
relationship across the community.
Safety infrastructure. For the last seven years,
the Civilian Office of Police Accountability,
COPA has played an integral role in
Chicago's accountability system.
COPA and Chicago have become national leaders in
transparency and independent civilian led investigations
of police misconduct.
I lead a dedicated staff of individuals
who strongly believe in CPA's mission, which is
to provide a just and efficient means to fairly
and timely investigate allegations
of police misconduct within our jurisdiction, as well as
to identify and address patterns of misconduct
and make policy recommendations
to improve the Chicago Police Department
and reduce incidents of police misconduct.
While this work has not come without its challenges,
COPA has continued its commitment to the, this mandate
and our body of work speaks
to the clear progress we have made as an agency.
While there have been many milestones
and accomplishments for our agency this last year,
COPA saw tremendous growth in three key areas.
First caseload reduction.
Secondly, our consent decree compliance,
and then lastly, an increase,
an increased amount of transparency.
Historically, COPA and its predecessor agencies have
struggled with large caseloads,
which frequently impeded the timely
resolution of investigations.
As I came before this council last year in my budget
address, I announced that in 2023, in collaboration
with the Community Commission for Public Safety
and Accountability, as well
as the independent monitoring team for the consent decree,
COPA undertook a timeliness initiative
to address our aging caseload.
This initiative involved the identification of aging cases
that were suitable for resolution
through training recommendations
or other non-disciplinary outcomes.
The timeliness initiative concluded in the first quarter
of 2024 and has resulted in COPA achieving
and sustaining a historically low caseload, which enables us
to complete our investigations in a timely manner
and bring resolution to officers, complainants,
and impacted families.
Throughout this last year,
COPA also made tremendous progress on our path
to full operational compliance
with our Consent Toree obligations.
In fact, we are now fully compliant
with 90% of the paragraphs.
We are tasked with fulfilling CPA's consent decree
obligations, touch virtually every aspect
of our investigative operations,
and seek to ensure that we have consistent objective
processes that govern our work, our commitment
to the principles and requirements set forth in the consent
decree, also chart the course for CPA's future
and ensure that the critical work
of reform within our agency remains ongoing.
This year also provided an opportunity for COPA
to continue increasing our efforts
to deliver meaningful transparency around issues
of police reform to the public.
From our continued fulfillment of
and communication surrounding the city's video release
policy to expanded community engagement efforts, updates
to the accessibility and content of our website, as well
as the continued success of COPA People's Academy.
Uh, through those many engagement efforts,
COPA has actually engaged thousands of Chicagoans
and people across the country in this last year.
Through these engagement efforts, COPA consistently educated
and informed the public about our work within Chicago's
broader police accountability system.
CPA's commitment to transparency is a foundational element
to Chicago's police reform efforts
and remains a critical component
to building trust in our accountability system
and legitimacy in the communities we serve.
The successes were only made possible through the hard work
and dedication of COFA staff who represent a diversity
of thought background
and lived experience that they bring to this work each day.
And as I mentioned, I'm joined as well by a number
of our leadership team who also bring a vast array
of expertise and commitment to each
of their individual roles and the teams they lead.
And together our agency stands ready
to continue fulfilling our mission
and serving all Chicagoans.
Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to pause
and offer condolences on behalf of myself
and every member of the civilian office
of Police Accountability to office, Enrique Martinez's,
family, friends, as well
as the entire Chicago Police Department.
Every day officers like Officer Enrique Martinez put their
lives on the line for all of us as residents of the City
of Chicago to serve and protect.
It is our hope that the pain felt by Officer Martinez's,
family, friends, and Chicago Police Department members,
and truly our whole city, is met with love
and support during this difficult time.
Our sincere thoughts are with them,
and I thank you for this time,
and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you. Um, administrator, um, open with,
um, alderman Debar
Reviewing the proposed budget.
COPA is requesting approximately 15 million
for operating costs.
My concern, which I would like to briefly review,
is the financial exposure the agency is currently giving.
The city COPA is currently named
as a defendant in multiple lawsuits, as it stands,
investigators within COPA lack state certification
for professional licensing with the state
as law enforcement officers.
This is a state requirement to conduct investigations
regarding aggregated batteries, which include use
of force instances like officer involved shootings,
additional litigation naming the city as a co-defendant
with COPA include an instance
where an investigator was found
to have altered a witness statement in the final reports
regarding an investigation.
This led to disciplinary measures being brought against an
officer, and further litigation includes allegations
of firing employees of the agency due to their alerting,
the public of the lack of impartiality when it comes to
how investigations are managed and findings are rendered.
Another thing I want to point out is the city's lack
of disciplinary of a disciplinary matrix
and the agency's repeated failure to provide precedents
for recommended discipline.
All of this has led to costly
and unsuccessful arbitration hearings.
CPA's recommendations are being lowered or thrown out.
These costly hearings have not
have these costly hearings come not from
CO's budget, but from the city's law department.
My biggest concern is the cost associated
not with pending litigation tied to operations
and lack of professionalism,
but the real cost of the impact
COPA has on officers in the field.
Every Chicago police officer knows the scrutiny
they will face if they're required to use deadly force.
When we compare the incident in the 11th district
where an officer was shot while conducting a traffic stop
and the response
and the more recent death of Officer Enrique Martinez,
we clearly see the choices that police officers have
to make, knowing both investigations are ongoing.
Every officer that I have ever spoken with
has related a lack of faith in the impartiality of copa.
It gives them a, a, a very real concern
that this will lead to hesitation when it comes
to making a split second life
or death decision, a decision they're justified
in using under reasonable circumstances.
I want my colleagues to understand that the lack
of a disciplinary matrix matrix
state certifications
and compromise practices have cost this city
of Chicago millions of dollars that are not
represented in this agency's proposed budget.
And let me end with this comment
before I move on with my questions.
The real cost to our city
is the unnecessary burden it places on officers
and the hesitation it places on them when they have
to think this, if I have to use deadly force,
even if I've been shot, COPA is going
to go on a media tour to sow doubt about my actions
that behavior will cost lives.
So here are my questions.
How many current lawsuits is Copa
currently named as a defendant?
Answer that one now. Yes.
Hold on. Um, before I answer that question,
I do wanna address a few of the issues
that you raised in your comments,
and I appreciate your your impassioned comments.
Alderwoman tovaras. Uh, first
and foremost, there is no state licensure requirement, uh,
for the conduct of administrative investigations into any
aspect of policing.
There are state law requirements under the Police
and Community Relations Improvement Act with respect
to criminal investigations.
COPA is not, of course, conducting criminal investigations.
So I do think that's an important
distinction that needs to be made.
Uh, with respect to the lack of a disciplinary matrix,
COPA agrees, uh, that there are, there is an inherent issue,
uh, with respect to the entire city's approach
to discipline of officers.
Uh, there was an unfair labor practice claim raised by,
I believe, the FOP and perhaps the PPBA as well, uh,
that resulted in the lack of our ability
to utilize the preexisting disciplinary matrix. So,
So what, so, so what is COP'S
recommendation and adopting a disciplinary? Well,
I wanna be clear. Uh,
the city has an obligation to go back
to the bargaining table with its police unions in order
to develop a,
a disciplinary matrix to move forward with one.
So we've undertaken,
and we're doing this in partnership
with the independent monitoring team under the consent
decree, because one of our consent decree paragraphs
that we're obligated to fulfill relates specifically
to the issue of, uh, disciplinary recommendations.
And so our approach,
because we are not able to use a matrix, is really
to determine a set of aggravating
and mitigating factors, uh, that will ultimately be able
to result in a recommendation made to the police department
that the more succinctly lays out this basis.
And so our program
and approach to that is happening in our policy research
and analysis division.
Um, and we're doing so in partnership with CPD.
They're well aware of the,
the principles that we're relying on.
And, and really, as I've spoken many times to, uh, members
of CPD as well as the superintendent himself
as the employer, it is his primary responsibility
to determine specific amounts of discipline.
Um, what we are poised to do
and what we have authority to do is merely
make a recommendation.
Uh, and so we understand that, and you see time
and time again when we have disagreements between COPA
and the Chicago Police Department, we often acquiesce to
what the superintendent is seeking with respect
to the amount of discipline.
There are times where so far from one another that
that's not possible, but those are the exceptions.
The vast majority of our recommendations are either agreed
to by the superintendent
or in the non concurrence process, we're able to come
to agreement and find middle ground.
Uh, so I think that's a positive thing.
Uh, with respect also to arbitration awards,
you mentioned CPA's, arbitration awards being reduced,
CPDs arbitration, uh,
recommendations are also routinely being reduced.
That's an issue for arbitration
and arbitrators and how they do their work.
It's not unique to COPA versus the Chicago Police
Department's BIA investigations
or even the OIGs investigations, uh,
let alone all the other city agencies whose unionized staff
and their disciplinary recommendations go
through an arbitration process.
Um, I also just wanna mention that I think, you know, you,
you talked about having all of the officers
that you've engaged with having
and expressing concerns, uh, about CPA's, scrutiny
of their work, um, and their split second decision making.
A couple of key pieces. Number one,
we are applying the reform principles
that turned into CPD policy as a basis of the consent decree
and even work that began before that in the midst
of the Department of Justice investigation.
So these, these are not principles
or rules that we are, you know, coming up with on our own.
These are the policies
of the Chicago de Police Police Department.
We sometimes disagree with the police department about
what weight to give certain evidence, et cetera,
but at the end of the day, these are principles
that are in place largely with the belief
that they will help keep officers safer
when followed appropriately.
I know that's a subject for contention,
and we could spend all day talking about that,
but I just wanna be clear that that is the way
that we approach our work is it's governed directly
by the rules and policies of the Chicago Police Department.
And lastly, we talk to a lot of police officers as well.
I myself make sure that I'm personally attending every
promotional class and engaging with what turns out
to be hundreds of soon to be sergeants, lieutenants,
and captains year over year.
And I don't have the same feedback that you're expressing.
There are certainly officers that agree, disagree, strongly
with copa, and there's many officers, particularly those
that serve in supervisory roles that understand the work,
uh, and the challenges that come with it.
So this has always been
and will remain a contentious issue, particularly
around use of deadly force.
But I'm open to those conversations.
Uh, but your real question,
and what you ended with was about the lawsuits.
I can provide through the chair a list of all of the,
the number of lawsuits, but that's also not new to copa.
Uh, there are lawsuits filed with respect
to disciplinary outcomes all the time.
I obviously can't comment on any current pending litigation,
but I do wanna make clear when it comes to my staff
and the disciplinary decisions that I have to make,
as in my role as chief administrator,
I don't make those choices
unless I've done so with prior consultation
with the Department of Law in each
and every one of those decisions.
So I can't say more than that with respect
to any pending litigation.
But I will say that we are routinely in our predecessor
agencies, we're routinely in litigation relative
to disciplinary measures.
Uh, and that that work is, that is part of the job,
unfortunately, uh, that we, that we do.
Well, Ms. Kirsten, it's my understanding you were the
investigator who was found during the course of interest
and arbitration to have altered a witness statement,
CPD detectives would have faced severe,
severe ramifications if they were found to have done this.
What discipline did you face?
I, I actually don't know what you're speaking about.
I, that is not an allegation that's been brought
to my attention at all.
So I, if there's pending litigation with respect to that,
it has not been brought to my attention.
Good. You have other questions? Okay.
Okay. I thought you had some additional questions.
I know that was a fairly long, uh, one question back
and forth, so if you did have something else I would allow
you to continue, but, uh, Altman, oh, there you are.
Vasquez. Any other questions for Copa? Alderman?
Um, Rodriguez,
Thank you very much, chairman.
Um, so, uh, a question I had is kind of similar to one.
We're good. Right? Okay.
Um, it's similar a question I had for OIG, um, related
to kind of the budget floor.
So COPA has a mandatory budget floor
to ensure it cannot be underfunded
that department's annual budget must be equal to at least 1%
of CPDs non-grant appropriations
for the current budget year.
It seems as though CPA's budget is being shortchanged
by using fringe in the calculation of CPA's,
total appropriation, but not in the calculation of CPDs.
And, uh, does not reach the 1% floor when both departments
appropriations are calculated the same way.
Meaning if fringe is included in one
but not the other, it's not apples to apples in a way
that could short the amount of funding that should be there.
Can you comment on this in any way? Chief administrator?
We just wanna make sure that you're getting the money
that is in the ordinance requirement
and that that is lined up apples to apples.
So there's not a short there.
The comment that I, I appreciate the question.
It's certainly one that we've been asked
frequently, uh, year over year.
Uh, my response to that would be the, the office of, uh,
of budget management
for the mayor has consistently applied this formula
to all three of the entities, uh,
that have a similar budgetary floor.
So it's, of course, OIG US and now the C-C-P-S-A as well.
Um, so this has been
what our budget calculation has emerged from since our
agency's inception in 2017.
Um, you know, in this year of all years,
when we are talking about the city
as a whole facing really tremendous choices, uh, in light
of this budget shortfall, I know that my job is
to be a good steward of the financial, you know, gift
that we as an agency have been given.
And I'm certain that we will continue
to maintain our operations with the amount of budget
that we are allocated as we've done every year.
Um, I think all of us collectively have to be doing
as the theme of this year is more with less.
And so I, as long as COPA is situated in the same manner
that CCPs a
and OIGs calculations, uh, are being determined, I,
I have, I can accept that.
Um, but I also understand the argument that you are raising,
um, as to how that calculation,
that formula could be applied differently. Yeah,
I, I think my concern there and kind
of an analogy is like, if I was getting a paycheck from an
employer and they shorted me, I still gotta figure out a way
to pay the bills and get food on the table.
It doesn't mean they didn't short me intentionally.
And so to, to your point,
if those three different bodies are all being intentionally
shorted of the funds, they need to be effective,
that's something to explore.
Now if between the three of y'all you're like, well,
we're all getting shorted the same, so I guess that's fair.
We've got larger questions about how it's being modeled,
and so just wanna make sure on the record that we got each
of the different agencies like take on that
to make sure we can go back and like do our due diligence.
Yeah, I appreciate that.
And honestly, I feel we have adequate resources
to do the job that we're doing.
Um, I, I always would, you know, welcome the opportunity
to expand what the work of our agency
and be open to conversations about how
that calculation is determined.
Sure. Thank you. Um, the next question I can ask you,
the last question I have is, we know that in this budget
when we've talked for like CPD, that there are civilian cuts
and vacancies related to the consent decree.
And that is concerning not just from a justice lens,
but from a fiscal one.
If we don't make the changes we need
to these police misconduct settlements,
and we know we've got a large pipeline of things
that happen in prior years that we're gonna be paying for,
we don't get better at making the structural changes
that keep us from continuing to pay that out.
In the absence of those positions, how does COPA look
to kind of, for lack of a better term, fill some gap
as it comes to recommendations,
structural changes, that kind of thing?
And how are you all as, as a body thinking through that?
So our approach to consent decree compliance was different
than that of the Chicago Police Department.
Our challenges were also far different than that
of the Chicago Police Department.
While we have, uh, over 80 paragraphs that we're responsible
for, we're a much smaller agency, uh,
and certainly had a history and were in need of reform.
That was clear. Um,
but not to the extent of the Chicago Police Department.
So we, unlike CPD, did not create a unit within the agency,
uh, to staff and, and manage consent decree compliance.
Instead, we utilized our expanded legal department.
Really those efforts largely led by our general counsel,
Robin Murphy, who's here today.
Uh, and now with the creation
and expansion of the policy research
and analysis division, Justin Escamia
and his team, it's driven through those, those units
that wear multiple hats.
They do other things. Um,
but so we didn't suffer any personnel cuts with respect
to consent decree compliance.
We have a consent decree compliance line item
that we were able to volunteer some reduction on in the, uh,
over the summer, our, our budget reduction exercise.
Um, and again, that's because we're sitting at,
in this current draft IMR report,
we're at 90% full compliance, full operational,
not preliminary, not secondary full.
I guess to clarify my question one, I recognize that.
And so when you're looking at yourself as a body
and saying how you're doing a center degree, that's great.
What I'm saying is if CCP D'S being shorted those positions,
we're gonna be leaning on y'all C-C-P-S-A
and everyone else to try to make up,
what are those recommendations
that those people in CPD would be doing if those
vacancies continue in this budget?
And so, I see, I get that you guys have the capacity
for your own, but when we start coming to y'all
to fill in gap that they
do, like, how do you feel about that?
'cause this body is different.
Members are gonna come to y'all
and go, what does CPD need to be doing?
'cause we don't have the other positions there
to actually tell us.
I feel tremendously encouraged by the fact
that I have a fully staffed policy research
and analysis division led
by a brilliant PhD who's sitting here with us today, uh,
leading a team of data scientists and other project managers
and quality performance, uh, analysts,
who I think can certainly contribute to
that conversation in ways
that the city may need going forward.
Okay. Absolutely. That's all I
have. Thank you very much, chair.
Thank you. I, um, I finally understand your question.
I looked at, uh, looking at this
'cause uh, you continue to ask it, ha have we made a back
of the napkin calculation on this?
And do you, do you believe that they're,
they're being shorted by chance?
Oh, no, we, we haven't. We kind of asked that first
to understand if there's like the intention
and what the analysis first is.
We then want to come back and look at the three
and go, what would be the difference to your point,
if you did it one way or the other,
and we can come back with the information we have as well.
So, or maybe that's a question to ask. Thank you for that.
That's a question asked through the chair
of the different agencies if
You did it. Well, no, it's, it's
not, no,
because the, the, what you're looking for, you're saying
that the friends, they're, they're being charged of friends,
but it is not the, it is not in the denominator.
Right? So what your question, I guess my question is, and,
and, and overall is if the amount of the fringe
was included in the base calculation,
where does that put them,
I think is the question that you're asking.
And I was just asking you if you have performed a little
back of the napkin calculation to see if it was something
that warranted further, you know,
serious investigation, that's all.
Yeah, it's challenging
because like, for example, CPD is such a large budget
that trying to figure out if that's the denominator of
with Fringe or without Fringe,
and then the 1% of, oh, we know
That that fringe doesn't exist on the CPD end,
but we know that it exists on their end.
Right. So that's, I was just asking you,
had you performed any, any just rough calculation to say,
Hey, this is what I think this number is,
and there may be an issue here.
No, not, not at this time.
But as we do, like, you know, we might come back and,
and share with the council as we get it.
Okay. Alright. Thank you. No problem.
Any other questions for Copa? I'm sorry, alderman Rodriguez?
Yeah. Uh, and forgive me, Mr.
Chair, it's probably not a, a question,
just more of a quick statement.
Um, you know, I, I
for one dread the cost from your office, um, it's,
it's a fact that it's probably a very difficult situation.
But I will say that in each
and every one of those phone calls that I've had,
I've received a very balanced
and, um, holistic kind of approach.
Um, limited details to the extent that I need to know,
um, as an elected official for,
of an occurrence in my district.
Uh, however, I've been no less than extremely impressed
by the work that y'all are doing.
And I really appreciate the, the community outreach
that's done your offices at my, all
of my events throughout the year.
And, uh, I want to give special kudos to that group.
Um, look, it's, it's not an easy job you do.
Um, but it's a critical job.
And I want you to know that, um, there's folks on this side
that actually believe in the work that you're doing.
Um, we'll keep on pushing you to do even better.
Um, but, uh, it is a critical endeavor.
So thank you for your work.
Know it's difficult, um, but we appreciate you ev and, and,
and all the work you do every day.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate
That. Thank you. Thank y'all.
Any other questions for Al Lopez?
Thank you, chairman, and good
afternoon members of the committee.
And to everyone that is here,
I think we have a growing frustration with copa.
I think what we read and what we see
and what we hear, I don't know if we're operating on two
different planes of existence,
but when you say that you go out and meet our officers
and they're having a very different conversation
with you than what we're hearing, I find that hard
to believe because I know, like my colleague
from the 23rd Ward
and others, our officers are exceedingly frustrated,
are exceedingly feeling as though they are
being scapegoated.
And that while all of us want to see
Discipline, when things are wrong, that there's an
undercurrent of fear that you, in particular
with those under you are looking to make
every situation a bad situation
to throw them under the bus at every turn.
I don't know how you fix that.
What I do know is that just as we had the police board
before you, we have
layered so much
and it in that layering that our officers feel that
whatever they do, even if it's correct,
they are still gonna be accused of being wrong.
That that is an atmosphere that is emanating directly
from this administration, from this department.
That perception is coming directly from this department.
And when that happens,
things like what we saw
with Enrique Martinez follow suit.
I don't know if you've seen that video.
And I was trying very desperately not to watch that video
until someone inadvertently put it right in front of me.
But to hear that young man
doing everything he could to try
to avoid being put in a situation
where just a few months ago you told, you
pronounce it someone should be fired for doing everything
that he was trying to follow suit that young man's dead.
Now, it's hard not to say
that one can make the connection that everything
that he was doing that night is out of fear
of being called before you.
Does that mean it's entirely on you? Probably not.
But I think most of us think
that you have some responsibility in this.
I think many of us feel that if Copa cannot
investigate with a sense of neutrality
and just trying to get to the facts without trying
to create a narrative, then there's no reason
to have this exist in this fashion anymore.
Anyway. I think,
and correct me if I'm wrong, that it's the state
that can investigate our officers,
and I believe Alderman Debar,
and you were getting into that about whether it's criminal
or, or other things.
But if we have to revamp everything
that's a non-criminal investigation on the city side to,
to hit the reset, then I think that's something
that this body needs to look at.
Your department is $15 million,
$17 billion operation, practically nothing.
But the damage that that $15 million does on the psyche
of our officers to eliminate that would be
probably the best thing for their mental
health at this point.
I'm not looking for a response,
I'm not looking for an answer.
I'm just wanting to share that the perception
that is out there is so negative that the fear
that officers have is so real,
that this is probably the worst $15 million
we spend in this budget.
And that is pretty bad.
We have to do better because no one should be second
guessing themselves and the most routine of,
of predicaments
and putting their lives on the line out of fear.
And we're seeing more and more of that time and time again.
Thank you, chairman.
I, if I may just respond briefly, I appreciate that.
Chairman, I'll, uh, a couple of things.
You know, most of what you've said, uh, as you indicated,
you're not looking for a response to,
nor do I think there are answers to.
Um, what I will say is that I mentioned in my exchange
with Alderwoman Tovaras officers that we talk to, um,
when those conversations start,
they start from a place similar to
what you're describing, alderman Lopez.
They start from a place of belief that somehow COPA is, uh,
not interested in an objective investigation.
And that the, you know, the die is cast
before they ever even come into our office.
And the way which we try to reinform
or inform officers about the reality of our work,
we start with the numbers.
Um, we'll just take the cases we've closed so far this year.
We have closed, uh, 1,149 cases so far this year.
Of those 771 of them were complaints that came in
that we concluded didn't require any further investigation.
Allegations were never served.
Officers were essentially cleared by our agency for 771.
Out of the 1,149 complaints that, uh, we closed
so far this year, uh, of the cases
that we actually sustained with,
or I'm sorry, closed with that had allegations, only 28%
of those had any sustained allegations in them.
So less than 30%, less than a third of the cases
that we've concluded so far this year
that actually had an officer come in
and sit down for an interview
and be faced with allegations, less than a third
of those even resulted in any amount of discipline.
And if you wanna talk about the kinds of discipline
that we're recommending, the vast majority
of our disciplinary recommendations are a reprimand,
a violation noted, or a suspension less than 30 days.
It is the minority of cases
that result in a potential separation, uh, recommendation.
And those are the ones that are most likely to be
picked up on by the media
and projected in a manner that tries to portray the work
of our agency differently than what it actually is.
Um, likewise, it's only a handful of the cases ultimately
that the superintendent
and I do not actually, we're not ever able
to meet agreement on.
But those, that minuscule amount of cases,
those are the cases that the media wants to portray, uh,
CPA's entire body of work as.
And so those are some of the challenges
that I think we face regularly, is trying
to inform the public, particularly the officers
who we also have to serve here.
We're not just here to serve complainants.
Um, we're here to serve officers
and make sure that they get resolution to their cases.
Because if they didn't make a
mistake, they deserve to know that.
And if they did, they need to know that too so
that they don't make the same mistake again.
Very few of these incidents result in a, a recommendation
that an officer be discharged.
We take that authority to make
that recommendation very seriously.
Uh, and we try to use
that in the most appropriate of circumstances.
So our approach to really trying to educate the public
and officers as well as community members starts first
and foremost with our data.
Um, I also wanna comment a little bit on this notion
that the Illinois State Police is, could be the answer, uh,
to some of the issues that you're raising, uh, the city and,
and I would direct questions directly
to City Hall about this, but the city has been engaged in
ongoing, uh, attempts to try to come up with a solution
for the Police and Community Relations Improvement Act
for those criminal investigations of deaths that are caused
by the Chicago Police Department,
which they are statutorily, uh,
prohibited from investigating criminally themselves.
ISP is one of the potential solutions for that.
ISP does not conduct administrative investigations,
both under our ordinance and under the consent decree.
COPA is responsible
for administrative investigations into a whole host
of things, including officer involved shootings and deaths.
Uh, so those are two different things.
They're actually different standards.
And in fact, the Illinois State Police has had COPA present
to their staff on how to conduct an administrative
investigation into officer involved shootings.
'cause that's not particularly part of their wheelhouse.
So I just wanna make sure
that we're clear when we talk about how ISP may well be part
of the city's solution,
but part of the solution for criminal investigations,
which COPA has never been tasked with investigating.
Alderman, you have any questions?
Alright, uh, next alderman, uh, sdo.
Thank, thank you, chairman. Good afternoon everyone.
I didn't have any questions.
It's certainly really not a budget question,
but I'm feeding off my colleagues Avaris
and, uh, Lopez on this question.
It's something I kind of just thought of.
So I know you don't know the answer
to this so you can get it back to us.
So I do, I do know, you know,
how many people are in your office so that, you know,
but I have a question for you as anybody
or how many people in your office have taken the
shoot don't shoot class.
I feel that's something that
everybody in your office should take.
I would appreciate if you would consider that.
And everybody goes through that.
So if you do know that, great. You can give us the answer.
If not, I have no problem with you getting back to me,
but I think it would be invaluable for everybody.
Some of us did it in this, in this council,
and it was very valuable to us to understand what goes on
and the understanding of split second decision.
So I'd appreciate if you would consider that.
And obviously, I'm sure you don't know how many people did
or didn't do it, but if you can find out
and if you could, maybe let us know if you think it's a good
idea or bad idea for your officer to take this class.
And that's my only question. It's
not a, a non-budget question.
You could do that for free. If you can't get it done,
I could set it up for you with CP D.
So we,
We are very committed to availing ourselves of as much
of CPDs training as possible.
So those are conversations that are ongoing
and we'll certainly try to provide more clarity on
that specific question to you through the chair.
Thank you. I didn't expect you to know,
but I appreciate your consideration.
Didn't bring that in my book, but yes, thank
You. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you. Uh, alderman and I, you raise a good point.
Maybe something all of us need to, uh, you know, need to,
uh, that should do it, uh, take, take into,
uh, take into account.
So any other questions for Copa?
Oh, go ahead. Altman Mitchell.
Thank you, chairman. Good, good afternoon.
Afternoon, commissioner. Good afternoon.
Um, the numbers that you just cited about the cases Yes.
Can you get a little bit more granular with, with that?
Sure. Um, there's, there's regular cases
and then the, I think the, the,
the most important was these shooting cases.
Can you break that out for us
and so we can get a kind of an idea what the,
what these cases look like?
So, um, I may have to supplement this with the,
through the chair response, because I wanna be careful.
Um, so
I don't have, and I don't have the raw numbers.
It looks like I have maybe percentages.
So perhaps this would be better
situated, uh, through the chair.
But I believe looking just over the last three years,
somewhere around 39% approximately
of all weapons discharges had some form of sustained, uh,
allegation in them.
That doesn't necessarily mean the entire shooting itself was
a problem, but remember when we investigate an officer
involved shooting, it is more than just the shoot don't
shoot final frame analysis.
Uh, an officer involved shooting investigation encompasses
the motivations and information leading up
to the in interaction, whether it was a street stop,
a vehicle stop, uh, responded to a call for service.
Uh, we're looking at whether the fourth
amendment is implicated.
We're looking at whether body-worn cameras
were activated timely.
We're looking at a whole host
of information officers once they discharge their firearms,
also have a set of requirements that are on them.
Everything from rendering medical aid, commensurate
with their training and experience to notifications.
So it's a, it's a complicated, you know, set of facts
that we have to consider.
But I'd happily provide you a little bit
more concrete data around our,
Yeah, so let's just make sure I, about the request, oh,
Hold on. Let me ask this
question.
Uh, in, in relation to what he just brought up.
Of the 39, so 39% of all
28% involved some sort of sustained, oh,
I'm sorry. OISI apologize.
Oh, wait a minute. I confused you. I'm sorry. 30.
Wait a minute. Your first number was what? 38?
Yes. Of, of, uh, weapons discharges that had some sort
of sustained finding associated
With it. Okay. Now, the sustained finding,
uh, can you tell us,
or through the chair, tell us the nature
of the sustained finding in those incidents?
I, that to me is a very high number of incidents
that have sustained findings.
And I think we need to get a little, as he stated, granular
or into what the sustained finding was.
'cause you're telling me that 38%
of the time a officer draws a weapon, there's a problem.
That's a problem. That's a problem, that's a problem.
So I think we need to understand what that 38%,
uh, uh, looks like. Go ahead.
Yeah, no, thank you. Thank you for that.
So I just want to be, be clear
and if any got want to add that, uh, something to this,
but we wanna know the numbers
that you just gave, break those down.
Okay. And we are very, very, very, uh, concerned
or, uh, uh, we wanna pay close attention to shootings.
Um, so are we clear? Yes,
I believe so. Okay. Okay.
Alright. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you. Any other questions, Cole? Any other questions?
Um, in order for,
um, the department to be effective, uh,
the point that the Alderman Tobar raises that there must be
a clear defined discipline, uh,
for the department.
Um, now, um, if that's on you,
if it's on the superintendent, if it's on the police board,
or if it's on all of you, uh, that is something,
in my opinion, that is necessary for police officers to,
to know what what's gonna happen.
Um, I think that a challenge with any organization,
if the discipline is unfair
or you just don't understand what the rhyme
or reason of how the powers that be arrived
to the conclusion that's not a good setup for
the officer is not a good setup for our citizens.
And it's definitely not a, a good setup, uh, for us
because we end up having to deal with the challenges
that these, um, the lack of a a
what people perceive to be a bonafide
process, uh, generates.
So can you tell us, like, I mean, to answer, uh, back
to Alman to Boris's question, is there a matrix?
Is there some defined parameters as to what, when
and how, and how much time people are given
for certain violations?
I mean, people should know like, Hey, you know, I do this,
this happens, and it sounds like
that's a fairly murky situation.
Help us understand that. So
There, there was a disciplinary matrix that was in effect,
I believe it was finalized somewhere around 2016 or 2017.
That's what was challenged by the unions.
Uh, and they were successful in that challenge.
They were not at the table when the city, uh,
and really CPD came up with that matrix.
So the, the result of that is two things.
Number one, the city has to bargain for any matrix
with the unions themselves,
but also it's important to know the Department of Justice.
When they came and investigated
after Laquan McDonald's murder, that matrix was in effect.
It's one of the things they evaluated
and they found it woefully inadequate
and saying it was not consistent, uh, with the level
of discipline for constitutional
violations that it should be.
Uh, and so we have sort of a past practice problem.
And for those that know anything about labor law,
particularly arbitration past practice
becomes really important.
And so we have a historical past practice
of inadequately low disciplinary outcomes
for our police officers, which back
to alder women Toro's point is a lot of what, uh,
arbitrators are hanging their hat on when reform agencies
and whether it's BIA
or Copa are seeking to impose more appropriate, uh,
penalties that may be higher than the past, arbitrators tend
to reduce them because of past practice.
So where things stand now,
or the city's labor negotiators are in communication with,
um, the unions about a potential matrix.
What COPA has chosen to do in the absence
of one is really two things.
First, we move towards bigger ranges
of potential discipline,
giving the superintendent more flexibility with what, uh, he
or she, if it was a woman wanted to impart.
Uh, and then we're also utilizing this system approach of,
uh, identifying aggravating
and mitigating factors in each individual case,
ranking them, and applying kind of a, a scoring system,
for lack of a better words, to help inform what sort
of range of discipline we're putting a particular case into.
Um, because we are prohibited from using any sort of matrix
unless the unions agree
to one. I don't know if that's helpful.
No, it, it, it is.
I, I, I, I think that that's something
that needs to get settled.
Uh, again, officers should know the consequences, uh,
of their actions and not have to think about
what one guy did, uh, gave him a reprimand,
the next guy got 10 days for it.
Um, those, that's the type of stuff
that I hear from officers that, that they feel that if, hey,
if you're connected, you're good.
If you're not, you're gonna get hung out to dry.
Um, so we've gotta, we've gotta be fair,
we've gotta be consistent,
and we've gotta be swift in order to make sure
that everybody knows
that we're playing from the same set of rules.
And I think that's been a, that's not a problem that,
that you created, that's been a historical problem, uh,
in the Chicago Police Department.
Um, absent a matrix, you all are
operating in the, in the, in the confines.
Is there a timeframe of like, when this is going to be done
or anticipated?
Um, completion on this?
For our, our part, the approach that we're undertaking
to create this sort of ranked system of, of factors
that we're applying, uh,
we're in a current internal pilot phase right now
where we're already using two teams to kind of test this out
and see how this, uh, how it's working.
And we're hoping to, we're submitting that for, um, approval
and review by the independent monitoring team in
this next reporting period.
So we are well on our way.
Uh, and those are all factors that we've vetted
with community members as well as youth in the community,
and most importantly the Chicago Police Department.
Um, so we're being very transparent about
how we're developing that with respect
to the labor negotiations
and trying to arrive at an actual matrix.
That's a question for the city,
but I, I would note that, um, part of the challenge is too,
you mentioned, you know, one officer got a reprimand
for this and another got 10 days.
But what you often don't hear in some of those sort
of anecdotal ex uh, pieces of information is that, okay,
the one officer had a reprimand and the other got 10 days,
but he had the same violation plus two or three others,
or he had a history that the first officer
that got the reprimand didn't.
So each one of these cases, we often say internally,
there's no two, uh, you know, fourth Amendment violations
that are exactly the same.
The facts and circumstances
of these very human interactions, uh,
are very different in each of these cases.
And so that's why having a system
that identifies the factors of aggravation
and mitigation we're hoping will help contribute
to a more consistent process.
But consistency, timeliness,
and obviously our commitment to fairness and objectivity.
That's, that's what's guiding all of the work
that we are doing as we continually reevaluate
and reform our own practices.
Can the monitor
or the courts impose a
matrix, uh, on us,
Interestingly, uh, labor law now that, that,
that ruling is in effect that they have to, they have a,
a collective bargaining, right?
Essentially to make sure that they get a seat at the table
for, uh, what that conversation would look like.
So I don't think a federal monitor can impose that on us.
The unions have a right to have the con the conversation
along with, uh, the city
and the department about
what the parameters of any matrix should be.
And I'll, I'll just note, as an, as a, a leader
of my own agency with a staff that from time
to time have to be disciplined.
These are issues citywide our city personnel rules.
You know, don't define what a certain violation is worth
for any of our city employees.
So this is, this is a, a big challenge, uh, in many aspects
of the work that all of us as city leaders do.
It's particularly, uh, magnified in the context of policing.
Okay. Um, the last point, uh, I,
I think, um, as a
leader in a, um, highly visible role, um,
in a situation where we are, you know,
we've got communities of people that, uh,
polar ends in this spectrum that I think we, we have to be,
uh, more cognizant around statements that are made
or, uh, things that are done.
Uh, I will tell you, for one, I was a little disturbed, um,
with the comments
after the shooting in the 11th district where Officer St.
Louis was shot. Um, and, and, um, the young man was killed.
Um, I just think that,
and sometimes it's maybe best to say nothing, um,
especially when a lot of the facts
and things aren't out there.
Uh, I, I think that, um, we have to be very careful
because of the conditions that we're in,
because of the communities that we serve.
And I think it's on us as government to, um,
I guess be the bigger person.
Because when we, when we make statements as government, uh,
you know, people have a high level of take it
with a high level of validity.
And, um, we just need to be, I, I, I think,
extremely careful in our statements
because those statements can send people off on
various tangents.
And again, uh, we have to locally.
Um, while that incident did not occur in, in, in the ward,
I represent, um, you know, it was right next door
and very easily, um, you know, could have been one
of my constituents, one of my residents, uh, in that,
in that predicament.
Um, so I, I think we just have to be,
uh, careful in that respect.
And I also believe that we definitely need
to give officers a clear understanding of
what the agreement is as it relates to discipline.
And I think that if we have a, uh, something that's known,
something that's understood, and everybody knows
and understands the consequences at
various stages, you're right.
Yeah. The guy that got did it one time does,
may deserve a reprimand,
and someone that did it five times may deserve 10 days.
I totally understand that.
As long as people understand that, that does not seem
to be the understanding, uh, from members
that I know in the Chicago Police Department.
'cause they sometimes believe that there is no rhyme
or reason to the disciplinary recommendations that are made,
which means that we've gotta work on, uh,
we have to work on that.
My final question is gonna be around supervisors.
Do you all, how many times do we, uh,
I want to, I don't know if charge is the right word,
but write up, uh, supervisors for
incidents that occur for people under their command?
That's actually, um, an area
where we have seen a lot more, uh,
intentionality from us as an agency.
Uh, this is something that was definitely pointed out in the
DOJ report and some of the principles behind certain aspects
of the consent decree is that that supervisory role is
so critical in, in identifying sort of early indicators
of potentially problematic officers, et cetera.
So some ways that we've really seen an, uh, I guess,
concerted effort to make sure that supervisors are being,
uh, held responsible for their parts.
Uh, it comes up most frequently in
two different sort of big ways.
Number one, uh, the failure to, uh, reports complaints
that civilians are made making to them, um, if those,
they have an obligation to, to report any sort
of misconduct, whether they witness it
or it's reported to them, to our office.
So they get, um, they can end up in a situation
where they're facing allegations.
And we, we bring these frequently when supervisors don't go
ahead and initiate the report the way
they're supposed to with our agency.
So that's one big area. The other big area is their review
and signing off on reports.
Uh, so when officers are drafting reports in the field
after, after things are happening, it is a supervisor often
that has to weigh in on and sign off
or approve those reports.
So if a report is materially deficient, it's, um, you know,
missing key pieces of information
or misconstruing key pieces of information holding
that supervisor to a standard, much like the officer
that actually authored it, is also part of the work
that we do in supervisory accountability.
And those are sort of the two big areas.
And when I go and talk to those promotional classes,
we're very intentional about telling soon
to be future supervisors.
This is what we see most often as where supervisors kind
of run afoul of our agency, just kind of letting them know
that those are areas to focus on.
Um, but if I may too, I I also wanted to go back
to the first part of your statement, if that's okay.
I, I just wanna state very clearly, um, that, you know,
with respect to any transparent communications about, uh,
our, our video releases, any of our work,
we're very intentional about what we say and how we say it.
Um, to Alderman, rod Rodriguez's point earlier,
we don't have casual conversations about this work.
And so with respect to the shooting in the 11th district,
uh, those statements that were made, uh, at, they were made,
number one, at the time,
the videos were obligated to be released to the public.
So in the absence of, you know, any leader of an agency,
you know, being willing to come out
and say, here's the process, here's what we know now,
we've seen time and time again when those videos can,
and misinformation around certain aspects
of officer involved shootings can cause significant
disruption in the very communities where some
of these incidents are occurring.
Uh, secondly, I wanna make clear, uh, all of the facts
and information that we, we put forth are things
that we learned directly from the Chicago Police Department
in the course of our, our preliminary investigation.
And then one determination that our agency made, which was
to make sure the public understood
that it was our determination that, um, the civilian,
Mr. Reed fired first in that incident.
There, there was no, there would be no public record of
that had I not been willing to say it.
And the reason that I was willing to say it,
even at the preliminary stage of an investigation, is
because of the concern for not having information
to accompany those videos, uh,
and wanting to make sure that the public understood this is,
this is what we have right now,
it's not the conclusion of the investigation.
We don't know where this is going to end,
but this is the process by which our city handles these.
There's a transparent video release accompanied
by preliminary factual information,
and then ultimately an investigation
that will be concluded by our agency.
We do that routinely every time we release these videos.
Typically, the media doesn't have nearly the level
of interest that they did in that particular incident,
but we are always releasing those kinds of preliminary facts
through a written press release.
Go to our website, they are all there.
Um, it's the same information that we're providing to a lot
of you on the phone when we have to call you
with one of these notifications.
Um, and we have found,
and I, I'll tender it to Efram my first deputy
to maybe add a little more context,
but we have found that that's actually helpful, uh,
in keeping communities that are, you know, imperiled by some
of these, these incidents, more informed
and perhaps less inclined, um, to act, uh,
to act out in, in opposition.
Well, and let me just, uh, and, and,
and if my facts are wrong, uh, I, I, it is,
it was my understanding that statements were made
by your office prior to the officers being interviewed.
Is that true or not?
It's so that's true,
and that's how it happens every time. Um,
How do you, how do you, how do you make a statement,
a public statement without interviewing an officer?
I, I, I, I got a, I got a problem with that.
I'm glad we're having this conversation. Okay.
Um, so under the consent decree, CPD is mandated
to give us this information on scene that night.
So that night, our staff was there on scene.
In fact, my first deputy was one of the people
that was present while a deputy chief from the Chicago
Police Department interviewed four of the five officers.
And after each and every one of those interviews came back,
and under his obligation truthfully, uh,
gave COPA staff the information that they needed
to know in order to conduct our preliminary investigation,
that is how it works every time.
Uh, for, for us as administrative investigators,
the officer's interview, when it happens,
it always happens far later because their lawyer
and their union rep are going to be present.
Uh, and those, those interviews are protected.
They're garrity protected.
So if there is a criminal review, as there is
by the state's attorney's office
of an officer involved shooting,
I can't say anything publicly about an officer's compelled
statement to anyone in my agency.
That's why it's set up this way.
And the only information that the officer's gave us on via,
via the Deputy Chief that night was about the
basis of the traffic stop.
That's it. It wasn't a long narrative around any of,
of the incident itself.
And that is routinely
how the Chicago Police Department
cooperates with our agency.
And the information that we gain on scene night
of has been released via the media in each
and every one of our video releases.
Please go to our website and,
and see, uh, this, this is how this has been functioning,
uh, for the last several years, uh,
since our agency has been in such collaborative, uh,
consent decree driven re relationship, essentially
with the incident response team
and CPD with our on scene activities for police shootings.
If, if I Oh, yes, please
Go ahead, Alderman Irv.
And if I can also add, uh,
what we have also seen just from lessons learned in the
past, whether it was the release of Laquan McDonald, uh,
the video that, uh, uh, obviously showed the murder
of Laquan McDonald that was released 13 months later.
Um, we really had lessons learned from that incident alone,
how, um, important it is to get information out
to the public, at least,
that are the basic facts of the incident.
As it occurred, of course, we were receiving
that information from the department,
but there have been two other instances,
one in the 16th ward
and one in Alderman, uh, Monique Scott's Ward, uh, where,
uh, in that particular incident, there was, um, um,
media reports that a young man was shot
by Chicago Police Department member five times in the back.
We knew that that was not true.
It was important that we put out the information
that could correct the record that is given to media,
and that leads to misinformation.
One particular incident in the 16th Ward, uh, uh,
resulted in riots and looting downtown Chicago.
So what we have found is that by putting out information
that can level set, um, um, what,
what the community may have an idea of what occurred
for us just to release videos with no context, giving,
no understanding of the facts as we know them,
as we have received from the police department,
has actually resulted in damage to the city.
One thing that we did see in this most recent one
that you're, um, given an example of, is
that there was no civil unrest.
There may have been some, uh, heated moments of dialogue
between, uh, community members
or maybe even the police department and others.
Uh, but those facts have remained solid.
And so we see a benefit in getting out information,
and we believe we've learned from the lessons, obviously,
Laquan McDonald and some other recent ones,
that when we are not, uh, doing that, uh,
it can actually harm the city.
But also, I just want you to know
that the media is not the only outlet for us.
We're calling Alderman, we're calling stakeholders,
we're calling district council members.
Uh, we're talking to activists, community, uh, members,
we're talking to pastors, community organizations,
making sure everyone has the same amount of information.
And so, although media is seen as an avenue
that COPA may lean towards, that is, it is very rare
that the chief administrator's gonna speak out those
statements that we're releasing via press statements.
We're also having those conversations in every incident
where we see a lot of, uh, public interest.
Uh, we are scouring the city,
especially those communities in those neighborhoods,
to make sure that they have a clear understanding
of the information not leading to, um,
things that can damage the city.
No, I, I, I understand that,
but also keep in mind that you are the
civilian's Office of Police accountability
in your name alone.
That is a, a weighty statement.
And so I think it's incumbent upon you
and your office to make sure that what you're saying is,
is, is number one, correct, number two, fair,
and not necessarily, um, you know, looking
to follow a specific, uh, narrative.
The only thing that, that we and I,
and members of this council want is the truth.
And we want people to it be fair and,
and that people get a fair shake here.
Um, you know, citizens deserve a fair shake
in, in the discipline.
Officers deserve a fair shake in the discipline,
and taxpayers deserve a fair shake
because when those things don't happen, that's
where the bill lands right here.
So I, I think we, we, we just, we, we,
we should all be on the same team, uh, you know,
looking at these, uh, looking at these various points,
but we just, I, I just think that we've gotta make sure
that we are, we are fair to all parties, uh,
that are concerned in that, in that respect.
Thank you, alderman Lopez, uh, you have a follow up
Chairman, I just wanna add one, one thing to, to the line
that you're going down, and I
agree a hundred percent with you.
And, um, I just want to, to mention that all
of us here can quite literally just Google,
Andrea, Kirsten, and see what pops up with regards to all
of the statements that have led to this per question
of perception that we're having.
As recently as August of this year,
the Chicago Tribune issued an editorial with the headline,
here comes a predictable fallout from police watchdog,
Andrea Kirsten's Inadvisable,
Dexter Reed Cop shooting assertions.
This is exactly what we're talking about.
I'm not gonna go on for the article,
but the Tribune is not alone
because all of media has reported what you have said,
and not just at this instance, but in many instances.
And that's exactly what's undermining your credibility here
today, the work of your department,
and the use of our funds for this purpose.
Thank you. Any other questions? No other questions.
Uh, thank you for, uh, joining with us,
uh, administrator, Kirsten.
Um, again, I, I think what you're hearing from us is that,
uh, you know, we know that you have a,
a very weighty responsibility, um, and as, as do we, uh,
but it's something that we gotta get right.
Our communities have been, um, challenged, uh,
as relates to legitimacy with the police department.
Uh, we've been through several iterations of trying
to get the right level of oversight
and everything in the mix.
Um, and so we, we, we have to get it right, uh, on behalf
of the citizens that we all represent.
Uh, with that, uh, committee will, uh, stand at ease,
uh, lunches available.
Uh, we'll come back at, um, two 30.
Uh, uh, yeah. It's, it's pizza.
It is not, it's not a, uh, you know. Well, all right. 2 45.
Damn, man. Y'all, y'all rough man. This Saturday.
I thought it would be easy, right?
Uh, we'll come back at 2 45, um, with,
um, C-C-P-S-A.
Please return to the chamber.
The meeting was start shortly.
Good afternoon, everybody. Uh, we are back.
It's about two 50 for our last session. For today.
We've got the, uh, community Commission for police,
I'm sorry, public safety and accountability, C-C-P-S-A end
of the alphabet soup.
Uh, we have, we have with us, uh, today, president Driver
and executive Director Gross.
Um, first we're gonna start with, uh, our friends at Kofa.
Daniel, if you wouldn't mind giving your report.
Yes, Daniel Strom, council Office of Financial Analysis.
So, last up. Today we have the department 62
C-C-P-S-A.
Uh, the total budget for FFY 25 is 4.1 million,
which reflects a 2% increase over the FY 24 budget.
Personnel services for FFY 25 have risen
by 7% compared to FY 24.
Though the number of full-time equivalents has remained the
same, this increase is attributed
to higher salaries and wages.
For FY 25.
There are 29 budgeted FTEs, a number
that has not changed from the revised FY 24 data.
The department is fully funded by the corporate fund,
and the allocation for personnel
and FY 25 is 3.44 million,
while non-personnel expenses are projected at
627,700. Thank you.
Thank You, Daniel.
Um, president Driver,
if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself
and, uh, the folks that are joining you today in the box.
Sure. Uh, I am, uh, Anthony Driver, president of,
of the Community Commission
for Public Safety and Accountability.
And I'm joined, uh, actually, I'll,
I think it's appropriate,
if you don't mind about that. Sure,
Absolutely.
Thank you. Vice Chair.
I'm Adam Gross, executive Director
of the Community Commission for Public Safety
and Accountability, and we're joined today in the box
by Brian Kenner, who's the Deputy Director
for the commission.
Damon Smith, who's the Deputy Director
for District Councils,
and Crea Boatman, who's our Director
of Administrative Services.
Great. Thank you so much.
Um, at this time, if you'd like
to proceed with your statement.
Thank you. This is our, uh,
my name is Adam Gross, executive Director
of the Community Commission for
Public Safety and Accountability.
This is our first budget hearing.
Since the permanent system the city council voted
to create has been in place,
district council members were elected
for the first time last year.
And this march, the district council nominating committee
wrapped up almost a year
of work in which they fleshed out the application process,
got input from people around the city about what qualities
to look for in commissioners, did broad outreach, received
and reviewed more than 120 applications
to serve on the commission,
and then nominated to nominated people
to fill all seven positions on the commission.
Then the mayor selected
and the city council confirmed members
of the Permanent Community Commission.
Commissioners took office in June,
replacing the interim commission that had served
for the previous 16 months.
The system, the city council voted
to create in 2021 is now coming fully to life.
Here are a few examples of how it works.
The system creates more opportunities
for the police superintendent to collaborate
and partner with community.
It also creates more ways
to hold the superintendent
accountable to the people of Chicago.
In 2023, the commission led the search
that resulted in the selection
and confirmation of Superintendent Snelling,
and that process has played out as the ordinance intended.
The commission nominated then Chief Snelling
because commissioners believed
that he would be a great leader for the department,
and that they could build a strong,
respectful working relationship with him
that could result in better police department policies
and practices and more accountability.
And that is what has been happening since Superintendent
Snelling was confirmed last year.
One example is the successful collaboration the commission
has developed with CPD in making policy.
As you know, by ordinance, the commission has the authority
to set policy for CPD, both the commission
and CPD can draft policies,
and the ordinance sets out a process where the commission
and CPD worked together to make changes
and try to come to consensus.
But ultimately, the commission can decide, except
for general orders that are covered by the consent decree.
Any new or revised CPD general order needs
to have the support of a majority of the commission in order
to become official policy.
The commission and CPD have occasionally had some strong
disagreements, but they've worked through them all.
And by the time general orders have come up for a vote,
there's been strong agreement
between the commission and CPD.
Over the last year, the commission
and CPD have worked together on several policies,
including the general order that says
that police officers can't associate with members
of criminal or biased organizations.
CPD and the commission worked together
for months on that policy.
The commission made important changes to the policy
that helped to define what a criminal organization is,
what a biased organization is,
and what it means to associate with such organizations.
The commission helped to more clearly define
what behavior is not permitted.
The commission got substantial community input while working
on the general order, including a lot
of input from district councils
and commissioners consulted extensively
with national experts.
A new policy went into effect early this year.
After the new policy went into effect,
the commission continued
to do additional community engagement,
and through that process identified a few
new issues with the policy.
So the commission and CPD went back to the table
and made some additional changes.
The result is a policy that both commissioners
and CPD think will be clearer, stronger, and more impactful.
Now, it will be all about how that policy is implemented,
and commissioners have made clear
that they will be tracking implementation closely.
When the commission works on policy,
it conducts broad outreach
to educate people about the policies under consideration.
And to get detailed input.
We provide an opportunity for people
to provide comments at the
Commission's monthly public meetings.
We collect input from district council members,
and we ask them to get input from their constituents.
We organize targeted listening sessions with a wide range
of organizations, including community-based organizations,
faith-based organizations, business groups, labor,
labor groups, social service
providers, and other organizations.
We meet with the police unions.
We also conduct online surveys,
usually targeting both civilians and police officers.
And we engage extensively
with subject matter matter experts around the country.
That process produces better policies
with more public support.
We see the benefit of that process in work the commission is
doing on traffic stops.
Since the time the commission was created,
people across the city have come to the commission
to share concerns about traffic stops.
When the commission interviewed candidates
for superintendent, the commission included questions it had
received from civilians and police officers across the city.
And in response then, chief Snelling shared some
of his own concerns about the
department's approach to traffic stops.
And when commissioners attended a large meeting at the FOP
Lodge to hear from police officers about their concerns,
they heard officers raise many
of the same issues about traffic stops
that they had heard in community meetings.
The commission hasn't yet started formal discussions
with CPD about traffic stops,
but when those conversations begin,
it will be incredibly helpful
to have received extensive input from a wide range
of people across the city.
And it will be especially valuable if we continue
to hear similar stories from people from
so many different neighborhoods
and so many different backgrounds.
Another key function of the commission is
to set goals each year for the police superintendent,
the COPA chief Administrator,
and the president of the police board.
Just like with policymaking,
it's a very collaborative process,
but at the end of the day, the commission has the authority
to set the goals once the goals are set.
Commissioners meet at least quarterly
with the superintendent, the chief administrator,
and the police board president to assess progress this year.
The commission's goals for the superintendent include
launching a workforce allocation study, making progress
to develop a comprehensive community policing strategy,
strengthening victim services, and improving CPD facilities.
Goals for the chief administrator include increasing
consistency in CPA's, disciplinary recommendations,
and increasing timeliness in closing cases,
we will soon begin the process of doing an end
of year evaluation of each leader's progress,
and the commission will release the final
reports at the end of January.
The department also provides support
to the district councils
that have been created in all 22 police districts.
Elected district council members
who receive small stipends are responsible for working
to improve policing and public safety in their districts.
District councils are required
to hold public meetings at least once a month.
So the department supports a minimum
of 264 district council meetings every year.
The ordinance gives these elected officials broad discretion
to decide what to do at their meetings.
Some district council members regularly bring in their
district commanders for
conversations with community members.
Some discuss and work
to address concerns about policing in the district.
Some have participated in
developing district strategic plans.
Some meetings include discussions about policies
that the commission is working on.
Some district councils bring in trainers
to teach community members how to provide life-saving care.
And increasingly, they're working
to develop programs in their communities.
Some are exploring ways to develop
or expand restorative justice programs.
Some are planning youth summits.
Some are exploring ways
to further reduce police involvement in things like parking
enforcement, so officers can devote more time to things
that will have a bigger impact on neighborhood safety.
District Council members also provide regular updates
to the commission to help ensure
that the commission's work is well-informed
by what's happening on the ground in
neighborhoods across the city.
They also come together to identify shared interests
and shared concerns, which could lead them,
which could lead them to take on issues across districts
or citywide, and to propose priorities for the commission.
We have a small staff to support all that work.
We currently have 24 positions filled.
We were on track to fill all 29 of the positions
that were budgeted for this year
until the hiring freeze went into effect.
We're grateful that the proposed budget includes the five
positions that we haven't yet filled.
The vacancies include two positions for lawyers,
which are essential for many reasons,
and three positions to help broaden
and deepen our community engagement, especially
for district councils.
The ordinance creating the commission
and District Councils says that they exist
to increase public safety, strengthen accountability,
build trust, and improve interactions
between the police department and the people it serves.
Encourage community-based
and evidence-based approaches to public safety.
Increase efficiency in the use of public safety resources,
and help to bring the city into compliance
with the consent decree.
That's an ambitious, an agenda.
This budget will help us to advance it.
Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.
Thank you, executive director. Gross.
Uh, uh, we'll take questions from, uh, from council members.
I've got Vasquez VARs. No,
anybody else den?
Thank you. Okay.
I have to make sense of the, uh, the chairman's system here,
so I'm fair to everybody.
I'll just get started with you, Andre,
since you were the first one to raise your hand,
and then we'll work our, our way around.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Madam Chair
Vasquez? Yep.
Got it.
Okay. It's Nepal. There we go. Thank you.
Um, it, thank you very much, Madam Chair for, for that.
Um, one,
I am immensely proud of the work
that you all have done since this actually got voted on
and became a body.
Um, I want to thank you
because what you've done in the time since it's been in, uh,
created, is added more
and more integrity to the work that you all do.
I think there are members of the body
who are concerned about what C-C-P-S-A might do,
and if it was too radical and its accountability.
But I think you've been able to really create the space
to have very nuanced
and important conversations, uh,
that have been immensely helpful,
whether it was Oath Keepers
or the conversation about shot
spotter or all of those things.
And so first, I wanna commend you for that work.
Um, the questions I have are about the support that
we all might feel is necessary, especially
after the learnings of what this has looked like.
So, for way longer than I believe we should have spent time
as a council, we were having conversations about the
appointment of an Angel Ruby Navar to the commission.
And a lot of that conversation was about conflict
and double dipping and all the concerns.
And I think something that was central in that conversation
that I thought was there would be no need for
that concern if the commission members were paid the
adequate amount to not have to do multiple jobs
and could focus just on their role.
So as we're looking at what the, the salaries are
or whatever the amount the commissioners are getting
and the amount of work that they are doing,
including the president
and everyone else, what do you, what do you believe right,
looks like in a way that doesn't lead to the kind
of conversations about multiple jobs
and conflicts as it relates to this role?
Knowing how crucial it is
to make sure we have confidence in our public safety system,
Um, I, I will, um, I'll, I'll be clear
that I'm only speaking for myself.
Um, there are other commissioners who I think, uh,
have similar concerns.
Uh, at, at least for me.
Um, it really does create an impossible situation.
Uh, last year I used a lot of my personal jobs, PTO, uh,
to do C-C-P-S-A stuff because it was just impossible to do.
The other thing is, you know, most of us have nine to fives,
or we have people who are, um, in school or,
or some version of that, but the police department cope
and the police board, they work on a nine to five schedule.
So the only way that most of us can take meetings
during the day is to take time away from our actual job
that pays us.
Um, which does create a lot of issues,
especially for me personally.
Um, I've tried to find unique ways to work around that, to,
to ask certain department members to, you know, meet after,
or I'll try to get stuff in early in the morning.
Um, I'm very fortunate to have the type of employment that,
um, if I don't get my work done during the day,
I can just stay up till midnight
or 1:00 AM and push it back.
Um, but that, that frequently does create an issue.
Um, you know, I've been also fairly public about the fact
that I was recently appointed to a four year term.
Um, but I, I'm, I've myself only committed to two, not
because I don't want to continue to do this work, um,
but I, I do believe that it is unsustainable, um,
for any person to, to have something
that is 30, 35 hours a week.
Um, and you still have to go out and earn a living
or get an education or whatever it is that you're doing.
Um, so I can't put a number to that.
I was a part of the, as you were,
we were in there together negotiating this ordinance.
The idea was to not have a salary so
that this wouldn't become something that people fought over
and, and, and wanted to do to make money.
Um, but the flip end of that is that it is now, um,
the only, the only people who
can adequately, there's only a few options.
You, you have to be wealthy to do this, um,
or you have to be retired or you gotta break your back.
Those are like the only three options
that commissioners have, um,
at their disposal if you wanna do this.
Right. Or I guess the fourth option is you can be a lazy
commissioner and, and not do the work,
but I don't really view that as an option. So, um,
Yes, we also would view being Lazy
Commissioner as not an O option.
So I appreciate that.
If due to Chair, you could provide any level of breakdown as
to the hours put in so that we can look to your point
to COPA or the police board
and see what equivalent looks like.
Because it did get very contentious to have
that conversation when it came to the appointment of one
that I believe may not have been the case if folks were
being adequately paid for their labor, especially in a city
that prided itself on union support
and benefits for the work being done.
Um, so I guess similarly, um, the district counselors,
they've got the $500 stipend.
To your point, there's about 264 meetings a year
that similarly, I, I've got dcs
that are reaching into their own personal pockets,
because if you're paying for even coffee
and donuts, that's running out first quarter.
And so, uh, answers of what right looks like are important
because I think that people focus on the commission in a way
that's, that's real,
but they don't really understand that on the ground.
Information that we get from these districts
through the district counselors is also very vital
and helps inform what the commission is talking about.
So similarly through the chair, those kind of
what right should look like are important.
Uh, and this leads to a question that we, I've had for OIG
COPA as well, where there's a budget floor that's related
to a percentage, but in the three departments, including you
that I just mentioned,
fringe benefits are included in what's being spent, uh, for,
in that money in a way that's not in other departments.
All those fringe benefits are in Finance general,
which allows you more capacity
for the funds that are allocated.
So, uh, similarly,
are there ways when you look at your budget that if
that was a change, if we were to say those benefits,
like every other department go
to Finance General would give you the
ability to, to do more.
And if you wanted to speak on that a little,
Uh, thank you, alderman.
We've been able to look at the budget, uh, both taking
fringes into account and leaving fringes off.
You've accurately described how, um, uh, how OBM does
that calculation, if you were to do the calculation the way
that you talked about earlier this morning.
Not counting CPD fringes, not counting commission fringes.
Uh, the proposed budget for, uh, for 2025 is,
um, is a very small amount above the
ordinance mandated floor.
Um, and,
and the reality we know from doing the work is with, uh,
you know, we are, we're not yet at the,
at the 29 staff members, uh, that are,
that are in the budget with these, uh,
300 plus meetings when you count all the district council
meetings and all the commission meetings
and where that's just,
that's just the bare minimum requirement.
There's all the other work that both commissioners
and district councils do.
Um, there are, uh, staff supporting the commission,
staff supporting the district councils
who are just working to the bone. So, so
To understand that correctly,
'cause I wanna make sure it's clear, uh, the,
the fringe change would be marginal
considering the need you're talking about, like,
meaning if we, if we remove it to finance general,
the amount you actually get more of, is
that helpful in trying to figure out some
of the DC stipends, some of the other things?
Or is it so small that we actually have to consider really
what that needs to look like? Yeah.
Sorry. So I'm, I'm, I'm not sure how
to answer the question because we have access
to information about what the, uh,
what the commission's fringe benefits are.
We don't have information about CPDs Fringe benefits.
So we're able to do the calculation
where you don't count the departments,
you don't count CPDs Fringe benefits,
and you don't count the commissions fringe benefits.
Um, and if you do that calculation,
we're basically right at the floor.
Sure. I don't know what the calculation would be, uh,
if you were to include CPDs fringes. So if
It's okay, yeah. Uh,
whatever you've got, if you could send
through the chair just to kinda look at would be helpful.
Um, something else I was thinking about is, is a way
to maybe save some funds or consolidate
or really kind of standardize a little bit
what the district counselors do is I view the commission
as kind of being the administration of c ccp, SA
and the district council very be,
be much like the city council of what's going on in a way
that I think using city hall chambers
to have a council meeting
with the district councilors might help to talk about
what they're all seeing in a way
and might standardize in a way
that we can use the same resources we have here
to have those meetings.
If we were to move in that direction, obviously we'd have
to talk to the city about what that looks like in operation.
But where would the commission feel about that occurring
as far as having that kind of council meeting here?
I'm, I'm not a, I'm not a, I'm not opposed to it.
I will say, um,
this is maybe not the point you were getting at,
but this is a very safe environment.
Um, you all have Sergeant at Arms and their staff.
You have police officers here.
We frequently have meetings in the community.
A lot of the same people show up.
Uh, and we're out in the community,
and a lot of times we feel very exposed.
Um, and it, it, it, it gets very dangerous
because you do have people who come to our meetings who are,
um, potentially mentally unstable.
Um, and we're just out at a church at a school and,
and these folks come and they are angry,
and it's, you all see it at,
you're meeting in public comment all the time,
but we, we don't have anywhere near
the same amount of resources.
So I'm, I feel like I've personally been put in positions a
bunch of times where I'm trying to make a call about whether
to adjourn the meeting and leave.
Um, because, you know, we've had our staff berated,
we've had people, we follow us to our cars.
Um, so, you know, I, that's something I've been given a lot
of thought to about whether to stop doing the meetings out
in so many different places
and maybe have just four locations, one in each part
of the city that we can kind of have a little bit more, uh,
structure and safety, um, and, and some other things.
That doesn't mean I don't want community members to come
and be heard, but those, those things do get dangerous.
Um, but I would not be opposed to,
to having the district councilors use any,
any silly city facility
that can help further what we're trying to do.
Thank you for that, because I think
for us looking at the management ordinance
to help clarify some of that to maybe allow the opportunity,
and I didn't even think about the safety component.
You're raising up my
provided plus it also helps, as we know on the ground,
the OMA concerns
with even having two district counselors talking
to each other as opposed
to having formal meetings here would make sense.
Uh, chairman, I have one more question, which, okay.
Thank you. Um, uh, so there's a couple of things
that are budget related that I think
by virtual Hots playing out, we're gonna need CCPs a's help.
One is auditing departments,
CPD being the largest expenditure
that we have in city government
and what that conversation looks like.
Because when we talk to OIG, when we talk to budget office,
we do understand it's headcount,
but I think there might be programmatic things related to
officers working parades and things that run up over time
and the way it could be efficient
that we do need a partnership there.
The other one is the, the fact that we're learning
that there are consent decree positions
that are gonna be cut in CPD in a way that could be
critically concerning related
to accountability and our improvements.
So we're not paying police misconduct settlements
in the world where we don't have those consent
decree positions back.
I think we're gonna be leaning on y'all on COPA
and other ones to really get some level
of accountability there.
How do you all feel as far as being any level
of equipped when you've got council members asking
for recommendations from you?
Because the consent decree folks
aren't to the level they need to be.
Um, I want to, I want to preface this by saying
that I'm the president of the commission,
but I don't speak for all seven members.
Mm-Hmm. So this is my personal opinion.
Um, to your point about those consent decree positions,
not just because they're consent decree positions,
those are positions that we worked very hard on last year.
We, we, as we mentioned in our,
in Adam Gross's opening remarks,
victim services is something
that we are very passionate about
and we pushed for in the last budget.
Those are being cut. So it's not just consent decree.
Those are things that were helping
move us in the right direction.
It's my personal opinion that reform needs
to be off the table, those positions that are there.
Clinicians, we have one of the highest suicide rates.
We, I think we have the highest
of any major city in the country, um, to me,
is unacceptable to, um, to, to cut clinicians
that people need, like they do very stressful work,
the most stressful work in the city.
Um, so I I I, that, if you're asking if I have anything
to say with our budget recommendations,
and I will have to of course, get this approved
by our board, that that's something that I do want
to be on our recommendations
that those positions do be put back in there.
You have things, I I was just in a little village
and you have folks who are telling me that, you know,
my son was murdered, but I couldn't talk to an officer
for 10 days because there was no translators.
So these, these civilian positions are critical,
especially in a time where we cannot hire
as many police officers as we would like to.
Um, having evidence technicians
that could speed the process up is gonna help us
get our clearance rates down.
Um, you know, these, these things have a,
a very adverse effect.
Um, and I, I truly, you know,
I've talked to the superintendent about this.
I've talked to community members about this.
I don't know how we get around that.
Um, the city, the,
the Chicago police department's not in the consent decree,
the city of Chicago with us.
And so I think that those things are critical.
And if I'm able to put
that in our budget recommendations, they'll be there.
If you could do me a favor through the chair
and really outline those positions specifically so
that our members all have a sense
of which ones we're talking about,
because there's so many talks of vacancies
and what we feel should be efficiencies
and not that exactly everything you named knowing those
positions are important
as we all figure out how we solve this budget.
So thank you again for all the work that you all do.
And thank you. Oh, sorry, Adam, you got something? Yeah.
Just about, about your last through the chair
response, uh, or request.
Um, I would ask if you could to hold off on that request.
We're in the process of working with CPD.
We got their budget the same time you did
and are trying to make sense of it.
We understand from our most recent meeting with them
that there are some positions that appear
to have disappeared but exist someplace else in the budget.
And I don't know that we have all of the information
that we need to give you a good answer
to your very important question.
And that's part of the work that the commission is doing
as part of its review of the budget, um,
which will be wrapped up later this month. I was gonna say,
I appreciate we need to asap
'cause folks here gotta figure out by end of year.
So the faster you can get it to us,
the faster we can have those kind of debates within our,
our bodies to have it.
So thank you again. Uh, those are the questions I have.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Uh, alderman Vasquez.
Uh, we'll go ahead and go to, uh, alderman Samari.
I brought up the, the subject of a disciplinary matrix
to COPA right before you, when they testified.
And my question to the C-C-P-S-A is what,
what's the current status
and next steps for with helping
to institute a disciplinary matrix?
Uh, I was able to hear some of the, the COPA hearing and,
and as you heard, there are a lot
of complications involved in
developing a disciplinary matrix.
The one thing that I find encouraging in this is
that we haven't had conversations with anyone
who has said anything other than that.
It would be incredibly valuable to have one.
We've had those meetings with the superintendent.
We've had those meetings with the FOP.
We've, uh, we've had those meetings with consent decree, uh,
uh, uh, the consent decree team.
We've had meetings with, um, uh, there's broad consensus
that there needs to be a disciplinary MA matrix.
Uh, what's frustrating is that, uh, I think
that there's been that consensus for a pretty long time,
and there has been, uh, very little progress. So
It's in our, it's in our goals that we set for the,
the superintendent and the chief administrator as well.
And we did have a meeting with, um, with the FOP.
I think the issue,
and Adam May have a different take here
that we run up against, is that when we start trying
to push on it, and then the, the subject
of collective bargaining comes up,
then it's a law department thing.
And that's sort of where we're,
we can only go up to that line.
And then it's like, we need the law department
and other folks, um, to probably the mayor's office,
to be honest with you, to convene that group.
Um, which is not an authority that we have.
So they have not been invited the law
department in these discussions.
We, we have had, with the folks under our purview,
I've had this conversation with the superintendent
with chief of staff, Dana O'Malley,
with Chief Administrator Ness and her goals
and the superintendent's goals.
And we've had a conversation with the FOP.
Um, so all of the groups that we touch,
we have had conversation
with about trying to bring this together.
Um, but that's, that's pretty much where our authority ends.
Okay. So right now, there's no movement
or anything to get it going, to get it done.
Um, I would say that we, we are continuing
to push on the last meeting that we had
with the superintendent, we brought this up again.
And, um, the response that we got was
that they were gonna work, um, with the law department to,
to try to convene and figure that out.
So one of your main responsibilities
and role as C-C-P-S-A is oversight of copa.
You have the authority to fire the COPA chief.
So with, with current oversight over COPA and the legal
and budgetary exposure that the agency has brought
to the city, what matrix
does your agency have when deciding whether to move
for dismissal of its chief administrator?
So we don't have a, a matrix, um, per se,
where we are evaluating the chief administrator.
We do have goals that we set every year.
I will say that since a lot of this stuff has, uh, come up,
a lot of the controversies with copa,
we have engaged in the process of
talking to everybody that we can.
We've also, uh, engaged with the law department
and we have engaged chief administrator,
and we have, uh, made not only a recommendation
to the Office of Inspector General,
but we have also met with the OIG, um,
and turned over everything that we have.
I think that we have two different charges here where the,
the Inspector General's role in Adam,
please correct me if I'm wrong, is
to figure out there's an ethical
or something illegal going on where ours is to figure out
and make a determination on if COPA is
functioning in the way that it needs to be.
Um, we have been engaging in that process,
uh, for a while now.
Most recently, um, we have requested to retain
outside counsel, um,
which I think is in the process of happening now.
Because as I was listening
to the chief administrator just earlier speak, um,
she said something very similar to, she said
to us on the record, which is, I don't make any
of these moves without consultation with the law department.
Which presents us with quite a conflict
because the law department is also our lawyer as well
as the lawyer for the Chicago Police Department.
Um, and, and so it's, it was sort of entangled.
And we think that we need outside counsel in order
to be able to do our jobs correctly.
So this is outside counsel from the city's law
department that you're seeking,
Or it's us retaining an outside firm,
An outside firm who's gonna pay for that,
Uh, the city that Correct. So
The city law department internally cannot
Yeah. That, so that's,
uh, that city policy, the,
the law department makes the determination about whether
there's a conflict and if there is a conflict,
they have the authority to, uh,
People. But
in ordinance, you have the authority to dismiss
and fire the COPA chief.
You have that. What is preventing you from moving forward?
Well, I'm not, I'm not here saying that we are moving to,
to dismiss the COPA chief.
Um, so I'm, I'm here saying that we're determining, um,
we're, we're in the process
of uncovering what's happening here.
To answer your question very directly, um,
we do not have the legal expertise on our small staff
to make very, very broad determinations and, and,
and do sort of a deep, uh, legal analysis of this.
If we do something that's too quick or,
or that's, that's wrong, um, we open not only ourselves up,
but the city of Chicago and taxpayers up, uh,
to significant lawsuits. So
To save the city money
and the cost of retaining an outside firm,
can the city council override the C-C-P-S-A
and dismiss the COPA chief per the ordinance? Can we
Do that? I don't know the answer to that.
The Ordinance, so the ordinance sets out a process
that involves both the commission and the city council.
Uh, first, the, uh,
the C-C-P-S-A has to take a vote of no confidence,
and there's a process that's spelled out in the ordinance.
If the commission takes that vote, then it shifts
to the city council.
And there has to be a hearing
before the police and fire committee.
And then ultimately the, she also a,
The ordinance the way or the ordinance lays
it out after we take that vote.
I believe believe she has 30 days to respond.
Correct. Okay.
So you spoke earlier when my colleague was talking about
the amount of hours that you put in
and that you take PTO to put in the work
for the C-C-P-S-A.
Why does it take that many hours?
What can you be specific on, on the,
on the work that you do?
And was that considered when you guys drafted this ordinance
with the city council that you were
gonna put this in amount of work?
Because what I'm hearing from you
is that you wanna get paid now.
Uh, that's, or no, I
Don't, I don't clarify. Please clarify.
It is not, I, I think I just illuminated the issue.
Um, I don't think I said anything about the fact
that I want to get paid.
I, I was simply highlighting, um, how,
if you wanna do this job correctly, um, the amount
of hours I don't think was anticipated.
So, for instance, we're in the process
of doing our goals right now
and our budgetary process
for recommendation to the city council.
We have to meet with every single agency multiple times a
week before those meetings.
I meet with my staff, I meet with our lawyer, I meet
with the city law department.
I meet with the consent decree people.
Those are all hours, two hours long meetings
that we're doing every week, um, just
to be able to get that done.
Not to mention, we still have our, our monthly meeting
that we have to have, which takes a lot of prep.
Um, so it's, it is, we're, we're constantly meeting
with different, uh, agencies
and that that's not even including the amount
of constituents who bring issues
who want to have a town hall.
Right now. We just had a, a, a rough month, a month
or two months ago where there's something in our ordinance
where if somebody presents a valid petition to us,
we have 21 days to respond to it.
And, and to have a hearing on
that set subject, we got two in a row.
So we had a monthly meeting.
We had the response to the one on the Office
of Gun Violence Prevention, and we had the response
to the one on Tropic Stops.
Just that alone, you're bringing in lawyers and,
and expertise from around the country.
Um, we're meeting with different agencies that those,
those one meeting was probably eight hours of prep
and then two hours meeting.
And we had to do that three times, um, in one month.
Okay. Thank you.
Good. Uh, thank you Alderman ez.
Uh, we're gonna go to Alderman Lopez
and then to Alderman Spaza.
Is that because I rated your candy stash? Yes. Thank you.
Uh, good afternoon, chairman, members of the committee,
and to everyone that's here today, um,
you guys really lucked out being here
before nine o'clock tonight, so we'll try to go easy on you.
I, couple
of things I just want to throw out there, um, in large part,
because as someone who actually voted for this,
I feel I am fully allowed
to completely criticize what we've created.
'cause I can say we created this, um,
when we talk about the district councils
and understanding that
on page three of your statement, Mr. Gross, that
where he talks about the department provides blah, blah,
blah, you know, we're, we're
putting a lot of words to show
and make it appear as though the district councils are doing
a lot, even in how we talk about one meeting a month.
But what concerns me,
and I think what probably concerns a number
of my colleagues, is that nearly two thirds
of the individuals who comprise these councils,
nearly two thirds of these councils are not
doing what you just described
to us here overwhelmingly.
These are not meetings designed to bring police
and community together for discussions.
It's not how we talk about policing.
A overwhelming majority of the conversations
and people who were elected
and are part of this are abolitionists.
Our police defenders are people who are actively trying
to sow division between community and police.
I don't have to look any farther than my own ninth district
when I see individuals
who are elected district counselors in other parts
of the city coming down to yell at my constituents
and my neighbors, um, trying to sow their hatred
in our communities.
I have a real problem with that,
because when I supported this effort, it was
to hit the reset in light of everything
that we had seen unfold
before this conversation, to give the opportunity for police
and community to come together.
What are we doing with the 29 people
or so that work in this department to rectify that situation
that warrants any kind of consideration for
additional funding other than
creating a bureaucracy that clearly is just fueling
police hatred and anti law enforcement mentalities?
Thank you for that question. Uh,
it's a challenging issue.
The, uh, the city council voted to create a body
that is made up of, uh, of people who are elected
and the people who were elected, uh, were elected
and they bring a range of perspectives.
Um, I, my my sense is
that your numbers on the, uh, on the perspectives that
that different district council members, uh, bring
to the table, um, uh,
doesn't reflect the day-to-day reality.
But I, I appreciate the larger point,
and I'd, I'd be a little careful with that assertion,
considering I know roughly 40 plus of them signed a letter
against policing
and was very, uh, vocal in their support of,
uh, abolishing the police department.
So I think my numbers are pretty spot on in that regard.
But go ahead. So, so your question was about what are,
what are we doing, uh, to get district council members
to focus on that portion of the, to focus on the mission
that you, just because the mission you described,
the outcome you described might happen in the eighth
district, but overwhelmingly, the districts that we see,
that's not what the ca that's not the case that's happening.
So it, it's one thing to tell this body the rosy version
of what's happening, but for those of us who actually go
to these meetings also in the neighborhoods,
we're hearing very different perspectives.
So understanding,
we have 66 different independently elected individuals
with 66 independent mindsets.
Got it. But you guys are city employees.
You all are responsible to us, right?
You are responsible to the taxpayers
and to the vision that this council set in 2021, which was
to create a path for police
and community interaction, right?
And in my, in my assertion, that's not happening.
So what are you doing to address that
and how do we move forward from with that?
I think, I think one of the things that Adam, um,
may be having a hard time saying is that it, it is, it is.
Um, Adam works for the district councils,
and so does all of our staff.
They're elected officials. It would be, um, the same
as your staff reporting to you.
I I, I will, well,
My staff worked for the city.
So if they were to, if we
are, you are all city employed.
You're not independently hired by them, you're hired
by the department, funded by city council to support them.
So my question is, what are, as the department,
that's gotta, that's the answer we need to get to.
That's the mindset we have to get to. And you know what?
Understanding you're having a hard time answering it.
I could see you don't wanna answer it, don't answer it.
But I'm telling you that that's the issue
that we a lot of us have right now.
Because when I am seeing
and reading that, for example, you mentioned the, uh,
biased, uh, organizations general order, you know,
I pulled it up right now and I'm reading through it.
And a lot of it, it's really like a no brainer, right?
Sad part is you could just as easily apply it
to the 66 people who make up these district commission,
these district councils, when you're saying
that they shouldn't be associating themselves with gangs,
shouldn't be associating themselves with people
who disparage others, shouldn't be associating themselves
with people who are targeting people
because of their profession, ancestry,
what have you, military status.
What's good for one should be good for the other.
And if we're not holding our district councils to
that same level that we're trying to hold the police to,
then I think the real question isn't whether
or not more money is o owed or should be allocated,
or if $500 a month is enough for district counselors,
or a thousand dollars is enough for commission members,
or two, whatever it is, a 12, 16,000
for you, 12 th whatever it is.
I think the real question moving, moving forward is, are we
needing to keep funding
and to keep this model moving forward
when the original intent has been so corrupted
and perverted by the 66 individuals
who are leading the charge in this, in this matter.
Alderman Lopez, just real quick, um,
I'm just gonna chime in here.
The, the 66 individuals were duly elected
individuals. Were they not?
They are like, yeah, a hundred percent. I no argument.
And I will say that I, I personally know
that not every single one of the 66 fall into this category.
I, we share the ninth district.
So I, and I have been to, um, a few of these meetings
where some of these things have occurred.
Um, and, and to be fair, this is, it's one year.
Um, and I think that there are, there are things
that I share in terms of your concerns with some
of the vitriol that we've seen at some of the meetings
that you and I have both attended, um, in our communities,
where, um, I think that this is part of what needs
to be reconciled
or reckoned with, um, through a lot
of this community engagement.
Um, I for one, wanna give it a little bit more of a chance,
um, to, to work itself out a little bit.
Um, but so I I, I think to, to be fair to the,
to the C-C-P-S-A, um, I, I don't,
we may just disagree on in terms of like what the,
what their remit is.
At the end of the day, if these are elected officials, um,
that they didn't necessarily choose
and they're providing the structure by which they operate,
um, to, to engage in the community,
that's all. I just wanted to make that
Out. No, I, and
I a hundred percent agree,
you cannot hold the 66 accountable
for their independently elected mindsets.
I got that. But what I can hold accountable is
what we're doing to set up a framework that works
regardless of who's in office.
This framework works regardless of who's in office
because of the framework that is here.
The problem that I have is that when you have, even
as you're talking now about creating a safe space, um,
for meetings, and you have
district councils who are refusing
to have meetings at police districts
because they don't wanna be anywhere near police
because of their ideological issues.
They are by their own in, uh, by their own intention
creating unsafe spaces, separating community from police.
That's what I'm trying to get at.
That they could have their opinions all, all day long.
That's what they were elected by their districts to do.
But at the same time, we're not,
we should not be put in a position where we have
to provide more money, come up with more resources,
simply because they are trying to create a schism
that grows ever wider.
And whether you agree with me
or not, that's not what I voted for years ago.
A hundred percent not what I voted for.
And that ordinance barely got by, by the skin
of their its teeth because of people like me who wanted
to give community a shot.
And if we're not helping community understand the,
the purpose of this, then we don't need this anymore.
So we need to be able to either educate
and guide and mold those that are elected.
Or if you're just gonna let them run amuck,
then this body needs to be ready to say,
this is a failed experiment.
It's not doing what it's supposed to do,
which bring people together.
It's driving people apart.
And let's figure out something else,
because I'm not going to revisit any kind of additional
anything if that's the outcome
that keeps coming up again and again.
Thank you, chairman. Thank
You. Alderman Lopez, did
you wanna respond?
I just, just briefly to say that there are a range
of things and be happy to talk, uh, alderman
after the meeting about some of the specific ways that
staff work to address the concerns that you have.
Uh, so we are having conversations regularly
with district council members, uh, about the language
of the ordinance, including the language that you point to,
we're working on, um, on rules with, uh, with CPD that,
uh, provide more opportunities for district council members
and district leadership to come together.
We are as staff, uh, encouraging district council members
to participate in those kinds of meetings
and engage much more directly, um, with, uh,
with CPD within their districts and, uh, and citywide and,
and to under, under fine, we could do that.
But I also know, as we've seen, there's referendums trying
to add more power and authority to members.
There's referendums trying to add more money.
There's referendums trying to expand who can
and cannot be included in as candidates.
None of that should even move one inch forward
until we address the issues that we've seen here.
Because when you're able to have self-avowed,
professional protestors
and police ab abolitionists be a part of this,
and at the exclusion of law enforcement officers,
then I got a, we have a serious problem on our hands.
Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Spaza,
Madam Chair. Good
afternoon, gentlemen.
Good afternoon, everybody in the box.
Uh, I don't have any budget questions,
but, uh, Anthony, you mentioned something
that led me to a question.
So, and this is, I don't know, I don't know the answer.
It's something I don't know. I
don't know if you guys know the answer.
So, and what you said earlier, Anthony,
was we have mentally unstable
people that come to these meetings.
And I could guarantee you my district council,
but my, not not my district council,
but the district council in my ward
or my district as a mentally unstable
manness comes with regularly.
I'm sure he is listening right now.
I'm sure he sent you many of emails.
Um, he's always foy in stuff.
But my question is,
can if people come to the meeting and harass him,
'cause I know he regularly, regularly harasses one
of the females in, in this district council.
Um, can he be, do you know, can he be, can he be kicked out?
Um, can they be removed?
Uh, can the district council members be removed?
Uh, and can the district council members be removed
for anything or who did they answer to?
But most importantly,
when you get these mentally unstable people come harassing,
does, does the district council
have any recourse or anything?
Or who did they report it to?
You have any idea what I'm talking about?
Um, I know you know who
I'm talking about, but do you have any idea? So
I'm, I, I'm at a loss alderman.
Okay. All right. I I, we could talk,
We could talk about it offline.
Um, I, I think I know who you're talking about.
Oh, yeah. Well, he's listening right now.
You know, I, I refer to him as crazy repeat, but yeah.
He's listening. So, um,
But that I, I'm, I deal with the same issue. Okay. Um,
Yeah. Right.
That's a person who has, in my opinion,
he said a lot of the same stuff to me.
Yeah. Um, very, very disrespectful, um, goes
way, way beyond anything I've ever seen from
any elected official.
Mm-Hmm. Um, and also in the way that
that person treats our staff.
Yeah. Um, and I've personally tried to address it.
Um, but him being an elected official, I know he's had a lot
of run-ins with other city council members
and staff, uh, is it is very problematic the way
that particular person behaves.
Um, but because he is elected, I've,
we've also had conversations with the ig.
Um, we haven't been able to get any real resolution to that.
And in fact, uh, it, it only, it gets worse. Um, okay.
I don't, well, I, I am not talking about it.
It is not an elected, but I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm just,
and my, and my district council
didn't ask me to ask this question.
They just thought of it when
you mentioned what you mentioned.
So I'm just wondering to protect them
since they're all my friends.
I think they do a great job. He's constantly there saying
they're not doing what they're supposed to do.
I mean, I don't know. He, I'm guessing he's emailing you
guys all the time saying
they're not doing what they're supposed to do.
I mean, they have regular meetings.
They're fairly well attended.
I think, uh, they moved him around from place to place,
which I thought was a great idea.
'cause originally they said they
have to keep it at the same place.
And I thought that was a terrible idea.
But they move it to, you know, different wards,
different areas, different places.
So I think that's a great thing.
I think they're doing their best.
But there's no rule book
or handbook that says anything other than they have
to have 12 meetings year.
Correct.
So all of the district councils have their own bylaws.
There are, um, there are some provisions that, uh,
I think most or all of the district councils adopted.
And, uh, and then they've, um,
they've got some provisions which, you know,
vary from district council to district council.
And so some of the bylaws include provisions about like
decorum in meetings, which the district council members, um,
can choose to enforce how they see fit. Okay.
That's basically up to them to do what they feel they need
to do, and if they feel he is being harassing
or whatever, which he is certain,
usually it's at the end though, I will admit.
So then can they ban 'em from these meetings?
We know the answer to that.
Uh, they're, uh, they're public meetings
and so they're subject to all of the roles
that govern public meetings. And, um,
Well, we can't ban people to these meetings that come here
and continually harass and everything.
So, but district council members ban people
that harass them and threaten them. So afford, so,
So as public bodies, district councils have to have
to follow the same rules that, that this body has to follow.
Okay. Um, and so you can't, you can't shut people out
of a public meeting.
If you establish like, behavioral rules for the meeting, uh,
and someone violates those rules, then you can,
you can remove people if you
Choose that particular meeting
or moving them period from the future.
And we could talk about this offline, Adam.
We don't have to talk about it now,
but I just thought of when Anthony mentioned about mentally
unstable people and this guy harasses, uh,
Gardner mercilessly.
Napolitano Silverstein, of course, me also,
but it doesn't bother me.
You know, he, I'm sure he is Facebooking about me right now,
but it, it doesn't bother me.
But I, it bothers me that he, what he does to my colleagues
and what he does to my police district council.
So, but we could talk about this offline.
It wasn't, you know, I just thought I wanted,
Anthony mentioned unstable people that come
to these meetings, and it's just, it's just, it's tiresome.
It's like they're trying to do a good job.
They're all active in their community.
They contribute to the community.
They, they sponsor some things, you know?
Um, so I, I feel they do a good job.
And, but of course, anything they do
is not a good enough job to him.
So, but, but thank you very much. I'll reach out.
I'll reach out to you, Adam, offline.
Anyway, we can talk about this.
Thank you. Thank you, chairman.
Unrelated to this, I just, I, we will, I'll talk to you
after the meeting about what I had to ask you.
So thank you. I'm done.
Any other questions? Look
like I came back just in time.
Hey, any, any other questions?
I mean, if you, uh, this guy raised his head,
like he's got a question over there.
Justin has a question.
You can have your questions through the chair.
Um, anybody if you, if you got something that's fine.
I'm okay. Are you good? Okay, we're good. All mines clear.
Um, I, I, I wasn't able to sit through this one today,
but, uh, I thank you for your, uh, for your work.
I know, uh, you have, um, you've been at this for a minute.
Uh, we appreciate your service.
I know this is you, you guys don't get paid, do you?
Uh, thousand dollars a month. Oh, okay.
You get, listen, you get a little change, a little something
to keep your gas in the car, but, uh, I know the work
that you do is worth more than that.
Uh, I'll be honest with you.
And I know the time that you spend is, uh,
is inordinate comparison
to the amount that you're being paid.
So we appreciate that, uh, citizens of the city
of Chicago appreciate that.
And again, uh, we will, uh, you know,
uh, continue, uh, work.
I know this is a work in progress. Um, this is not perfect.
And as we had these conversations today with Copa
and other people in the, um, uh, public safety sphere, uh,
but we, we have to continue to strive for perfection.
But we appreciate the work that you all are doing.
We all know that this is a growing process.
Uh, district councils are, it is all new, uh, new level of,
uh, now we've got the school stuff.
So it's all new here.
So, uh, we just wanna make sure that we do the best
that we can given our circumstances.
But appreciate the work, uh, of the, uh, C-C-P-S-A,
uh, all mines clear.
The committee will stand in at ease until,
alright, and I want to, it is, it's not enough of us here
to have that conversation.
Uh, we'll go at 10 o'clock
'cause I, I, yes, we're on for 10 o'clock, uh, Tuesday.
Yeah. 10 o'clock. I would, I would like to move it up
as we get into these heavier conversations.
I mean, we're here last night to nine 30.
Uh, I know, uh, I know that, uh, alderman, uh,
SPTO has expressed us the 10 o'clock start.
Uh, but the, uh, the 10 o'clock start does keep us here.
We didn't get outta here last night to nine 30.
So, um, I, I, I would like for us
to start at nine.
Uh, but I don't think there's enough of us here
to make that determination.
Uh, but I will pose that, uh, we'll have a,
probably a more robust group in, uh, on Tuesday
to kind of push this thing up.
The other thing I think we've gotta, uh, keep in mind and,
and we can talk about this
and socialize this a little bit, is that we've got, uh,
the officer's funeral on Monday.
Uh, I mean, I know next Monday we have the officer's funeral
that we, that I, I don't believe it's appropriate for us
to meet during that time.
We also have, uh,
former Alderman Beavers' funeral on Wednesday.
So I, I tomorrow, I mean on Monday, let's,
I mean, just think about that.
So on Monday, I'm sorry, Tuesday,
we can have some conversations around those two issues.
And our schedule is probably gonna be a little bit off.
Anyway, there's some other things
that we can think through and talk about.
But one thing is that I think a nine o'clock start will help
us get through the day, uh, a little better.
Um, and, and not keep everybody here so late at night.
'cause like I said, we were here nine 30 last night.
The night before was eight o'clock.
So again, I'm not, not trying to, uh,
have us spend less time.
I'm just having, just, just trying to manage the time
a little better, especially for our staff people.
'cause they're in at their regular times
and our officers are in at their regular time,
but they're having to stay, uh, late.
Go ahead, Ray.
What if we added, uh, days next on the 18th?
I think that we, 1920 think if, now, mind you, if we,
if we take off, uh, a day
or two, we may have to add days again.
Our, our desire again, initially why we're here today was so
that we would not have to come in the week of Thanksgiving.
Um, the question I think remains as to how we, you know,
what of our, what is our anticipated timeline?
We know we're gonna have amendments.
We, we know we're gonna have a series of things
and can we still meet the, uh,
meet the I I'll call the committee work deadline of Friday.
The, uh, what would that be? Friday? Like 22nd. 22nd, right?
So just think about it.
And I think we'll just socialize that amongst colleagues.
I have no objection to, um, extending the process,
cutting back on.
I have no objections with that.
As long as we are all on the same page.
Walking together is fine with me.
Just like we're here today.
This, this was after conversation.
So, um, if we're all amenable to making these adjustments,
then I, I think it's, uh, fine.
And we also can look at, now we're up,
we've got another Saturday, uh, coming up
on, uh, next Saturday.
However, I, I think that's fairly light.
Uh, we need to move some things around to,
you know, beef that up a little bit.
That's fine. If we're committed to the, to that 22nd date.
If not, if we're gonna blow past the 22nd
and still be out the week of Thanksgiving
and come back the following week, I'm okay.
As long as we're all on the same page with it.
I, I just don't want us to be jumping up and down about it
and, and saying that we, you know, whatever.
But if we're all we, we can do this together, that's fine.
How we decide. Okay. Alright.
As I said, committee's at ease until Tuesday, 10:00 AM
Hey.