The, uh, meeting on Public. Safety is, uh, called to order.
Uh, first the housekeeping matter, we, we need to recess
the or adjourn, the former meeting because I recessed it,
instead of adjourn it, and then we'll call the role for
this 1, so motion to recess or motion to adjourn. The
former meeting by Alderman. Chico hearing no objection.
That meeting is adjourned. The new 1, uh, under notice is
called to order and we will begin, uh, buy a roll call. I
see Vice chairman. Jansy, Vice chairman jansy. Are you
still in the room?
Yeah, he's in the back. Okay? Uh Alderman, Chico
Alderwoman, go goes.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman. Curtis
Alderwoman tabaris.
So Sano here.
Uh, alderwoman Fuentes.
Alderman, Talia Farrell Alderman's pisado.
Alderman, sinol Lopez.
Alderman, Vasquez alderman, nuden.
Alderman. Ken you hear?
Alderman Gardner.
Alderman. Martin.
Hoppenworth.
Alderwoman Haden.
Alderwoman Silverstein.
We do have a quorum and we have a real 59 motion, uh, from
Alderman Martin and Haden, uh, in additional participation
from non-committee members. Uh, alderwoman cruise and
Alderman, Moore. Do we have a motion to allow for rule 59
participation, uh, by Alderman Lopez hearing no objection.
So ordered and we will chair Other Woman Rodriguez. Sanchez
is here, too. I got you older woman Alderman, Rodriguez.
Sanchez is included in that motion uh for purposes of forum
Alderman. Martin, please signify your presence, I'm
present. Thank you, chairman. Thank you.
And alderwoman Haden. Are you on the call?
Okay. Uh, we'll add her when she logs in.
Okay. Uh public speakers. We have I think 5.
Uh, the first public speaker is, uh, Patricia point point.
Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman. Nans, uh, make your statement,
please? Uh, thank you chairman. Uh, pursuant to my role as
President Pro Temp under rule 36. I intend to participate
in vote on this matter as an effect EXO member. Thank you,
your added to the roll call. Uh, first public speaker is
Patricia pointy. I'm sorry.
Can't quite make that out.
Patricia.
Good afternoon. My name is Patricia pointed Blancas.
and um,
Uh, I'm a little bit disappointed. I started being an
advocate. I started I started finding noise ordinance in my
community, I started fighting. Um, red light enforcements
are racing cars. Passing the red lights, I started fighting
homeless. Uh people. I've been had a homeless woman live
with me.
Uh, and then I started uh, specially was the noise
ordinance.
well, uh, Sunday was Mother's Day and when I came home, uh,
my neighbors ganged on me.
Um, they lied. Um, they call I called the police because it
was 1111 when somebody rang my bell at the in intercom. And
I looked at my phone and it said 1111, I'm like I'm not
going to answer the the door. So then later on my neighbor
from the third floor came down and started doing witchcraft
or whatever she was doing. I opened the door and I said,
what the heck? It was like 12 12 something and I'm like,
get away from here and she started saying all these words
and da, da da. What happened is that? I called the police.
I took a picture of her.
and then, uh,
I said, uh, she started saying these words and I said,
f****** and boom, I slammed the door later on the police. I
noticed that the light was on. I I looked at the window I
come out and the police was there.
They they said that I had.
Hit the lady. I never touched her.
Okay, so they arrested me.
And I was like, what are the charges? Oh, she took your
picture. She has videos of you hitting her and da da. Da.
I'm like, let me see it. Oh, no. You're under arrest. Boom!
Boom, boom. Once I was there, I asked to speak with the
superintendent, the superintendent. Just not the
superintendent. The sergeant, just went there and said,
Oh, what do you want? And I'm like okay well you know what?
I can't talk to you right now or something, something and
he left.
I was like, What are the?
But that the thing is, yes, I am still going to be oh,
because this is what my neighbor said. Before you started
coming here before you started living here, we had all this
noise, we had music. We had this, nobody complain about the
music.
Well, you know what?
There is a noise ordinance. Let's have accountability. If
you guys say we have you do the laws.
Don't break them.
because,
A lot of politicians were in a party and I called the
police.
and then you said, we're
Thank you for your testimony, man. The next public speaker
is Nick black Mr. Black
All right, I'm Nick, black I am, uh, the co-chair for
Safety and Security for Street DeVille organization of
active real. Um, residents,
Uh as a former Marine Corps Captain and the son of 2.
Chicago police officers. I've learned that discipline and
structure and accountability is the Cornerstone of a
thriving community.
That's exactly why I stand in full support of implementing
a team curfew here in streeterville.
This isn't about limiting freedoms.
Isn't about, it's about protecting it.
It's about insurance that our streets. Our businesses and
our families remain safe after hours.
When I served, we had curfews, not to punished, but to
maintain order, build trust and ensure everyone made at
home safely. The same principles apply here.
We've all seen recent increases in late night disturbances,
large team, Gatherings and safety incidents that have
impacted both residents and visitors. It's not fair to our
youth.
To let them roam unsupervised without structure or
consequence.
it puts them at risk and at harm,
uh, of bad decisions and interactions that can change lives
in an instant
A curfew is not a solution in isolation.
Rather it's a tool a strong first step.
That sends a clear message that street Avil is a place of
respect and responsibility and a community of Standards. It
also empowers our law enforcement and Community leaders to
engage with our youth earlier more positively before a
situation turns negative,
As someone who fought to protect the freedom, we all enjoy.
I also believe in protecting the foundation that makes
those freedoms possible.
Safety order and mutual respect.
that starts with setting boundaries for our young people
not just for their protection, but for the good of the
entire neighborhood,
so let's stand together, I ask not just as residents but as
Protectors of streeterville and our use future,
And support a team curfew that keeps our streets secure and
more importantly, our kids safe.
Thank you, Mr. Black
Uh, please add committee members Vasquez and Fuentes to the
Quorum roll call. And, uh, add to the attendance, roll
call, uh, Alderman Dao, Alderman, Ervin and Alderman
Bernett,
The next speaker is Khalil cotton.
Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Khalil Khan. I am a
youth organizer with the kinwa, Oakland Community
organization. And I'm here on behalf of young people and
families in our city who are deeply impacted by the perfect
proposed. Youth curfew
The youth cannot be the future or even the president. If
you do, not urge to reconsider policies that criminalize
our youth, instead of criminalizing the Youth of this city,
invest in our youth, get involved in their interests, their
talents, their skills.
Curfews, do not address the root cause of community
inability, but the curfew will do is disproportionately
Target our black and brown youth increase. Unnecessary
police contact
and a high-risk of more youth being involved until the
justice system, just for being outside. Youth investment is
what's needed in this city.
For our youth.
Our youth needs safe spaces, our youth need jobs, our youth
need recreational centers other than park districts, that
after a certain age, you age out of park districts.
We need to stop acting ourselves. Why are you on the
streets and start asking? Why haven't we built spaces for
them to be the solution to the problem, has to be the youth
with some adult Lab partnership again. My name is Khalil
Khan. I am a youth organizer with a Kima. Oakland Community
organization. And we need you to investment. We are the
youth are the future. They are the present. They are the
now.
We need to come together as a city and helped invest in
these youth. They will not be outside if they had a place
in their own neighborhood to go, and feel safe after school
to be theirselves and kick it with their friends.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Stephen Gilbert.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Stephanie Gilbert. Um,
I'm the director of Youth and Community Development at my
block, my hood, my city, and I'm here on behalf of my
block, my hood, my city,
um,
at my block, my hood, my city, we are invested important to
black and brown kids across the city, um, which is why we
are opposed to the curfew, um, ordinance. As we feel that
this um, unfairly targets black and brown kids. Um, number
1, we do think that to a certain extent, um, it is rooted
in discrimination. Um as this solely targets black and
brown kids. Um, in addition we really feel that um, in
to a certain extent bad policing right by giving them the
autonomy to often police presence, right? Um, we know
know, historically that as it pertains to black and brown
kids. Um, when you police presence that can lead to
horrific things, right? Civil lawsuits, um, physical abuse
and at times even death. Um, essentially saying that it is
a crime for black and brown kids to be downtown. Now first,
I think, um, as opposed to a curfew we must um, unpack
The root of the problem. All right. Uh, my grandmother used
to always say a idle. Mind is a devil's workplace. And for,
and for a lot of Youth, that proves to be correct. All
right? Both of you, most youth, rather they go downtown to
enjoy the sky lines. And I feel the most beautiful city in
the world. Um, however, a lot of them they're not presented
with a lot of opportunities of substance. Um, here are my
block, my hood, my city, over the last 2 years, we proved
that. Um youth can be downtown which without any hiccups in
the last 2 years. We had 3,000 youth. Go downtown and
experience everything that this city has to offer and not
even an argument happened.
Right.
Often time we're not often times, I think what this um
ordinance can potentially do, it can cause a bigger
dissonance or disconnect between the youth the community
and the city right? Which has been a historical contentious
relationship? Um growing up, um, I was taught to respect
to respect Elders. I was, I was taught to respect adults.
However, a lot of our youth, they learn respect through
social media, right? They didn't grow up like me. So a lot
of this things they need to be poured into, all right? I
think it needs to be more of a collaboration. I'm going to
educate former educator of 11 years and it was easy to
teach the honor students. It was a little harder to teach
the Gen ass students, but I had to collaborate and I had to
have both of them in the classroom, um, to build a better
classroom in order. Um, for this city to be a better City.
I think it's important that the youth, the community and
In the city, collaborate on what needs to happen, all
right, I think the the city we need to collaborate, we need
to pour and we need to invest in the youth. Thank you.
Uh, next speaker is Daniel Schneider.
Morning. My name is Dan Schneider. I'm of council to legal
action. Chicago, We're part of legal aid. Chicago, the
largest legal aid organization in the city? Uh, we're
lawyers, we don't do outrage. We don't March, although I
support both, we give pragmatic legal advice and I'm not
here as an activist. I'm actually here as the proud son of
a man who served in law enforcement for almost 30 years.
And I Rise to say, again, as I did a month ago, take more
time on this, vote it down, or fix it, because passing it,
as written, is stepping on a rake again, and the city can't
afford another self-inflicted. Million-dollar bruise to the
face a month ago when I came here. This city had spent 85
million bucks on settlements this year. As of today, a
month later almost 150 million. 1 of your colleagues is
estimated billions more on the way in the coming years, and
this ordinance, it's not ready. It has barely changed in
the last month and we only saw it an hour ago. I know.
Because it was only a release to all of you about an hour
ago. There's been no meaningful outside legal review. Even
the law department has been cut out of conversations about
it. There's
Been no learned testimony, no civil liberties consultation
just to reheat a draft with the same fatal flaws. Now
Alderman dowel when I was here last time commended call for
engagement on this. No meetings have happened no
invitations have been extended emailing. A revised draft at
the last minute isn't public debate. It's theater and a
meeting with teenagers where they didn't believe they even
got answers is likewise not public engagement. You all
should be alarmed that the only way the supporters of the
ordinance believe this will pass as with no transparency,
no real consultation, it's a red flag. But let's talk about
the substance. This ordinance has serious constitutional
problems. It is vague, it has unchecked delegation of power
to the superintendent. It reduces the role of the deputy
mayor for Public Safety from the last draft who does not
have to sign off on the curfew and at the last meeting CBD
admitted, it could apply to 20 kids gathered in a public
park because they might damage grass. And what's the
justification we need?
Need it. We want it CPD says they have vast Powers
dispersal orders. Allowed social media, monitoring allowed
the rest of this is legally indefensible and it's not
operationally. Ready. Do you want to prevent disorder? I
understand my father carried this responsibility every day
but doing the wrong thing and in the wrong way, in the name
of order is still wrong. This ordinance will be challenged.
It will lose. It is vague, it's over broad. It hasn't been
piloted. It hasn't been
FedEd it contains drafting errors, that could be fixed.
Minor errors. Could be fixed by you. Now, before we start
paying for it Alderman, Hopkins, you were quoted today, in
Mariah's story, admitting this city can't even successfully
prosecute DNC. Misdemeanors officers aren't showing cases
aren't sticking. We're the team that can't shoot straight,
but apparently we want to expand the law, so we can arrest
teenagers on 30 minutes. Notice, if you want to do
something fine, but do something that works. Not something
that's going to fail on purpose. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Okay. We will begin uh with a motion to substitute the
ordinance uh that we have before us moved by Alderman,
Chico hearing no objections. So ordered the substitute is
before us, we'll open for debate. Uh, since we did have a
very robust debate at a 6 hour, almost 6 hour meeting, last
time. Uh, we will be limiting to 5 minutes per member so
that we can all get our comments and and questions on the
record. We'll start with 1 of the co-sponsors alderman.
Ervin.
Thank you, Mr. Uh, Mr. Chairman uh unfortunately based on
the uh revised, uh substitute that you guys are presented.
Unfortunately, will not be supporting this ordinance. Um,
ordinance. Um, this goes above and beyond the original
proposal. Uh, the reason I got involved in this was because
I did not want my kids from the west side of Chicago
feeling that they cannot come to downtown Chicago after
8:00. Um, I worked, uh, in in concert to create what I
thought. Uh, would have been acceptable understanding the
challenges that, uh, that the central business district
faces. Uh, I thought that the uh, The Joint collaboration
between uh, law enforcement and the civilian community in
extraordinary circumstances, uh, would would meet some
level of a test but beyond just a strict.
Uh police matter. Uh ultimately this goes even Beyond where
where we started at 8:00. Um, and again, this gives the
police department a total discretion as to when and how
this will be, uh, administered, uh, unfortunately, uh, in
that set of circumstances, um, I cannot support this
ordinance as it stands today.
Furthermore, this committee voted down what you had
previously as it relates to having the civilian involvement
in the enforcement or the designation of a curfew. Um and
curfew. Um and again I think that is critical in this
conversation that there needs to be uh because this set of
power
That has been given to the superintendent is beyond the
reach of what we normally have provided for with our curfew
that there, be some check against that. Uh, and
unfortunately, the language as is, drafted removes that
check away. And, uh, with that, uh, being said
unfortunately, I I would, uh, uh, as it stands now. I, I
can't support this on even though I'm not a member of this
committee. Uh, I would encourage members of this committee
to either a, uh, vote this ordinance down or bring back the
proposal that existed, uh, prior, uh, to the to the
substitute, uh, that was out there. There were some changes
in the sub in the sub that were made related to, um, uh,
quarterly, uh, reporting and annual hearings, which I, I
fully support.
That was an additional, a proposal that that wasn't um uh
done as related to Southern setting this after a period of
2 and a half years. Uh, I'm I understand that was not I
could could live with not sunsetting. I can't not live with
uh, not having civilian involvement and it is extraordinary
level of power that we be given to the police.
Department. So unfortunately uh you know, given the
substitute as presented I I would be unable to support
this. Uh measure. Thank you. Thank you Alderman. As I said,
there are 3 lead sponsors of this. You just heard from 1,
I'll call on alderwoman Dal who's also a lead sponsor. And
then I'll Reserve to make some comments to step. Aside from
my role as chair is 1 of the sponsors, go ahead chairman
doll. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, um, I after reviewing uh,
The Substitute ordinance and having discussions with both
you and all the men in um I'm going to remain a sponsor of
this ordinance. I feel that uh this is the word
extraordinary is extraordinary to even use. Um, I think
that what we have here is uh having the
Superintendent um, and consultation with the uh, deputy
mayor for Public Safety, have make the decision on when
this tool will be used. Um, that is
What a superintendent is supposed to do, he has the, he
runs the police department. Um, and I believe that, uh,
This is, in order for us to move forward. Um, I think that
uh, the addition of the um, quarterly and annual reporting,
reporting, um, is was a good. Something I had suggested and
has been included, um, and I would urge my colleagues to
let's move forward with this. We, if we don't like it, you
know, we can always uh, repeal it or reject it. Uh, but I
think uh this is just 1 tool of many tools that we have.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you, uh, Alderman dalan. If the committee will
allow me just to comment is, uh, is the third lead sponsor
of this? Um, Alderman. Ervin is correct in the last meeting
we did vote down the idea of stripping. The deputy mayor's
role from this ordinance. Uh, that was not something. This
committee wanted to do the substitute before is Now, does
not do that. In fact, it it respects, the will of this body
that the deputy mayor for Public Safety, maintained an
integral part of the decision-making process. The language
is clear, please, uh, direct your, uh, your attention to
paragraph B on the first page of the substitute where it
clearly states. Uh, that whenever the superintendent after
Consulting, the deputy mayor has made the determination. It
mandates, a advising consent role for the deputy mayor of
Public Safety that the superintendent must have that
conversation uh, as part of his decision-making process. So
it's a
Relatively minor change from the previous version of this
ordinance and the purposes to clarify. That in fact, the
superintendent does have the final Authority for such a
decision as the city's chief law enforcement officer uh as
a, a sworn uh, officer within the police department as
opposed to a non-sworn civilian
Outside of the police department and the superintendent
himself. Uh, during the discussion of this ordinance made
clear that his role ultimately, is the final decision
maker. Uh, so he, he can, you know, advise and consent with
who he wants. And we're mandating, uh, a clear and specific
role for the deputy mayor of Public Safety, um, and it's
appropriate to do. So as was stated during the meeting,
they consult regularly anyway, so we're not telling them to
do something. They're not already doing. We're just making
it clear again, as Alderman Irvin's Point. That's that I
agree with the significant decision of imposing a temporary
curfew should have multiple voices involved in it. And
clearly, the deputy mayor for Public Safety who is on the
front lines of this um is in a position to be able to
provide sound advice and consultation to the superintendent
as he makes his decision. But ultimately it is his
decision. He has the job the jobs that has been given to
him
Uh, and he has full discretionary Authority as to how to
execute that job. So this language that we've changed here,
um, is congruent with what already exists, and it's
congruent with the wishes clearly stated, uh, by The Police
Superintendent himself. So, that's why. Unfortunately, we
are unable to, uh, to get to consensus with the 3
co-sponsors, but since 2 of the 3, um, are on board with
this. I, I made the decision that we should go forward with
the debate and the discussion today. Um, there is no
dispute over the remaining changes um, having the uh oemc
be the 1 that is responsible for informing our offices.
That's already existing law, that's what they do. Uh, and
also, um, having them be the ones to talk to the sister
agencies, uh, that is what they currently do. They have
those established lines of communication. Um, so that's
really not a change. It's just reflecting the additional
reality and then, as uh, alderwoman Dal requested, we will
have an ongoing review if this ordinance passes.
We'll have quarterly data provided to this committee on how
it's implemented and how it's working along with an annual
meeting. Uh where we take a deeper dive into how the curfew
was implemented to see if there's any revisions or any
possible changes uh, that need to be made. So with that
we'll open it up to the uh the floor for questions. Uh
we'll start with committee members and again, please limit
your comments to 5 minutes. So we can get to everybody. Uh,
Oh, I'm sorry. Add Alderman. Conway is a non-committee
member.
Yeah, you're on, okay.
For. Yeah, you're on for Quorum already. You and Alderman
Fuentes. All right. We'll open the floor, Sharon Alderman.
Lee is a non-member on as well.
Oh okay, Alderman. Lee as a rule, 59 non-committee
participant. Thank you.
Okay. Alderman. Central Lopez.
Thank you chairman. Um,
In regards of the of the changes and the amendments to the
ordinance and I think concerned about the um that 1 of the
sponsors, even Alderman. Irving mentioned that uh if
anything the the ordinance already went far. But the 2
things that I think are really clear here that 1
the deputy mayor has been, um,
has been, uh, erased from the consultation here, uh, often
Consulting. Um,
With the deputy mayor.
And I think that 1 of my concerns right here with hearing
the
The Constitutional, the Constitutional challenges that we
already hear from several organizations. Um, what it what I
I think we're seeing like the issues with not having
checks, and balances, right? My concern with, with this, if
it's going farther and I understand the superintendent has
um, jurisdiction on almost all authority over this
this but we also have seen that how they played out and
continue to play it out every month in police misconduct
cases and issues of civil rights litigation so much that
right now, we even have to have a whole division for civil
rights litigation. So my question is and I want to follow
with Alderman, Irving mentioned. If this was, if anything
looked to be a more collaborative approach, what is the
rationale to giving even more discretion to the Chicago
Police Department, understanding that we need to have you
anything more checks and balances? We have a salt civilian
oversight of, of, um, of of Civilian oversight or
commission that was elected. I would like to see kind of
where they are. I've sent, you know, there have been people
from my own District that have expressed concerns as well.
Those Commissioners that were elected by the community to
serve and and oversee this, I think the lack of oversight
and if anything even broader powers to me is a huge
concern. So that's my first question. What is the rationale
on on giving broader Powers? Even now we have 1 of the
co-sponsors with concerns. I thought that
The idea was to get even further support from the council.
Yeah, just to respond to that all due respect all, but it's
not, it's not accurate to say that. The deputy mayor is
being erased. In fact, their 2 points in that paragraph.
Not 1 but 2, it clearly mandates consultation with the
deputy mayor, that's the exact wording and the ordinance in
paragraph. B, after Consulting, with the deputy mayor. And
then a few sentences later, once again, after Consulting
with the deputy mayor, so it mandates a Consulting role for
the deputy mayor, uh, for the superintendent to make this
decision. And again, the justification being that as the
city's, chief law enforcement officer. The superintendent
is a sworn uh position uh, recognized under the state law,
actually. And and he is the man who has the or you know,
woman as the case may potentially be, uh, has the final
decision-making Authority when it comes to discretionary
law enforcement purposes. So that's, that's already
enshrined. What we're mandating is he must make a decision,
using his full Authority as a sworn law enforcement
official in the
In the case of a temporary curfew with the consultation of
the deputy mayor for Public Safety right rather than make
it. So they both have to somehow sign off on it. Uh, to
elevate the deputy mayor into a co-equal position with the
superintendent for that moment, which would not be
appropriate. And again, the superintendent himself is the 1
that uh, has made such a claim again, my, my my
let me rephrase them, you know, when we have
The original, the original ordinance said that the
decisions and the Declaration was made jointly.
And that we know what a consultations are. I mean we can
consult anything but the decision and how the decision is
made to begin with. I think that's something that to me
must always have oversight and the more checks and balances
that we have the better off that we are again. I am
concerned that this is if anything with the previous um
concerns of several civil rights organizations uh this if
anything now gives even more um uh prerogative to the
superintendent to act. So if anything, like I said it gets
broader power. So I want to rephrase that uh, and I think
to me to consultation is very different than decision
making, right? So I think this ordinance provides uh, way
too much broader powers without consultation with again,
the Civil oversight that index in the city, people have
voted to have more oversight, more checks, and balances
this is anything move as in the opposite direction as the
council was discussing. So we indeed discuss this for 6
hours. I would imagine that after 6 hours.
We have come to something that is, if anything gives the
council more assurances that this will have checks and
balances again, I will say that we will love to hear. Also
for the oversight commission I hear from my own own
Representatives locally that are concerns, and this does
not make any better. So I will hope that the council and,
and personally, this, the resources that we spend on
policing on reactive methods, under a conium responses, a
better spend by actually providing a spaces. I would like
to see the part District here to Chicago Public Schools.
There's a wide range of options here. I think we're failing
once again or youth or city. This is not going to solve
anything, we know that. If anything uh we're going to be
back here and potentially with more misconduct cases, we
more lawsuits. And that is something that in my opinion,
will be irresponsible for us to conduct businesses like
this. I I don't see anybody from the Chicago Police
Department. I don't see anybody from the Law Department.
I think that this is given more broader Powers after such a
long debate, chairman I hope that we reconsider I will be a
no on this item. Okay.
All right. Yeah, thank you Alderman, uh, for your comments.
Um,
I would just respond that. Uh, no place else. Anywhere in
existing city. Code does the Police Superintendent have to
share a decision-making process with the non-sworn civilian
position. So, this is in fact, adding a layer of
accountability that doesn't exist anywhere else. It's not a
diminishment, uh, it's an addition. Uh, and again, it's,
there's significant justification for adding it, um, but
but it is an additional layer of oversight, uh, in
additional layer of Civilian input to a key law enforcement
decision that you will not find another example, anywhere
within the superintendent's, uh, existing Authority, uh,
chair recognizes Alderman Lopez,
The original.
Thank you, chairman and I uh, good afternoon members of the
committee. Um I support this ordinance in this effort, not
because it's perfect but because police law community and
both
Pro and proponents and opponents have come together.
To discuss this.
Um, 4 times as a matter of fact, but I want to highlight
something.
And that.
We've had ordinances where we've asked for outside, inputs.
A subject matter expert input. We did have, um, Chief Hine
here to discuss this with us with the law Department, with
the legal department from CPD, but I also want to take us
back a year ago.
Almost a year to the date.
because our own Inspector General, who many of us have
asked to offer insights on
Various ordinances as of late oind on.
The Chicago Police Department's preparedness for Mass
Gatherings which in part is what this is in.
Designed to address.
This report.
Which happy to share.
Touches on numerous issues. But I want to point out 3 in
particular.
That I think speak to our colleagues in some of the
concerns.
the Inspector General noted that
we needed to improve.
Policies and procedures for Mass arrests.
and,
that we actually were lacking certain considerations for
its implementation a year ago, a year ago,
It also goes on to State and I'm going to just jump around,
so forgive me.
That the Chicago Police Department, lacked comprehensive
guidance for the content or execution.
Of these Mass events. Going back to 2020.
And furthermore that cpd's crowd Management training.
Uh, following 2020 was outdated both in terms of its
Concepts and its tactics.
Subsequently.
CPD has issued special orders to address all of these
issues.
What has not caught up with the times?
Is how do we deal with?
Specific situations that arise in communities without
holding harm the entire city of Chicago.
This ordinance ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, not
only answers the questions.
Presented by the Inspector General, but also allows us to
deal with those situations as they arise in.
Specific communities. Whether it's streeterville whether
it's Back of the Yards, whether it's Linkin, Park, Rogers
Park, Austin, you name it. If something's happening, we
should be able to concentrate our efforts and address that
locally Through The Eyes of the superintendent. And the
deputy mayor that is exactly what we are. Proposing in this
ordinance today.
That's not in the books right now.
Any alternative notwithstanding the conversations about
investment and opportunity and programming and all that. I
get that's a long-term issue. This is the short-term triage
version of what we need to address.
and as someone who has had to look at the track marks on
Archer Avenue on Kedzie on Western, someone who literally
has heads who see
brain matter in the middle of the street.
Or who remembers when T when Caravan takeovers happen on
the southwest side and all of the sudden there's a body
that magically appears in the middle of Pulaski Road.
We have to be able to put the tools together to address
that.
To stop that.
And to also protect ourselves and our officers so that they
are on legal footing to do what they need to do. So that
we're not having conversations as it was just pointed out.
Oh, we're opening up ourselves to settlement know, ladies
and gentlemen. The settlements will happen if we don't
narrow the scope. If we don't codify what the rules of
engagement are, if we don't show, what we are allowing for
our police officers to do so that nobody has any confusion
moving forward.
Is this ordinance? Perfect. No. Are there things that I
wish were in there? Absolutely. But this is a step in the
right direction. This is called progress and as we deal
with the short term, yeah, let's have a conversation about
the programs that are out there. Let's talk about what's
going on at the parks. I believe 1 of our colleagues is now
in charge. Let's have that conversation.
But at the same time, let's have that conversation about the
the value system that's lacking in the city of Chicago. The
fact that no matter what we offer there's about 15 to 20%
of Our Youth and Young adults.
Who don't give a crap what you're trying to offer because
they are committed to becoming Tik Tok famous because they
want to be seen doing a donut in the middle of an
intersection while lighting it on fire and having their
friends. Hold on to to the hood.
we cannot forget that there are people who are
intentionally
Oblivious to what we offer and don't care.
The 80%, we can help the 80% we could separate, but you
also have to deal with those committed to the Anarchy in
the streets. And this allows us to get 1 Step Closer to
doing that. And I urge all my committee members to vote. I
on this matter. Thank you. Yeah, thank you Alderman Lopez.
And since you you brought up the revisions in the city's,
mass arrest policy, which should be a part of this
conversation, but I think it it Bears mentioning that
curfew enforcement does not involve Mass arrests. Curfew
enforcement, in fact is not involved arrests at all. A
curfew apprehension is not an arrest and this ordinance
will actually reduce significantly the possibility of mass
arrests occurring. When these teen Trends break out and
become chaotic and engaging criminal Behavior, the police
would prefer to have the alternative to enforce curfew
which does not result in arrests rather than have to issue
dispersal orders. And then
Make Mass arrests. When the dispersal orders are violated,
this is a much easier solution, uh, for all parties
involved. And I think it was appropriate that the mass
arrest policy be revised. And by all accounts, uh, it has
been. And I think the Inspector General has opined on that,
but it stands in contrast to the much lighter hand. That
would be implemented. If we had this policy in place, to
give them a better alternative to mass arrest. So thank
you. Uh, Alderman Lopez, um, remaining with the committee
members before we go to, uh, uh, the rule 59, non committee
members that do want to comment, um, honorable woman may
not have been worth,
Thank you, chair.
I I hope that the city also considers that our, our values
include uh, constitutionality of our policies and due
process. So I just want to put on record the groups that
have opposed this ordinance ACLU of Illinois.
caprini Green Legal Aid, Chicago Apple Seed Center, for
fair courts, Chicago Council of lawyers, Chicago, Freedom
School, Chicago, lawyers committee for civil rights
circles, and ciphers Community, Justice and civil rights
clinic at the Northwestern pritzker School of Law.
Final 5 campaign first defense. Legal aid, Juvenile.
Justice initiative.
Law Office of the Cook County public defender, legal
action, Chicago Liberation Library Levy, and Levy mando.
Legal aid, clinic of the University of Chicago Law School.
National lawyers, Guild, Chicago Shriver Center a property
law.
Stick talk Uptown people's Loss Center.
And and I I hope that we continue this conversation. I
understand that, uh, we need to do something to keep our
streets and our young people safe. Um, I'm just not sure,
we're there yet with this ordinance. Thanks chair. Thank
you. All Roman. Uh, further committee members comment
Vice chairman Yancey.
Thank you, chairman.
Uh, I find it hard to support this ordinance. I have a
couple, I don't know, questions concerns. Um,
I'm not sure if this is designed to protect property or
keep young people safe.
um, while I understand the need that exists, um,
given the circumstances around that the
The the the tension around ten takeovers last week, we had
1 of the warmest days of the year and I went through went
went to 2 different beaches in 2, different Wars, 1 mine
and 1 and uh Alderman. Chico's Ward. They were both closed
down.
there, a police car is blocking a parking lot and so if
we're not creating spaces for young people to congregate
and be young, um, but we are creating an ordinance that,
you know, while it doesn't arrest it does.
Create prohibitions for young people to be young in the
city. That's a bit of a problem for me. Um, and, you know,
to a point from my colleague Alderman Lopez from the 15th.
I know there are a lot of young kids that are doing bad
stuff and who are kind of, um, focused on that. I don't
think it's 1 in 5 children. I think that is a bit of an
exaggeration, but we should be spending. I think more of
our time as a council is trying to find ways to keep young
people safe. I mentioned this about a year ago when we had
2, young black boys who were killed leaving a downtown
school. I think about a couple days before our city council
meeting.
And I said in that moment, what are we doing to keep young
people safe?
And I don't know that this ordinance actually does that. Um,
and then this is more of a question. Um, when it comes to
Street takeovers, I understand that 1 of the issues that
exists for a law enforcement Community. Is that the the
chase the vehicle Chase policy?
How does this ordinance impact street takeovers? Because
that is a pretty big deal. In my ward. I've got about 3
locations along Lakeshore Drive, where these things tend to
take place on a regular basis. And if we haven't changed
the general orders that allow police to be able to chase.
Then how does this ordinance impact? The street takeovers
that are taking place in our neighborhoods.
Uh yeah, Vice chair. Would it would only apply uh at such a
time when there was a reason to believe that such a street
takeover would involve a predominance of unaccompanied
unaccompanied minors, which is highly unlikely. We've never
seen that. Actually the average age for the street
that involves Vehicles. Realistically is probably people in
people in their 20s. It isn't that there aren't some
minors? There, you might see the occasional 14 or 15 year
old, but clearly, it is not a predominant Gathering of
Youth under age 17 president. At these Street takeovers, if
there were a determination made using the criteria that the
superintendent, and the deputy mayor is supposed to make
that decision in advance. If they ever believe that there
will be 1 that involves mostly unaccompanied minors. This
ordinance then would apply. But I think most of us probably
wouldn't really Envision circumstances.
Out like that. Okay, thanks. I don't know any 15 year old
that owns 1 of those souped up Vehicles. It's just, you
know, at that stage in your life, you, you probably just
simply, don't have a, a car even sure. Is that just wanted
to again, kind of pivot on, you know what? Um, uh, my
colleague in 15 said, I I think those Street takeovers are
a huge nuisance in our neighborhoods and try to figure out
a way that we can support the police and figuring that out.
Um, would be helpful. And then lastly, uh, following our
last meeting spoke with um, president driver over at ccpsa
ccpsa. To ask if he had been consulted about this
ordinance. He said no, do we know if that's happened? Since
then, I did, I did call him, I had a brief conversation
with him. Uh, he indicated in that conversation, he wanted
to call me back. I'm assuming that he had some more, uh,
follow-up. He wanted to do. He did not call me back, but I
did reach out to him and, and make contact. Okay, so,
thanks, Jeremy Alderman, Vasquez.
Thank you chairman. Um,
uh,
This is a pretty challenging conversation. I do appreciate
that. People are trying to address.
Incident is a current in the immediate which is very
challenging and for all of us who talk about you know, root
cause and long-term solutions. They don't fundamentally
address when an incident occurred in real time. Um,
It's part of the reason, a lot of us have tension around
some of this conversation. Those of us who, um, aren't
supportive, it's that.
When we talk about those long-term Solutions and root
causes everyone always tells us, well, those are long term.
What we what do we need to do in the moment? Um,
But whenever we bring up those things is where we need
investment or programs or things to do, we never hear the
same level of support in moving, that forward. In fact what
we typically hear is well I don't know if you've got the
money to do it. Uh look at our budget, I don't think we, we
we, we can find the means. And so those things that are
admittedly long term bigger solutions that everyone says,
hey those are great for the long term when it actually
comes to moving those forward. They don't move.
So if I saw the same level of passion and the same level of
effort in supporting those kind of things, I could see
having the conversation about what it looks like to do
things, uh, that are long term as well as what we need to
do in the moment, right? And and I think that's just
1. It never gets answered and this um ordinance doesn't
answer it either. I think you know there were conversations
about some of our colleagues about going after the event
promoters, right? Like maybe that's a more precise way to
address it. Even in that conversation we never think about
how challenging it is for somebody who may be younger and
want to put together something for youth to even do. So in
this city, everything we try to do is got its own
bureaucracy and its own challenges and getting it.
Done. So when we don't provide the positive ways for people
to, to channel that energy and all we're doing is looking
at punitive.
It leads me to the following question, right? Who's the 1?
Who's going to most be penalized for something like this?
And that's where we end up with.
My biggest fundamental problem is that, although we're
creating tools.
We can't create the way people decide to implement them.
We're not going to see them in places where somebody may
have taken over the street, but depending on what the
neighborhood is, or what part of town, or the means, and
income of the people that are taking over the street,
you're just not going to see the implementation of this.
And what that fundamentally does.
And I'm not saying that's the intent of what was being
drafted here. In fact I don't believe that's to be the
intent but the result is larger criminalization of Youth.
If we're saying that, it's not even going to stop the
people in the cars blocking the street because they're
adults.
Then, I don't know what we're doing here because we're
creating a tool to say we're doing a thing that's not
addressing. What the bigger Public Safety challenge is and
so, um,
you said at the beginning,
the mayor, uh, the superintendent runs the police
department and I
Agree with that independent of who's, in the position. I
think a lot of us support superintendent Snelling, right?
But the same thing that's true is that the superintendent
doesn't run the city.
So although we can give a superintendent the tools to
utilize, we have to deal with the repercussions of
everything that goes wrong and undoubtedly like everything
else we pass here something well and we'll be on the other
side of the equation so I guess my my only
question, I have
Is.
Although there's language related to the deputy mayor and
people may have different concerns about who's in the
position or that person being the 1, that's a check and
balance.
What the change? Did it didn't strip it away but it sure as
heck, watered it down.
So in of having a real conversation, 1 can consult the same
way. You consulted with Anthony driver. Hey, I called they
were going to call me back. The call never happened. That
was the consultation. I'm going to make a decision, there's
no check and balance and accountability in that. And that's
a that's a big concern even if it was an alder being the
second person to check in or somebody from the ccpsa, any
of those things to me, might create the accountability
while also giving the Alder person on the ground, the way
to say, yeah, you know what? In this instance, we have too
many people on this corner. I would give it the thumbs up
to go forward.
Again, I get the people trying to do it, the best of
intentions. I don't believe you're doing it with bad,
intention at all, but I'm thinking about what my experience
was. As a person of color growing up in the city of
Chicago, which is a different 1 than some other people who
were drafting this
um,
And even with the best of intention.
There's going to be kids out there that are going to be put
in positions that are going to be Troublesome. And so I
just
I wish you would have partnered and listen more to maybe,
to, to automate Urban suggestions in a way that might have
helped. Um,
I get that. It's good intention. I just don't think it's
going to play out in the way people want, uh, as far as
addressing the issue and it may lead to more problems. So I
won't be able to support it. Thank you. Yeah, thank you.
Uh, Alderman Vasquez Alderman Lopez. Did you have a brief
point before we go to, uh, sorry? President protest? Just
wanted to do a quick point of clarification that the
beaches are open from Memorial Day to Labor Day. That's
been the law for years. So okay.
Yes, I don't believe I've seen anybody get kicked out of
the north side beaches in any of that time. Thank you. All
right.
Alderman. Nugent.
Thank you, chairman. Um, I'm going to be supporting this
ordinance today and
I think there are a lot of checks and balances in the
ordinance. I know nothing is perfect but there's a few
things that I think are pretty relevant to the
conversation. Uh, first and foremost,
it has to be whenever the superintendent in consultation
with the deputy mayor has determined, there's probable
cause
And I think that the term probable cause is incredibly
important here. That means there's a reasonable belief,
that something is likely or imminent to happen. Probable,
cause in, and of itself means more than a hunch. So
probable cause is more than a hunch. And I think that's
very critical. Uh, if the superintendent in the in, in
consultation with the deputy mayor believes that there's
probable, cause that a very large-scale Gathering is going
to happen. Uh, the other thing is
Following that sentence, the super the superintendent May
declare a curfew. We have it. The way this ordinance is
written. It doesn't say the superintendent, shall, and
shall means, must May means can. So you have to have
probable cause
you have to have some consultation and then when you have
the aforementioned, you may, um, some other things that I
was looking for, in this ordinance, which I'm happy to see
is is there a defenses um that somebody could use if
perhaps they were affected by this ordinance? If they were
accompanied by a parent or a guardian if they were on an
errand, if they were at their place of employment, um, I'm
very happy to see those written in this. I think that it's
very important that we've taken those things into
consideration.
and finally, um,
There's quarterly reporting and we have the opportunity to
check and adjust as a body here in the council and I am
going to be happy to support this and I think with the
checks and balances in place contemporary contemporaneously
with the ability for us to come back and meet to discuss.
And if we have problems with it, um, we can amend from
there. So thank you, Mr. Chairman for the work on this, I'm
happy to support it today. Yes, thank you councilor. Um,
further comments from committee members before we go to,
uh,
Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman's pisado followed by Alderman
Fuentes.
Thank you, chairman.
Um, we heard a lot of good stuff.
Uh, I do, I do want to start off by saying that this is a
start people. This is the start, we can always come back,
modify it change it after we see what happened. I
personally don't think it's going to be used that much but
it's just once again another tool in the toolbox I did
consult with a high ranking police officer last night and
the deputy mayor about this. They're in support of this, as
we know, our mayor doesn't really support curfews, which I
understand but obviously he's not
Banging the drum and fighting us on us or having a group of
people come out here to try to stop this. So I I I can't
speak for him but I I believe maybe he feels that we have
to do something, we are solving something here. 1 of my
colleagues said we're not solving anything. Or I do believe
we're solving something. I I believe we're solving a safety
issue for kids. None of us want to see, we can all agree.
We don't want to see any young kids, get killed
unnecessarily. So we, I, I believe we could possibly be
saving some lives because
This, uh, fat. Once again the fact that Deputy Mayor isn't
here or CPD, that's got to tell us something that they're
okay with this. Once again, this only applies the miners,
okay, this doesn't apply to adults with can, or can't be a
problem. I know some people brought that up because I know
there's problems with not just miners. There are some
problems with adult kids, which adults mean at 18 and over.
Um, so this isn't going to be 20 kids playing baseball in a
park people that the Caps are going to come in and say
curfews here. Get the hell out of here. We're going to
arrest you. This isn't that what this? This is what this is
not what this was about. Um, my 1 kaliste did touch on, he
used percentages. I don't know what the percentage is, but
Everybody knows not all minors, want something to do. They
don't want a job, they don't want activity. All they want
to do is close problems. Wreak havoc for whatever reason
is, maybe they got rich parents maybe they live a life of
crime, I don't know, but not every kid is looking for
something to do. I know kids in my own Community, not every
kid's looking for a job, some are some are
So I just say I feel we have to do something, I think it's
a good start. Um if we need to come back
At the end of the year, uh, end of the summer, I mean, or
next year. Um, once again, it's a start and I will be
supporting this. So thank you, Mr. Chairman
Uh, thank you alderman, fentes.
Thank you, chairman. Uh I first I want to acknowledge that.
I understand that you you're responding to some serious
things in your ward. Ugh.
And and you're doing what, what many older people would do
to be responsive to their constituents and ensure the
safety of their families. Um, to I I appreciate that that
you're being responsible, that's what any good older person
would do.
I am a bit concerned.
Because in my personal belief, I just don't believe that
snapped curfews are going to resolve for the problem that
we're seeking to resolve. Today, I spent 10 years, in
education, our high school students,
14 to 18 years old. I spent a majority of my career. Um,
with young people
And there is a, a super abundance of research, not just in
the state of Illinois, but across the country that shows us
that curfews just don't work, right? Uh, they haven't and
we we have a curfew here in the city of Chicago for young
people, uh, 16 years and younger.
I have a couple of concerns. The first 1 is uh the time in
which communication takes place by oemc,
Uh the superintendent decides that a snap curfew is going
to be enforced. That is communicated to oemc to send
Communications to the families.
um,
how are we contacting every single parent in the city of
Chicago? Because we don't know which young people are going
to attend a teen takeover, right?
Are we sending it in multiple languages for parents that
are not English-speaking?
And what different modes are we going to use? And how do we
ensure that parents and young people are going to receive
that notification on time to not be in violation of the
snap? Curfew?
Yeah, thank you Alderman. Some of that actually was covered
in the last meeting but um, the, the ordinance does
specifically require these communication channels,
communication Outreach. Uh, let's, let's start backwards,
uh, to the event itself because I think that's the, most
important piece of this. Is it mandates a 30 minute period
of communication before any curfew, uh, or enforcement
activity can take place which is the current practice.
Again, I've been out there in these events have been
embedded with the police watching. Curfew enforcement, take
place when the 10:00 hour hits and the current curfew that
exists on the books becomes enforceable. Prior to that,
they get on the PA system, they Park cars, uh, CPD vehicles
and strategic locations.
Where the speakers that are typically in the grills of the
vehicles when they're SUVs or sometimes, they're mounted,
um, externally and and the case of the Vans and they'll
orientate themselves towards the uh, where where the
Gathering is and make the announcement and it's loud enough
that everybody hears it. So or occasionally you'll see them
drive up and down the street and make the announcement that
way. Um so that's 1 way of communicating to the group in
question that curfew enforcement is going to begin in 30
minutes, 20 minutes, 15 minutes, 10 minutes, I've seen them
count down, so that is, uh, spelled out in this ordinance,
and that's current practice as well. Um, as far as having
Advanced notification, we've also seen that happen in the
last couple of months, where the Chicago public school
system has gotten directly involved in attempting to
communicate to parents the awareness of a teen Trend being
planned in a given location CPD makes the determination.
Based on whatever criteria they're using, could be, the
organizer could be the language and the Flyers and the
social media posts that are announcing the event, uh, where
CPD believes that this is an event that should not take
place. They then communicate to the families. Um, they
they're doing that now. So I think if this ordinance
passes, it seems to really lean into that and to require,
uh, a diligent effort at communication, we've had 2 recent
incidents,
Where both the uh the deputy mayor of Public Safety and his
team. Um and the community violence Interrupters that that
were closely with these groups have basically taken credit
and I'll give them the credit because I think they're right
for preventing 2. Teen trend takeovers, from actually
happening, that would have happened if it were not for the
communication that took place. So you can't really prove
something didn't happen. But they believe that this is the
case. Uh, and I I'm again, I'm inclined to believe that
I've had, uh, a much greater level of involvement in
conversation with them since I became 1 of the lead
sponsors of this ordinance. And I see the work they do. I
see how effective they are. I see the tools in the
techniques that they're using. Yes, bilingual communication
is part of what they do when they, when they feel they need
to do it. It depends on the neighborhood they're working
and obviously, but I trust their judgment on knowing when
to do that and the goal here.
Is to prevent these dangerous events from happening. It's
not to let them happen, so we can go in and try to stop
them. It's to actually prevent them proactively from
happening. And in these 2 instances, uh, clearly that was
the case. So, um, you know, I, I want to give them credit,
uh, for the good work that they are doing and I also want
to give them a little bit of Faith, uh, and and confidence
that they will do it. They will do even more communication
and it'll be even more effective. Um, if they have this
tool,
And I appreciate the emphasis on, you know, the prevention
component. Because I believe that's where the investment
should be made, right? Is investing in organizations, and
peacekeepers and violence. Prevention Interrupters. That
can, in fact, prevent these incidents from taking place in
our community. I still am concerned with the language
piece. I received CPS, newsletters and notifications, and
they don't come in multiple languages. When I received
them, right? Everything that I read is in English and an
overwhelming majority of parents in my community. For
example, are Spanish speaking and I want to make sure that
if we're going to be appropriately, communicating with
parents that we are reaching them in the ways that they
need to be communicated with. I'm also concerned about, you
know, young people who may be attend parochial schools or
other schools that are not within the CPS Network. How are
we reaching those families, um, in the network? And then,
my, my last 2 questions is, did we give enough time to the
Law Department to review. Uh, The Substitute that we
adopted today?
Yeah we did. In fact I have uh Mike Howlett from lrb is
here, he's really the lead drafter. Uh he had been in
communication with the law Department um
Mike, any any
Comment, you want to make at this point.
Hi. Uh Mike Holland from the legislative reference Bureau,
I would defer to the law department on whether or not they
dealt, they had enough time to review the ordinance.
Corporation Council in the Law Department.
Uh, we did not get a chance to review this latest version.
All right. Uh, did we at all uh asked to convene with ACLU,
to take a look at the substitute that we voted to adopt
today?
Uh, I know, but I did communicate with them uh, throughout
this process that they would be assured that their
opportunity to testify. Uh, I'm not sure if, uh, Mr.
Schneider, I'm not sure if he can claim to adequately
represent them. I know they're part of his Coalition, um,
but they were told specifically that they would have the
opportunity at at the previous hearing and at this 1. Uh,
and if they wanted to submit any written statement for the
record, I'm not sure. They did. Did we have, did we get
written communication from them? We did. Okay. So written
communication from them as part of the record of this
hearing,
Uh, I'm going to be a no vote today, and a no vote in
Council tomorrow. I I, you know, research says, curfews
don't work. I've worked with young people for a bulk of my
career. Um, I truly believe that we need to double down on
the investment of prevention. I do believe that it works.
Uh, I don't believe a snap curfew will I do appreciate the
effort to keep
People safe. Um, and it's a response to our constituents.
Uh, I won't take that away from anybody, so I respect your
time, uh, and your leadership chairman. I'm just, I can't
vote yet on this. I fully appreciate that, uh, likewise
Alderman Point. As I, I respect your position and I will
say this, uh, since our last Committee hearing, uh, I have
participated in 4 youth, Le Roundtable discussions 4 and it
has opened my eyes and I agree with you 100% on that issue.
We need to do more, we need to amplify youth voices, we
need to find more ways to provide Alternatives. Diversions
programming, training, support, everything, even a specific
recommendations that came about from some of those
discussions that I've had with expanding the hours at Park
district field houses, you know, to finding different ways
to, uh, engage youth at our criminally involved, with
different things and through the Justice, the juvenile
justice system and and get them on a better track. I, I
couldn't agree more with what you're saying, um, and I
think,
We we really need to lean into that as well. So we agree on
some points here so very good. Um,
Quickly Alderman Spas because we we've got to get to the
rule 59 that's real quick. I just a point of clarification
I had on my notes I forgot to ask it so we know we're
talking about Team Takeover so if its 16 year old is there
with their 21 year old sibling. Does that mean they're with
an adult? Could anybody here can answer that? Yeah it to
yes. And that's the existing curfew law. It's for
unaccompanied minors. Only it applies to unaccompanied
minors, only, if they
Have a family member, even some other adult that they say is
is supervising them. They are not an unaccompanied minor.
That is existing curfew law and this does not alter that.
Okay, thank you.
Alderman Gardner.
Thank you, chairman.
and, you know, I'm listening to, uh, a lot of the different
opinions from our colleagues and and I can appreciate um,
the amount of effort that's going in, um, in in the
consideration for feelings to consideration for safety.
Uh, the consideration for inherent dangers.
And I haven't heard anybody really talk about some of the
victims of some of the issues that are going down, and I
and I go right to, I think about the young couple that were
here in Chicago last summer.
Uh, a young married couple when a woman was walking down
the street.
And it was reported that she was uh pepper sprayed kicked
and punched.
And while I get while being pregnant ended up losing the
baby had a miscarriage um and and some of the serious
problems that are occurring. Like that, I I hear we're
talking about, we're concerned about um,
Hurting people's feelings. Somebody's going to be offended.
I just haven't heard really a lot of people talking about
the victims of some of these problems down there and I
think it's really important to start addressing some of
that. And and I want to remind people that there are
victims to some of these issues that we're talking about
today. And and I think 1 of the things that that I would do
differently, is that I would have introduced this earlier
and I appreciate the effort that you have done, uh, all the
men. I can share my Hopkins and staying with this and and I
I I can understand the amount of push back that you're
getting, but I respect the effort that you have given. And,
and we have to think about I think the safety of all people
people in this city. Uh, and and start putting aside, maybe
feelings and start putting at the Forefront Public Safety.
So thank you for your time and thank you for your efforts.
Yeah, thank you Alderman further committee members.
Okay, we will go to the uh, rule 59, participants, uh,
Alderman. Rossana. Rodriguez Sanchez is actually had her
hand up for quite a while. Thank you for your patience
alderwoman. Um, please unmute.
Thank you chairman. Um, I appreciate, um,
The ability to discuss this.
Um, I don't know if you all remember, uh, during our last
term, there was the tragic killing of a child in Millennium
Park and we came together.
For a council meeting and we discussed, um, curfew again.
And we already had a curfew but we talked extensively
about, um, making the curfew earlier. And I remember that
at that point, I, um, sent all of my colleagues and email
with 3 different studies from 3, different universities,
um, 3 different researchers, that spoke about how curfews
don't work that there is no evidence.
That they worked at the evidence points to the contrary. I
also printed
the studies and I put them in everybody's, um, desk during
the meeting. And I remember speaking on the floor that they
asking my colleagues to
think about evidence and to,
Passed legislation that was evidence based. I know chair
that you are very much, um, acquainted with evidence based
policy making because during coid you were probably 1 of
the
Most informed people we know that violence is also a public
health matter.
Um, I am trying to understand what is the evidence that has
been used to create this policy?
And I am also and I'm I'm saying this very respectfully. I
really want to be able to understand why there was not a
chance for all of these organizations or at least some of
them to come and testify so that people could ask
questions. I understand that there were written comments
that were provided, but there is a lot of organizations
that are opposed to this that are civil rights
organizations lawyers.
That work on civil rights that are telling us that they are
not okay with this. And I I really want us as a city to do
better in terms of using evidence to create public policy.
So I I really want to be able to understand why that
opportunity wasn't offered and what is the evidence that we
have to go with and say that, this, this is going to work,
this is going to be different because we did pass that
earlier curfew. And it didn't help us. Like we're back here
again with the same issue.
Yeah. Uh thank you Alan for your comment. I would just point
out that um while we certainly have had a continuation of
these types of incidents uh that were car police response.
Um, there hasn't been uh, an incident at Millennium Park
Millennium Park since that tragedy. Uh, since they did
imply, the curfew and the unaccompanied minor policy, um,
Millennium Park has not had another incident. So, uh, but
there was not an incident before that either, I that was an
isolated incident that happened. It was incredibly
unfortunate.
I don't think that you can attribute the fact that it
didn't happen again like that is correlation, right? I I I
am trying to understand why.
And what is the evidence that we are using to to to get
this legislation like to get to this legislation? What,
what kind of research have we looked at? Can you tell me?
Well, on the question of whether or not curfews work and I
at some point it really becomes a matter of opinion.
Although, you know, I've read the research, um, I read the
St, Louis study, uh, some of the other material that's been
provided as part of this discussion and it does appear that
the to make the claim that curfews are effective at
preventing youth from leaving the house and going
somewhere. Uh, there does seem to be significant amount of,
uh, support for the contention, that that doesn't happen.
You know, that youth are going to
Do what they want to do, you know, with their parents tell
them you can't leave and they can find a way to sneak out
the window. They're going to sneak out the window. If the
state tells them that we have a curfew and you have to stay
home and they want to go out, they're, they're probably
going to go out right? Young. People do it. Young people
have always done, uh, which is to kind of find a way around
authorities. So, to the extent that curfews don't work and
and that, uh, regard, I, I would agree with you, but to the
extent that they work to quell a large Gathering of
unaccompanied minors when they're in engaging in a, you
know, in a street takeover or some other type of
potentially violent activity. I believe they work because
I've seen them work again, going back to the existing
curfew law at 10 p.m. the police begin. Enforcing curfew
violations when there's a large Team Takeover on the
street. And I personally seen on numerous occasions that
once the curfew enforcement starts the uh, the activity
stops. So it's an effective law enforcement tool and that
limited instance for
For those limited reasons and the police have asked us for
this expansion of that Tool, uh, to be able to use it
prospectively rather than wait for the Youth Gathering to
happen. And then enforce the curfew to announce in advance,
that there will be a curfew implied. If the youth Gathering
happens, it gives them the ability to stop it, uh, before
it starts. And, and when these things turn violent, I think
this is something, we all agree on. It's much better to
have them, stop before they start. And again, there has not
In an incident Millennium Park since then, I think it is
difficult to make a direct cause and effect relationship.
Um, that would require uh further study that. No, no 1 in
this room has done and I'm not aware of any that has been
done. But I will point out that before the curfew and the
unaccompanied, minor policy was imposed to Millennium Park.
There actually had been a number of teen trends that
happened there. Uh, there was some violence. Fortunately
there, there wasn't any fatal shootings, but there were
fights, certainly, um, there were things that were
happening in Millennium Park that led to the expansion, uh,
under mayor Lightfoot of of this provision and it hasn't
since. So if, if you're, you know, inclined to support a
support a curfew, you're going to believe there's a cause
and effect relationship there if you if you don't but, but
but there are share, but there are studies and we were not
able to discuss those in in this committee. And we were
also not able to hear the voices of a lot of people that
dedicate their lives.
To um, enforce civil rights, right? So I was asking why we
didn't get that opportunity because I I'm not a member of
this committee. But I'm very committed to, um, to social
justice. And I really wanted to be able to understand like
what the opposition was about. And what were the arguments?
And what, how were we going to manage those arguments? I
haven't heard you answer that question, but I I know that I
don't have a lot of time. So I wanted to ask 1 last
question as well. When you say consultation
What does that mean? Is there a definition of consultation
because you just said that you call, um, Anthony driver. He
didn't return your call that counts as consultation because
you called him. So what is consultation what constitutes
consultation when it comes to this ordinance and to the
Police Superintendent Consulting with uh, the deputy mayor.
Yeah, well I did to your point. I did call Mr. Driver
specifically to talk about this with him. Um, he answered,
we had a brief conversation where I told him the purpose of
call. You know that I wanted to talk this through with him
him and he indicated he needed to have another conversation
you know to with someone else. He wasn't ready to have that
conversation with me. Uh and I respected that and said call
that and said call me back and he didn't. So that was does
that count as consultation probably not because we didn't
get into the substance, you know, uh but it wasn't attempt
by me to reach out to him and for whatever reason it did.
Yeah, no, I understand.
What count?
The superintendent with the deputy mayor. This can he say
that? Can he say? I called him and, you know, we didn't
get, okay, I right, I see the point you're making. Yeah.
I'm, I'm sorry. What?
Oh, right. All right. Well, let it's fine. Let me just let
me. I'll just respond to her and then we'll move on. But
the the in the ordinance, the the invocation of the word
consultation, we didn't Define it, you know, that's classic
drafting of an ordinance where you you define terms, that
you think that uh, need further definition, you don't
Define terms when they're used in a colloquial sense in the
common vernacular consultation means simply that. It means
that the deputy, uh, mayor for Public Safety must be
involved in the decision. The superintendent has to
proactively consult him and and that's what that word means
that they have to have a conversation. They have to talk
about the specific uh matter of a temporary curfew. They're
not to talk about the weather, the Cubs, the socks, the
the pope, you know, they're supposed to consult on the
issue as they decision-making process, for the
superintendent, making his decision. So um, that word
simply means what what you would think it does, and we
didn't feel no further elaboration was needed.
so, okay, I I want to remind us all that our our
And there are really good reasons for it. So the idea that
we just trust and like, you know, believe that that the
best is going to happen. I think it's misguided, I hope
that my colleagues reconsider. I thank you for allowing me
to speak chair.
Yeah, thank you alderwoman. Uh, the chair recognizes
alderwoman Silverstein
Okay, motion to do pass and I'm assuming a role call would
be indicated. So
We will take the role.
Do pass motion on the substitute ordinance, Vice chairman
jansy.
Alderman, Chico.
Alderwoman Gutierrez.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman. Curtis
Alderwoman tabaris.
Alderman, sinol Lopez.
Aluan Fuentes.
Alderman. Talia pharaoh.
Alderman pisado.
Alderman Vasquez.
No, he's here. Uh, alderman canson
Alderman Gardner.
Alderman. Martin I'm at rule 59. No.
Alderwoman may not happen worth.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderwoman Haden.
Alderman Silverstein.
Uh, president protan.
Nugent.
Um, we have 9 eyes and unless I missed count 6. Nays.
Oh, uh Alderman. Hopkins is a yes.
10 to 6, uh, the motion carries
Uh no further business to come before the committee. We
will have a motion to adjourn by Alderman Lopez hearing no
objection meetings Journey. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you, appreciate it.
Figure out how to solve.
6.
7 077, 10 to 7.
Thank you. Thank you.
10 to 7. 10 to 7, correct, the record.
Miscounted.
Well, yeah, because I don't think the strips it out.