1 2 3. 1 2 3. Check. Check 1 2 3.
How you doing?
No.
11.
Stop.
Stop it. Stop it.
The 1 oclock.
The 1 oclock meeting of the Committee on Public, Safety will
be called to order. We'll start with a roll, call to
establish Quorum Vice.
establish Quorum, Vice chair, jansy present.
Alderman, Chico.
Alderwoman Gutierrez.
Thinks she's walking in alderman.
Thinks she's walking in Alderman Lopez Alderman. Curtis
Alderwoman tabaris.
Alderman cinch.
Alderman, sinol Lopez.
Alderwoman Fuentes.
Alderman. Talia Farrell.
Alderman pisado.
Alderman Vas.
Alderman Vasquez Alderman, kuden Alderman Gardner.
Alderman Vasquez Alderman, kuden Alderman, Gardiner
Alderman. Martin.
Alderman manah hopworth.
Uh,
alderwoman Gutierrez.
Alderman Haden.
Alderwoman Silverstein.
Thank you. Uh we have a quorum. We will begin with public.
speakers uh George Blakemore.
Yes.
My name is Mr. George Blakemore. And I am a concern.
Citizen and you're eating if you want to
Citizen. And you're eating, if you want to mental
It says.
It says and name it co-creating. A new section of 8407.
regarding a thought.
regarding a thought against the public officials.
Public officials.
Public officials today, a scumbag.
Scumbags.
and if anybody assault them,
And if anybody assault them there, no better than if
somebody assault me sign. Absorb
somebody assault me. Sign up for it. Public officials are
scumbags.
The black ones, the white men.
The black ones, the white men, Hispanic and all. So
Who do you think?
who Do You Think You Are?
Who do you think?
Who do you think I am?
We?
Anybody. And if anybody thought,
and if anybody
like,
Come on.
With.
This.
Else.
What they?
Nothing.
Nothing nothing.
Nothing.
And the public.
And got.
And got the white black.
We are the 1 that need.
We are the 1 that need the holy people.
We are the 1 that need people.
We need reparations, you.
We need reparations. You need to treat me.
White.
White women.
Black.
For me.
I,
You.
Are not.
oh, we do have 2 uh members of the committee who seek a
oh we do have 2 uh members of the committee, who seek a
rule 159 uh participation
rule 159. Uh participation. Uh, can I have a motion to
allow for Alderman Talia?
allow for Alderman? Talia, faroh, and Alderman Vasquez to
participate. So moved by Alderman Martin.
participate. So moved by Alderman, Martin hearing no
objection, uh, Alderman. Talia faroh, can you un
objection. Uh, Alderman. Talia faroh, can you unmute and
signify president chairman? Thank you.
signify president chairman? Thank you Alderman Vasquez with
us.
President chairman.
President chairman, thank you. You'll be added for purposes
of Quorum. Uh, the next public speaker is Charles Spence.
Good afternoon committee. Thank you for this opportunity to
speak.
I very much appreciate the.
I very much appreciate the dedication and effort that went
into passing the snap.
into passing the snap curfew ordinance.
but the reality is,
But the reality is it is time to Let It Go.
And that reality is defined by 2 things.
even if a revised ordinance gets,
even if a revised ordinance gets the support of 34 Alders,
the police commiss,
the police commissioner is on record as saying he never
asked for it and even if available he wouldn't use it.
So what's the point your efforts are best Direct?
So what's the point? Your efforts are best directed
elsewhere and that leads to the second point.
elsewhere and that leads to the second point point because
there is a better option now available for your dedication
and effort,
dedication and effort, drone, use by the police department,
which the police commissioner is on record as saying,
which the police commissioner is on record as saying he
does want
On June.
On June 4th, he said they could be very very helpful.
On June 4th, he said they could be very very helpful in
certain situations. What I would like to see is
collaboration where we are all talking about. The same
thing and finding out what the most effective ways to use
drones would be
Ladies and gentlemen.
Ladies and gentlemen, leadership at its finest.
so,
So there it is. There's the silver platter.
House Bill 3902 the FAA.
House Bill 3902 the FAA law enforcement tool kit and
forfeiture.
forfeiture fund 1505 are sitting right.
forfeiture fund. 1505 are sitting right on it for you.
So now,
So now it's your turn.
Look.
Look again at the Drone strategies already.
Look again at the Drone strategies already in place at law
enforcement entities in the area.
enforcement entities in the area throughout the state and
across the country.
Then sit down with the relevant parties.
Then sit down with the relevant parties and collaborate on
an ordinance.
an ordinance tailored to the city's needs authorizing.
an ordinance, tailored to the city's needs authorizing and
detailing drone use by the Chicago Police.
detailing drone. Use by the Chicago Police Department,
The police commissioner.
The police commissioner wants this.
Hear that again.
Hear that again? The police commissioner wants this.
The city residents, need this.
The city residents. Need this businesses in Chicago. Need
this visit.
this visitors to Chicago, need this?
I had an alder.
On.
On this committee.
In February of.
In February of this year.
Tell me personally.
I will get it done.
The door is wide open.
The door is wide open committee. This is as good as it
gets.
Please get it done.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is.
Our next speaker is Danielle, Carter. Followed, by our
final speaker. Zoe Le
speaker. Zoe. Lelay
Okay.
Okay, so we had 0202025.
Okay, so we had 0202025 Dash 0000018 151.
Okay, so we had 0202025 Dash, 0000018 15154 new law
section.
section 84078
Section 84078 create a new ordinance regarding
Section 84078, create a new ordinance regarding assault
against public officials.
What this means, this ordinance will make.
what this means, this ordinance will make assaulting a
public official like an alderman city worker or other City.
employee a specific offense on the Chicago.
employee a specific offense on the Chicago Law. It may come
with enhanced.
with enhanced penalty.
Could be used to.
Could be used to deter, this is what I want. You all to
really listen.
really listen to, to deter protests or confrontations seen
as threats.
This might raise first.
This might raise First Amendment concerns know it not it
don't raise.
don't raise it is.
You cannot you already.
You cannot you already have laws on the books about uh
assault.
assaulting public offender offenders. I mean officials
you all cannot tell us how to protest and when a protest
and what to say when we protest and what you deem to be a
threat? First of all, you all allow illegal.
threat? First of all, you all allow illegal aliens up and
out here tearing up
out here, tearing up the city.
Calling for abolish.
calling for abolishing ice calling for a ice death to our
country. And you are our condoling that some of you.
country. And you are our condoling that some of you all all
of us, Byron Central Lopez on TV,
of us, Byron Central Lopez on TV saying, F ice and, and
abolish ice.
And then you go and you are all a whole and sem.
And then you go and you are all a whole and seminars,
telling them the rights that they don't have. And you think
we as American citizens.
we as American citizens are going to allow you all to take.
All right? And
All right, and our first amendment while telling the legal
aliens were rights, they don't have. Y'all must be out of
y'all mind.
y'all man. I want y'all to know the day. Y'all passed. This
I would we would definitely flood this uh the legal.
I would we would definitely flood this uh the legal system
with uh Federal lawsuits with lawsuits because that's in
France, that's a going against our first.
France that's a going against our First Amendment right?
How dare you all tell illegals and double down telling the
legals the laws they don't have.
legals the laws, they don't have and telling them what they
what they can do, what?
they, what they can do, what they can't do and do process
all while trying to take.
all while trying to take American citizens laws and you
think we going to sit there and allow that I wish any of
you.
you all in this would, or would would, uh, vote for this
because we're going to make sure all your extensions know
that you are taking our voice. You all are the real
dictators you all.
dictators. You all are the real
communist. You all are the real Kings.
communist. You all are the real Kings and guess what? We
are fighting back so I don't know.
are fighting back. So I don't know what you all the mate. I
don't know what made this.
don't know what made this this idiot. Mayor try to do this
little ordinance and you all decide within think, that's
okay. And I don't know why, what makes you all think that
we are going to go?
are going to go for it but I'm letting you know, the
American citizens.
American citizens are rising up. The Chicago citizens are
rising.
rising up and I wish you all would try to take our first
amendment. This will be a lawsuit. We'll make sure
everybody.
everybody in this.
See that Chicago.
I go on right? Okay.
I go on, right. Okay, so now you're creating a new
ordinance to protect public officials from the public I
have.
have 4 lawsuits right now because City officials the same.
ones. This ordinance would Shield violated my first
amendment rights.
amendment rights instead of fixing that instead of
respecting the Constitution.
respecting the Constitution you're doubling down, trying to
criminalize public.
criminalize public confrontation and descent. But that's a
democratic way.
democratic way, protect the corrupt and punish the people.
know 1 will be protesting if you were actually doing your
job with in
job with Integrity, if you weren't stealing property
laundering.
laundering funds and S silencing residents,
laundering funds, and S silencing residents, there will be
nothing to protest. You are public.
nothing to protest. You are public servants. That means you
work for us and if you can't handle
work for us. And if you can't handle being held
accountable, then step down, because
accountable, then step down because what you're doing now
isn't leadership, its legislative
leadership its legislative bullying to cover your own mess.
And I'm just
and I'm just trying to figure out where is Jesse forent.
Fuentes because she just was in here.
the first woman and youngest older person to lead the 26
Ward and a proud member of the alphabet gang. Where's the
solid?
solidarity? Where is the press conference? Because when
it's time to show up for illegals, you're all lined up
front and center. But when a black and brown queer owned
space, a space built from the ground up and buying for the
community gets hit by the mass shooting. You all go silent.
Not a single 1.
Not a single 1 of you stood, with the owners of artists.
Not a single 1 of you. Stood. With the owners of artists
Lounge is big. Business is a democratic way.
Lounge. It's big business is a democratic way, the
hypocrisy is real. Now I I
I rock with Riley and um, I understand it was a mass
shooting before.
shooting before then. Um, and but every time that I've
called Riley, when it's been an issue in his Ward,
called Riley, when it's been an issue in his Ward because I
have seniors that live in his Ward Riley,
have seniors that live in his Ward, Riley has always gotten
back to me and has got
uh, respect them for that. So I know that it's all sized to
that story. However,
uh,
Uh, dollars. Y'all don't respect black people at all.
Uh, dollars, y'all don't respect black people at all. And
y'all think that I don't know, like, I'm not sure if like
y'all counted us out, you know. Um, and think that this
Progressive weird movement is going to continue to happen
because it's not major.
because it's not majority of y'all that any of any of y'all
that vote for this. Um, this ordinance to be amended or to
be passed. I promise you. I already have a law.
be passed. I promise you. I already have a lawsuit against
3 of 3 of all 3, Al
3 of 3 of all 3 alderman for violation of my first
amendment. And I, this is just
amendment and I, this is just retaliation because I have a,
a, a, a list. Like I have a list of how you guys have been
trying to silence.
trying to silence me since I've been down here for 2 years
and it's just because I've been asking for the city to
settle my family's case with them unlocked
settle. My family's case with them unlock unlawfully
demolishing, my building. So we're we're here now.
demolishing, my building. So we're we're here now like
Like y'all, y'all.
Like y'all, y'all crazy a little bit.
Uh, please add alderwoman.
uh please add alderwoman and I hop in Worth to the
attendance roll call and uh Alderman. Happy with make some
motion to approve the
motion to approve, the rule 455 report hearing no comments
and uh objections. So ordered please add Alderman can
and uh objections. So ordered please, add Alderman, Canen,
uh to the attendance roll call as well.
uh, to the attendance roll call as well. Uh, the first item
before us, uh, submission from the, uh, Office of the mayor
and the department.
and the Department of Law, uh, is ordinance, 20.
and the Department of Law, uh, is ordinance, 202518154, and
Amendment of the mun,
Amendment of the municipal code regarding assault against
public officials.
public officials, uh, we will have a motion to put the item
before
Us by Vice chair jansy.
and uh, to speak here is, uh, do we have the
And uh to speak here is uh, do we have the Corp Council?
You want to speak or Miss Manion?
Yeah, please very good. Yes. Uh, good afternoon. I think it
is, um, Alderman. Um, it's been a long day already. I
wanted to make sure that we were able to get this
ordinance. Um,
um consideration before you this ordinance essentially.
Essentially creates a new section, uh, within our code, it
is intended to define the offense of an assault against a
public official. Um, and a public official is in elected or
appointed individuals um in light of what we're seeing
around.
around the nation in, right of the ongoing threats that
happening with all their core and other public officials, I
I thought it was important that we modify our ordinance.
I thought it was important that we modify our ordinance uh,
to give more authority to impose fines.
to give more authority to impose fines and or jail time.
Um,
time, um, as appropriate and this allows
time, um, as appropriate. And this allows for us to
prosecute at a local level, which pres presently we don't
have that Authority. That's what's before you today.
Uh, thank you, uh, questions for um, our Corp C.
Uh, thank you uh questions for um our Corp Council, Miss
Richardson Lowry.
Okay. Miss Manion know I would
Okay. Miss Manion know. I would just like to add that the
Law Department sees this as a necessary.
Law Department sees this as a necessary step to protect our
public officials, who represent the city.
our public officials, who represent the city every day and
Miss Manning is our new head relativity. New head of um,
the risk.
risk management division. So this gets factored into our
risk profile. It's factored into our assurance.
risk profile. It's factored into our Assurance. Provisions,
Etc!
Very good. Uh, I do have 1 question. How would this
interact uh, with State, uh, Criminal?
interact uh with State uh, criminal code with regard to
potential?
detention uh, pre-trial detention? Uh,
potential detention? Uh, pre-trial detention, uh, of anyone
who is guilty of violating this?
Corporation Council in the Law Department.
That's a great question. Uh,
That's a great question uh, chair. Um yeah if there is
prosecution under state law, uh, that would take precedence
and this ordinance is uh, actually a gap filling ordinance
to give us.
to give us option at the local level.
So,
so yeah, there is um, similar or
So yeah, there is um, similar ordinance at state level. And
if there is prosecution at that level, then that would take
precedence. Okay, but this for purposes of
precedence, okay? But this for purposes of enforcing an
ongoing incident where a 911 call is triggered by an event
under this ordinance. Uh,
Would Chicago Police, uh, have the ability.
Would Chicago Police, uh, have the ability to make an arrest
in that case and debt.
arrest in that case and detain, the individual.
Yeah. Okay. Okay.
Uh, further questions from the committee.
yeah, and um, please add, uh
Alderman, Curtis to the attendance roll call and the chair
recognizes Alderman. Curtis for a question.
All right, here we go. Um,
first of all, uh, I would like to say,
uh, that
This is, I think.
This is, I think an uh, a very important.
Uh, ordinance. Uh, the reason why I say that is because as
we all know that,
we all know that um couple months ago
uh, someone actually shot and killed, uh,
Senator.
Uh, and their spouse.
And also wounded.
um,
um another um, 2 more, another state official and
Um another um 2 more, another state official and there are
other spouse.
and another
In another state.
Uh,
the bad part of this is that
when they went to the,
when they went to the offender's house,
After he was killed.
They found a lot of.
State officials.
State officials here in Illinois, on a piece of paper.
And they were also.
And they were also notified that they also could be.
And they were also notified that they also could be in
danger.
uh,
Spending. Uh,
Spending uh, my time.
in law enforcement for
In law enforcement for 13 years.
Um,
I've seen I've seen.
Good and bad. I've seen where a person was just bump into
an off.
an officer and they may just say, okay, you I charge you,
I'm going to charge you with a battery to an official
but,
Again.
On the flip side.
On the flip side again because there's good and bad apples.
and all walks of life.
uh, there has been people to actually commit, uh,
Uh, there has been people to actually commit, uh, battery to
police officer.
to police officer or
or a state.
Or a state or city official.
uh,
which should never happen sticks.
which should never happen sticks and stones or break. Our
bones names have never heard us.
Um,
The only.
the only reason why I was support this is because I think
it's it's needed. Uh we try to protect as many people as
possible.
possible while they're protecting the rights of their
constituency. Um,
constituency. Um and again, that's sad that happened to
those.
those uh, State officials and another
those, uh, State officials and another state and it
trickled all the way over to,
trickled all the way over to the state of Illinois.
Uh,
but I will never ever and I
But I will never ever, and I, I will always support the
first.
First Amendment rights of anyone,
First Amendment rights of anyone. Uh, that wants to
protest.
uh, rally
because that's their right and I don't want to do anything.
because that's their right and I don't want to do anything
to take away. Anyone constitutional, right?
to take away anyone constitutional, right? Uh, we want them
a lot of times.
2. Pick it.
we want people to to
We want people to to voice their opinion and we don't ever
want.
want to take away their right to do that, because
want to take away their right to do that because it was
very, very hard.
very, very hard, uh, to get those rights.
So, with this being said, and
so, with this being said, and I don't see taking away the
first
First Amendment right in this ordinance.
Uh, so I would definitely be in support of it. Thanks.
Thank you Alderman. Courtesy
Thank you Alderman, courtesy your, uh, balanced position,
uh, alderman.
uh, Alderman, Gardner, followed by Vice chair yansi.
Thank you. Um, and thank you corporate Council for being
here today. Um, I just had a quick question with it says, a
person commits assault against a public.
person commits assault against a public official and such
person engages in contact in the city. Which
person engages in contact in the city, which places a
public official in reasonable apprehension.
public official in reasonable apprehension apprehension of
receiving a battery. So I just take that that's fair of.
That's fair of being.
That's fair of being, uh, hit punched kicked.
That's fair of being. Uh hit punch. Kicked is that correct
the the battery refer.
the the battery reference? Uh usually involved bodily harm.
It can be um some kind of physical
harm. It can be, um, some kind of physical component to it
typically is involved in that Pro.
typically is involved in that process um radio
typically is involved in that process. Um, radio, can you
say more? Yes, uh,
say more? Yes. Uh, that is correct. Um, the reference
say more? Yes, uh, that is correct. Um, the reference is
actually to the state criminal,
actually to the state criminal code, which is under
Section,
um, 12, D Street of
Um, 12 D Street of the criminal code. And um,
Battery involved with bod.
Battery involved with bodily harm of an individual. Sure.
Or also, it involves making
also, it involves making physical contact of an insulting
or provoking nature with an individual. Okay. And would it
be verbal then, as well?
No, no.
No, no verbal. What kind of clarification verbal?
No, no verbal. What kind of clarification verbal can a
company it. But that is not a battery.
company it, but that is not a battery in and of itself to
um Alderman criticism.
Alderman criticism, apt and astute um, observ.
Alderman criticism, apt and astute, um, observation. Uh,
this is not intended to, um,
this is not intended to um, address or prohibit, first am.
rights good. Um, we stand on that principle.
rights good. Um, we stand on that principle, we opted,
we're obligated to uphold it to
obligated to uphold it to the extent. However
There is physical.
There is physical contact.
And that physical contact.
And that physical contact in and of self results in a
battery. Whether it's a, uh, touching, um, or um, in the
instance of the unfortunate.
instance of the unfortunate outcome and the other state of
killing. Um, we have now additional rights.
killing, um, we have now additional rights and you have
additional protections, okay? And and just in this scenario
when a public official
scenario, when a public official has been engaged like this
with individuals.
with individuals, what is the best their best remedies? Do
they go to the police? Do they fill out our report? Do they
do? They
do they report this to the Inspector General? How what,
what is the best?
what is the best remedy? So,
depending on the facts and circumstances, it might be all of
the above but you certainly want to report it to the police
in the first
police in the first instance. Um, and um, depending on the
facts and circumstances, it would need to be brought to our
attention, depending on the facts and circumstances.
attention, depending on the facts and circumstances, the IG
may want to do additional investigations.
may want to do additional investigations, depending on the
facts and circumstances, you may want to take out
additional protective orders, Etc. So we would, it's always
assessed on a Case by case basis, but what this does,
assessed on a Case by case basis but what this does is
allow for a fine chem category at the city level, which
doesn't exist. Um it allows for if appropriate uh and
incarceration uh option that
incarceration, uh, option that doesn't exist, um, and the
force and effect of this would take effect uh immediately
upon
force and effect of this would take effect, uh, immediately
upon passage in publication very good.
And then would would this in?
and then with, with this involved, um,
You know.
you know, you you said like a protective order would this
involve like, stalking then, as well. Um, you know, for
example, somebody parking in front of 1's, house, or
example, somebody parking in front of 1's house, or this
ordinance would not address.
ordinance would not address the stalking uh, because there
would not be a physical, um, contact typ.
would not be a physical, um, contact typically, unless it
was in addition to, um, or some additional information.
was in addition to, um, or some additional information, uh,
incident occurred
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you Alderman. Garner, uh,
Thank you, Alderman Garner, uh, chair. Recognizes Vice
chair, jansy followed by.
chair, jansy, followed by Alderman, a hoppenworth, thank
you. Thank you chairman. Um,
uh, with
with respect to the First Amendment piece, I'm glad you all
shared that this doesn't devalue the first
shared that this doesn't devalue the First Amendment and
does give people the right to protest. Um, with respect to
practice. I'm trying to understand.
practice. I'm trying to understand how this works. So kind
of
from my perspective, I was taught at 1 point that the
assault is the threat of violence and then the battery is
the actual act of violence. So if you don't mind, this is
an assault. This would be the battery, right? Um, how how
would this work is that unfortunately?
would this work is that unfortunately in this role in less
than 2 years, I received 2 death
years? I received 2 death threats 1 which was more credible
than the other. So how does this? Will this work. You gave
an app.
You gave an app description just a second ago of a physical
touching. Um now of course it would be
touching. Um now of course, it would be on a physical
touching within intent to, um, kind of scenario. Um, but if
by way of an example, someone came up and shoved you
you, this would be, um, uh, the should this ordinance
passed, then there would be an act of finding likely that
could be imposed. Um, uh, s had someone come up. Um, and
um, um, uh, calls you, the level of Marty Leigh harm.
That would um, result in you're being Hospital.
that would, um, result in you're being hospitalized or
On a live.
On a live view. Um, obviously we'd have um, some
On a live view. Um, obviously we'd have, um, some recourse
as you would have additional recourses. Um,
as you would have additional recourses um Beyond this but
there would be a physical component.
But there would be a physical component to it, um, The
Assault that you described or um, for that matter that
Gardener aside the stalking there might be something that 1
can do but this isn't intended to address that.
can do but this isn't intended to address that um, that
they've yelled at you and you don't like what they yelled,
this isn't intended to address that. Um, it is not um,
impeding on nors and intended to impede on First Amendment
rights. That's why we use the term.
rights. That's why we use the term battery. There has to be
a physical act.
So for clarification, if someone says, hey, I'm going to
kill you, right? Or I'm going to beat your whatever, right?
That won't rise to
Uh, that won't be impacted by this.
Uh, that won't be impacted by this ordinance unless they
say, I'm going to beat your butt.
say, I'm going to beat your butt and then swing or actual
make actually make contacts. Contact of the threat of
contact. We had an instance, of course where someone was
engaged in a yelling.
engaged in a yelling match uh, with a particular Alderman.
And then they proceeded and did physically,
And then they proceeded and did physically shove said
alderman,
That would qualify. Okay if someone is engaged in a
that would qualify okay if someone is engaged in a yelling
match with an alderman, but there was no physical contact
with said alderman,
with said Alderman, that would not apply, that would not be
under, it would not
under it would not, okay, thank you.
Alderwoman may not happen with.
Alderwoman may not happen with followed by Aldo and
Fuentes.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you Corp Council for being here. Along the lines of,
uh, Alderman Yancey. Um, we had an instance in the 48th
Ward. Wherein Outsiders came to protest drag story time at
our Public Library.
our Public Library, uh, not too long ago, and
our Public Library, uh, not too long ago and the
individuals, I, I
individuals. I, I just want to be clear about assaults
versus battery and also, um, intended versus unintended um,
assaults because we had
um, assaults because we had an instance where they, um,
surrounded,
surrounded me, and it was very close to the
surrounded me. And it was very close to the point where
others that were standing up.
others that were standing up for me, had to put themselves
between us.
between us, um, the police were there, um, but I, I guess
is there a difference between intended versus unintended
assault? Because there were
There were phones in my face. There. We were in very close
proximity.
Um, I had to put an umbrella between us.
um, I had to put an umbrella between us, um,
I, I just want to understand like how how what is what is
also the role of um, police when
also the role of um police when they are witnessing um a
protest because again, we're talking about freedom of
protest because again we're talking about freedom of speech
which I I truly believe in, but on the other hand, I
We?
We we need to protect public officials.
Right. Um, I appreciate the question uh Alderman. What you
you largely described, um, may or may not rise to the level
and salt, it would not qualify under this ordinance.
and salt, it would not qualify under this ordinance as to a
battery. Um, in terms of the role of police in that.
instance, each time those kinds of occurrences happen, they
do a, a site-based assessment.
do a, a site-based assessment, and they make their own
judgments as to what acts if any they have, uh,
judgments as to what acts if any, they have uh an
obligation to typically it's related to crowd.
obligation to typically it's related to crowd control. Um
but of course they can't prohibit someone from Simply
expressing a, a point.
expressing a, a point of view.
yeah, I guess I'm just trying to to um, understand how to
also.
um,
prepare.
Prepare communities for what might?
Be.
be, you know, we we we
be, you know, we we, we, we want to have safe communities
and also we want to allow people to, to express.
and also we want to allow people to, to express their
opinions. Um, and, and
opinions, um, and, and also public officials should be
allowed to, to be in their communities and feel safe safe
like myself.
I I take your point.
I, I take your point Alderman, and I'm happy to have a
separate session with you and CPD just to talk through
normal processes and the options that they would think that
would be appropriate. Um, given what you've described.
Thank you, thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome.
Alderman. Martin.
Thank you chair. Good afternoon everybody. Good afternoon.
Um 2.
Um, 2 questions 1, um to what extent.
Um, 2 questions, 1, um, to what extent does uh a potential
offender need to know that the individual is a public
official and have that be an intent is to uh why they are
undertaking.
are undertaking. The actions that could potentially
constitute a violation.
You.
You want to proceed?
Yeah, under
Yeah. Under uh, the municipal code, um, most of our
Yeah, under uh, the municipal code, um, most of our
offenses are strict liability.
offenses are strict liability offenses. So mental element
is not.
is not required most of Municipal offenses. So if the
prosecution is,
prosecution is under our code, then,
prosecution is under our code, then that knowledge is not
required for successful. Prosecution.
required for successful. Prosecution understood. Um the
other question was around reasonable apprehension of
receiving battery and I recognize that these are very fact
depend.
dependent considerations how contemporary
dependent considerations. How contemporaneous does this
need to be and I'm specifically thinking
need to be? And I'm specifically thinking about um,
detailed emails that unfortunately, many of us receive from
time to time and
time and wondering even though that person might not be
time and wondering. Even though that person might not be in
your immediate proximity but they could nevertheless share
hypothetically speaking a degree of detail where you're
concerned that they may be at a particular place a
particular time have reason to believe that you may be.
particular time have reason to believe that you may be
there as well, and that
could be a situation where,
Could be a situation where potentially there's reasonable
apprehension of an imminent.
apprehension of an imminent, battery.
That thank you alter. That's a wonderful question. So we
are not asking the Alder core to make that determination of
whether or not it should be reported if any City official
feels um, the threat of physical contact.
feels um the threat of physical contact, or unconsented or
unwanted bodily harm that should be.
unwanted bodily harm that should be reported. It should be
reported to the Chicago Police Department.
reported to the Chicago, Police Department and potent.
Eventually. Uh, other um,
Eventually, uh, other um, agencies as the Corporation
Council noted earlier. So in the event of a detailed email,
I would recommend that you report it if it causes any
reasonable concern on your part. Okay, thank you. That's
all I have. Thank you chair.
All right. Thank you Alderman. Martin Alder
All right, thank you Alderman. Martin Alderman, Garner.
Follow-up question. And and would, would this
Follow-up question. And and would would this when this goes
into effect, would this be retroactive as well?
uh, it does not quite
Uh, it does not quite work that way. Yeah, uh under
Uh, it does not quite work that way. Yeah. Uh, under low.
uh,
Uh, such kind of ordinances cannot be.
Uh, such kind of ordinances cannot be retroactive. They are
always should be Prospect.
always should be prospective because we we don't punish
people for past actions. It should always be construed.
people for past actions. It should always be construed
prospectively. And I appreciate Alderman the uh the
question because that I have, I'm in conversations with,
uh, a, um,
unfortunately, it's significant percentage of
Unfortunately, it's significant percentage of your
colleagues around past Acts.
um, this will not address past tax acts, but those
um, this will not address past tax acts but those past acts
and those conversations are informing our thinking as to
why we need to put these Protections in place and how long
do does
long do does, an elected official have to report this to
whatever.
whatever agency, whether it be the police department, the
ig's office, the May
office, the mayor's office. How long does 1 have uh, like
stat?
statute of limitation?
I don't know if I have the answer to that.
Um, there is no specific statute of limitation for these
offenses.
offenses, at least under our ordinance. So
offenses at least under our ordinance. So um, any Acts
offenses, at least under our ordinance. So um, any acts,
any single act um, could lead to prosecution under this
ordinance. So,
ordinance. So there is no set number of incidents for
persecution to happen.
I think the import.
I think the important criteria is whether the official is
reasonably feeling that they're receiving an assault. So
that's a reasonable man standard and not only an ass.
but a threat of an assault. Correct? Yes.
but a threat of an assault correct? Yes. A reasonable
threat of an assault. Yeah.
Thank you for.
Thank you for clarification clarification.
Uh, yes Alderman. Curtis
We can we unveil this?
To exclude.
Our concern. Thank you.
I'm sorry. Um, can we amend this to
Probably exclude.
Spouse.
I'm exclude, I I'm sorry.
I'm exclude. I I'm sorry. You're asking about a clue.
so, because when you get to that point,
uh,
we don't know what happens and people homes and and I
understand some domestic issues and things like that.
Uh, but it happens. Uh and
uh, but it happens uh and and I wouldn't want
our sort.
our sorty to go.
Against a spouse.
That.
That's that that, that could be acting.
That's that, that, that could be acting. Um,
Just at that moment.
Just at that moment under passion against.
Just at that moment under passion against their own spouse.
If she.
If she shove them, if she pushes them, but he pushes her.
uh, that may again just be the
Uh, that may again just be the moment of passion and I
wouldn't want someone.
wouldn't want someone charged.
Under.
Under a stiff penalty.
and,
I know.
I know the city won't be held accountable for that, but uh,
but I wouldn't want our, uh, a sort of body.
to polish them, because actually
to polish them because actually if even if it's their spouse
and she push,
spouse and she pushes her husband, he pushes, his wife is
still assault, it's still battery.
At the end of the day.
So, um, I
So um, I I mean that's probably the only thing and and it
was something you said that and then just made it click in
my head but
head. But, um,
Just think.
Just just think about that for a second. I understand
Alder. Think about how
Alder, think about how we all interact with our spouses.
Alder, think about how we all interact with our spouses or
may I just know though this
may. I just know though this every anytime 1 brings uh, a
may. I just know, though, this, every anytime 1 brings, uh,
a an action a charge, uh, whether it's a fine,
a an action a charge, uh, whether it's a fine or um,
incarceration or some combination, it would be based on
facts and circumstances. So,
facts and circumstances. So that's always, there's a facts
and circumstances analysis.
and circumstances analysis that goes with each of these.
And I'm, I would be a little concerned about creating a
carve out.
carve out based on a domestic incident. There's some
domestic.
domestic instances that may be uh, rise to a different
level that's applicable. There are others that
level, that's applicable, there are others, that would not
be. Um, they're the people who are strange. Um, so there's
so much variation. I would just suggest that the language
as produced is, uh, on its face. Um,
as produced is uh, on its face. Um, really is um adequate.
Um, and I would want to you to know that we
adequate. Um, and I would want to you to know that we the
analysis here would have to be
On a Case by case basis on a facts and circumstances. And we
would have be obligated to prove up, um, the particulars
associated with it being a qualifying event. That is a
battery.
That's the auto Forest.
Thank you, chairman. Uh, I I would respectfully.
Thank you, chairman. Uh, I I would respectfully disagree
with my colleague. Uh, I don't, I don't think anyone should
be excl.
excluded. In fact, you know we see every single day
individuals uh who are Eng
individuals uh who are engaged in a domestic incident
whether interpersonal with their spouse or anyone that they
love, uh,
love. Uh, the those often lead to fatalities
love, uh, the those often lead to fatalities, uh, in our
communities. And so I, I don't think anyone should be
excluded uh from this ordinance. I think that
excluded uh, from this ordinance. I think that uh,
you know, folks should be
you know folks should be protected at all costs and I just
want to say I'm in favor of this ordinance and I'm in favor
because all public
favor because all public officials uh, have a high risk of
because all public officials, uh, have a high risk of, of
threats of assault. Uh, because of
of, of threats of assault, uh, because of political
positions and even folks, to the right,
positions and even folks to the right of me, uh, have a
right to believe in what they believe.
right to believe in what they believe without the risk of
being harmed. Uh, and so I hope that all of my colleagues
can support this. Uh, I I actually thought that my
colleague was going to go on the opposite direction and say
that spouses of, uh, public officials should be included in
this, uh, with the incident that we seen in our, in our
sister city with, uh, the
sister city with uh, the elected spouse also.
unfortunately, being
Unfortunately, being impacted by an act of violence. Um,
that
I would, I would support, uh, Corp.
I would I would support uh corporate Council. Are you open
to also amending this? So
to also amending this so that it can include documented?
to also amending this so that it can include documented
threats of violence? Uh, because just a couple hours.
threats of violence? Uh, because just a couple hours ago
there were 6 older people a part of
there were 6 older people, a part of this body that
received a very violent email and that's not the first that
we've received.
we've received is the first of many, um, and
that we've received is the first of many. Um, and because
of the political climate that we experienced today, uh, we
know that these sorts of threats have a risk of escalating,
a relatively quickly. And again, I want to be clear. This
is not about voicing opinion. I think everyone.
is not about voicing opinion. I think everyone has the
right to their opinion, uh, on any issue. Uh, but
documented emails in which there is direct physical threat
to a public official
A radio to uh would you like to respond?
A radio to uh would you like to respond as to whether or
not? You think the language covers it? Yes.
not you think the language covers it? Yes. Um again ready
it's K. Corporation.
it's K Corporation Council uh in the C Department. Um yeah.
and my phone is uh that is a, a great question.
yeah. And my phone is uh, that is a, a great question. Uh,
we will uh, uh, take a look into
uh uh take a look into this particular issue. Um, the
the concern is we have to be really very careful to
balance.
the concern is we have to be really very careful to balance
First Amendment rights against um,
balance First Amendment rights against, um, at this go, uh,
beyond that.
that and threatened uh, elected and appointed.
beyond that and threatened, uh, elected and appointed
officials. However, the way we have it, now, if the public
official reasonably apprehends,
There to receive a battery based on.
There to receive a battery based on, uh, fact-based
analysis. Um, I believe this ordinance could apply but a
single incident of, you know, um, an email account, um, and
unpleasant email.
unpleasant email, um, met by itself. May not constitute,
um, through the level of, um, uh, meeting the requirements
of this ordinance. But, however, all those, you know,
factors, uh, and incidents, uh, taken together May amount
to, um, create, um, a case, uh, for
to um, create. Um, a case, uh, for prosecution, any
violator by this ordinance?
So alderman.
so, the alderman Flint is, um, I I think um,
so, the alderman Flint is, um, I I think, um, the
particular uh, scenario that you
uh, scenario that you described, it really is going to
depend on facts and circumstances.
going to depend on facts and circumstances, um, I want to
be careful here, not to, um, engage in anything that is
perceived as encroaching on.
perceived as encroaching on first amendment. That said, if
there,
there is a reasonable threat, uh, of of violence, uh, I
think alderman,
think Alderman, uh, Martin's surface at in his, um, query,
Um, then we may have a basis for proceeding so, um, it is,
it it is. Um,
um,
not coincidental that this past.
not coincidental that this past weekend, I had uh,
conversations with 4 Separate Alders around threats of
violence.
yeah, and I just I want to be clear, I'm not
Yeah, and I just I want to be clear, I'm not at all,
talking about, First Amendment rights, viol.
Talking about First Amendment rights violations. Look, I I
can deal with people who don't politically agree with me,
right? And, and people have all the right. Uh, they don't
have to agree with the political stances that I take, I
have constituents and residents across the city that voiced
those all the time. But when we are receiving emails,
those all the time. But when we are receiving emails of
threats of rape,
chopping, our
Chopping our partners heads off, that's not First
Amendment.
amendment. Those are physical threats, right? So us and our
families very different than first
families very different than First Amendment, right? And so
I want to be clear, I I wouldn't encroach on anyone's First
Amendment rights, I think, look, I
Amendment rights. I think, look, I support every day people
coming to our meetings voicing their political
coming to our meetings, voicing their political opinions,
people have the right to do that and every single day.
people have the right to do that. And every single day I
will protect People's First Amendment rights even when I
don't.
don't agree with them, I am talking about document.
threats of physical harm to people who are in public office
and their families and I want to encourage you all.
and their families. And I want to encourage you all the men
to win that occurs, as I have with some of the others.
to win that occurs, as I have with some of the others with
whom, I have spoken and have provided me, uh, copies of
said documentation, please bring that
said, documentation, please bring that to my attention. I
have a deputy now that's assigned to these. I'd love to be
able to say I didn't have to do that.
But this is where we are.
so, I have a deputy that is assigned to doing an analysis
of these
these kinds of threats. Um, and this
these kinds of threats, um, and this particular ordinance
will give me additional tools.
will give me additional tools uh, to the extent that it
rises to the level that I am concerned about a battery
that's going.
that's going to, um, that has occurred. Um,
that's going to um, that has occurred. Um, or a threat has
risen to the point that I think the safety of a particular
person is in Jeopardy. And then I have a whole uh, ah ah,
some additional, um, acc's that will be engaged in that
assessment. Um, this is, uh, unfortunately, a reflection of
as, uh, Alderman Hopkins,
as, uh, Alderman, Hopkins, uh, chairman reference of where
we are today, and
we are today. And I think that having these additional
protection,
protections are just an imperative, um,
protections are just an imperative. Um, I hope I don't have
to use them, but I need the tools just in case
Thank you.
Thank you chair. Yeah, thank you, Corp Council. And it
should be noted that there's additional work and research
going on right now.
right now on this topic. Uh, this will not be the last time
we have this conversation before this committee uh the work
is ongoing and uh you can expect further proposals to be
brought forth.
brought forth in the near future, Vice chairman Yancey.
Thank you. Last question, was there any consider?
Thank you. Last question. Was there any consideration for
spouses domestic partners and minor children?
spouses domestic partners and minor children of uh City
officials? Our addresses are public some of our kids, go to
Neighborhood School,
Neighborhood schools and can be
I don't know, kind of wrapped up in this.
I don't know kind of wrapped up in this thing that their
parents have chosen to do.
Alderman, there is an ongoing analysis. Uh, we were um we
didn't think we had sufficient information to include it in
this first effort but there certainly is an ongoing
analysis. Um, but because um, we are aware, um,
analysis. Um, but because um we are aware um, frankly it
was for me, it was Senator around the children of
and um, because I'm
and, um, because I'm aware of certain, um,
Uh, threats.
uh, threats associated with the children of and so that
analysis is happening. Um, and if we believe that we can,
assert it properly, then you should anticipate, um,
assert it properly, then you should anticipate um, us
returning, um, to you on that.
returning, um, to you on that subject, along with um, some
other initiatives that we are in the formative stages of
exploring. Um, but I suspect by September.
exploring. Um, but I suspect by September, we'll have some
additional considerations for this.
additional considerations for this body. Okay?
The chair will entertain a motion for a due pass,
recommendation.
recommendation, attached to the ordinance. Uh, moved by
Alderman, Martin hearing no further.
Alderman, Martin hearing no further discussion.
Uh, so ordered.
the next item before us is a
The next item before us is a re-referred a matter before
this committee, uh, proposed ordinance.
this committee, uh, proposed ordinance 18168. Uh, this
matter is,
is properly referred to a joint committee of police.
is properly referred to a joint committee of police and
fire and the committee on immigration and refugee
fire. And the committee on immigration and Refugee Rights.
We happen to have both chairs uh, with us.
virtually on rule 59, uh, Alderman Vasquez.
virtually on rule 59, uh, Alderman, Vasquez, and Alderman
Talya Ferro? Would 1 of you be so kind.
Talya Ferro. Would 1 of you be so kind to unmute and make
the motion for re referral. Yes, absolutely. Thank you.
Chairman, uh, just for background for some of our members,
uh, after introduction. Uh, uh, chairman Talia Fair reached
out to me.
out to me, uh, and he thought it best that the matter which
is related to the Office of Public Safety Administration.
And
Administration and how it handles Foya, uh, that it would
go to.
and how it handles Foya, uh, that it would go to police and
fire as well as the comedian immigrant ref.
fire, as well as the comedian immigrant Refugee Rights as a
place to have the matter. Discussed
place to have the matter discussed. Uh, and so uh I I
agreed with the friendly Amendment and would ask for
members of the committee.
members of the committee, um, to vote in favor of the rear
referral. So I would
Refer.
There's a motion on the floor to refer.
There's a motion on the floor to refer ordinance. Proposed
ordinance, 18168.
ordinance 18168 to a joint committee of immigration and
Refugee Rights. And
Refugee Rights and police and fire any discussion. Hearing
none. So ordered
Thank you. Uh, the next is a motion to adjourn.
Was that Alderman Fuentes? Yes, Alderman Fuentes moves, we
adjourn hearing no discussion. So order the meetings
adjourned. Thank you, everyone.