Good
morning, everyone. Uh, pursuant to notice for a ten
thirty convening, the meeting on public safety is hereby called to
order. We will begin with the roll call to establish quorum.
Vice Chairman Yancey.
Alderman Chico. Alderman Gutierrez.
Alderman Lopez. Alderman Chico.
Alderman Curtis. Alderwoman Tabaras.
Tabaras
Uh, Alderman Cincho Lopez, Alderwoman Fuentes, Alderman
Talia Ferro, Alderman Sposato,
Alderman Vasquez, Alderman Knudson,
Alderman Gardner, Alderman Martin, Alderwoman
Minah Hoppenworth, Alderwoman Hadden,
Alderman Silverstein.
Uh, we do have, uh, rule fifty-nine requests from the following
aldermen. Uh, Alderman Yancey, Alderman
Gutierrez, and Alderwoman
Silverstein.
This is bold, right?
Alderman Yancey's here.
Okay. Uh,
let's ha- let's have a motion first to, uh, provide for rule fifty-nine
participation. Alderwoman Minah Hoppenworth so moves, hearing no objection,
so ordered. We confirmed the presence of Alderman
Yancey. Alderwoman Gutierrez, are you
on the line?
And Alderwoman Hadden.
Yes, Chairman. Alderwoman Gutierrez present.
Oh, I'm sorry, Alderman Hadden's present.
Alderman Silverstein is, uh, on line. Okay.
And, uh, Alderman Cardona is present for
participation.
Okay. Uh, we'll begin with, uh, public testimony.
Our first witness, uh, from the ACLU is Aisha
Davis.
We did, we voted.
Ms. Davis, are you present? Okay.
Good
morning, Chair Hopkins, Vice Chair Yancey, and the rest of the committee.
My name is Aisha Davis, and I'm Senior Policy Counsel at the ACLU of
Illinois. I'm here today to express our organization's opposition to two
of the three proposed ordinances on today's agenda.
Both measures unnecessarily create penalty enhancements, both in terms of detention
and fines, that do not enhance public safety.
The ACLU of Illinois has been, and continues to be, opposed to penalty
enhancements because while these policies do little to reduce crime and
can actually harm public safety in communities where the impact of incarceration is
concentrated. Under the amendments to Municipal Code
eight-sixteen, these penalties include fines that may be up to ten times
higher than the existing fine penalties as written, as well as
requiring families to attend licensed family counseling without any explanation of
whether that is a cost that will also be the responsibility of a person found in
violation of the ordinance. Additionally, these amendments include increased
penalties for curfew violations, new text that would penalize parents for their
children's behavior, even if they're unaware of it, and new language that would
impose fines that are either entirely new or ten times greater than the highest
fine currently written into the ordinance.
The amendments to Municipal Code chapter eight-five creates a penalty enhancement
that seeks to further punish someone based solely on their appearance and what they
are wearing. As drafted, this amendment would penalize someone for wearing anything
from a hoodie to a face mask as PPE to someone wearing a scarf over their
face in cold weather. Additionally, this amendment includes mandatory sentencing
regardless of whether the person is convicted for whatever underlying violation
this penalty is attached to. This means that a person could be arrested and
acquitted of an underlying offense and still be subject to ten days
imprisonment, a five thousand dollar fine, and be required to perform up to one
hundred and twenty hours of community service.
We do not need these draconian penalty enhancements because crime already is
trending down, largely due to economic and social interventions like community
violence intervention programs.
These ordinance amendments will not make the neighborhoods of Chicago safer, but
they will certainly deter young people from participating in constitutionally
protected speech. They will put additional financial strain on our communities, and
they are being proposed at a moment when our federal government is sending masked,
heavily armed men into our streets across the nation with impunity.
Thank you.
Uh, thank you, Ms. Davis. Uh, please acknowledge for purposes of
quorum, Alderman Cincho Lopez, uh, and also, uh, for
remote participation, Alderwoman Silverstein is now
online.
Uh, the next public speaker is Dennis
White.
Wow, that's amazing.
Complaints, but no solution to crimes.
If that's what the ACLU is all about, then
they shouldn't even be an organization right off hand because see,
everybody who wear a mask that's in the Black communities are
Blacks. Those who wear-- that wearing a mask in that community
committing crimes towards Blacks are Blacks.
So if the ACLU
over here doing all this complaining, but no
solution, they don't need to be in exist at all.
So the thing about this is, I'm for the curfew, and the reason why,
because it will save these kids' lives from other
criminals. Now, if the ACLU
over here focus-- will focus more on crime and
criminal acts instead of ICE, then crime
will go down. That's what the ACLU should be
doing. So the priority is not there with
them.
Another thing is this here.
Twenty-three people died in the month of February, the
short-- Black History Month, and then we have this coward
of a mayor that's sitting in that seat
over here focusing on one thing. Well, two, Donald
Trump and ICE. So
you guys here,
over here, got your head in the sand, not saying or
doing anything about the crime. But when ICE come in that
community-It affect the Black and brown,
right? That's, that's the national
anthem. It affect the Black and brown community.
Well, I haven't seen no Blacks being pulled, hauled off by ICE.
Maybe CPD because they doing a criminal act, but
you know, when it come to ICE, we good,
and we voted for this. So when the election come, with
the help of the Chicago Teacher Union, that
Brandon Johnson gave our tax dollars to, $1
billion,
that the kids can't even read or write, but they can commit crime with a
hoodie and a mask. That's what it's all
about. So we all pro-crime,
right? That's what it is? We
pro-crime? Well, here's the
solution. The election coming up next year,
and I know how this gonna happen. The corrupt
gonna go out here and say, "We're here to fight Donald Crump.
Donald Trump." But guess what? How more
corrupt can you be? You- the
clock is ticking, people, and some of these people
gonna move out this city just like the Bears just did.
Uh, the next speaker from the Fraternal Order of Police is John
Catanzara.
Good morning. I champion all three of these
ordinances. God bless. Uh, I think it's farcical that the
ACLU is here talking about youths being fined for wearing
masks, but it's not okay for ICE to wear masks,
COVID protection or otherwise, or wannabe congressmens wearing their, their
scarves around their face. That's okay.
When they wanna burn the American flag, that's all good.
Hypocrites. Yeah, giggle all you want.
Anyway, um,
crime is down, statistically speaking, but let's not give
any credit to the reparations that are known
to be the violence interrupters. It is a grift.
It is a transfer of wealth to friends and families throughout these neighborhoods
that have no statistical impact on crime.
Crime is down for two specific reasons.
We have a new state's attorney. Thank God, the person, she is
gone. Her sponsor will soon be gone at the county board, and her
other protege sitting on that throne will pr- probably be gone too very soon.
Um, that's one issue on why crime is down, 'cause there's a state's attorney
prosecuting these criminals, and the word is out on the street.
And number two, when you have a swarm of federal agents
throughout the city, for whatever reason, criminals tend to act better.
It's called a deterrent. Hopefully, one day, they find a reason to put handcuffs on
some people in this chamber because you deserve it, because there are a lot of
crooks. This committee is made up
of people who had the mayor's budget and the alternate
budget. I just wanna point something out to everybody here.
Since 2013, our officers, Mr.
Chairman of Police and Fire also, have not been paid
properly on overtime. There was a lawsuit.
This city has lost that oversu- that lawsuit.
A judgment has been issued against this city.
Since 2013, this city has been
deadbeats, not paying officers the proper overtime amount to
the tune of over, minimum, $300 million that is
collecting interest every year at 5%, court ordered
interest. Nobody seems to give a damn about paying the officers with the money
they are due for over a decade, but you have no problem finding a billion dollars
for im- illegal im- uh, aliens in this city.
It is inexcusable and shameful that none of those
calculations were included in either budget, quite frankly.
When are you gonna pay the money due these officers?
And I'll give you a simple explanation how it all happened.
Incompetence in this city, in the payroll department, in
finance. Overtime was calculated at a very simple
rate. It didn't include all the other financial components within the
contract that that calculation was supposed to be based on.
That is why they were shorted on their pay under FLSA rules.
The judge was very clear. The city owes the money.
Pay the money 'cause you are all deadbeats, and I'm telling
you, there is going to be changes in this chamber, and some of you are gonna
be the victim of it, and I can't wait. Have a good day.
The next speaker is George
Blakemore.
I don't think it's, uh, 30 citizens, uh,
here, and you wonder why.
You wonder why the people are not here, and your organization, young
lady, I used to go there. It was on Michigan
Avenue. And, and, and I would... They didn't help
me. ACLU, they ain't help
me. That, that's one of the, the, the,
uh, a Jewish organization.
Uh, so I'm playing the race card. So they r-
around here now interested in, in young,
gifted, uh, Black children. I don't think
so. I do not think so.
And this whole dog and pony show is going on here because
the people are not here. The, the p- you have beated the people
down. The, they are not
here. But they gonna have an e- an, an
election. It's never... They never have an, a
election. Uh-uh. They just select
who they want, and the people vote for who
they select. This is truly a dog
and pony show.
And you deserve, each one of you deserve the government you
get, and you get the government you deserve.
You deserve these people.So you gonna talk about
them. Brandon Johnson, you deserve them.
These aldermen, you deserve them.
These Cook County commissioners, you deserve them.
So you getting exactly what you
deserve. We are getting it. We got to
overcome. I'm talking about the Black ones now.
Ah, ah, um, the, the legacy of slavery.
I deliberately put on this red hat to say, "Trump,
come by and clean up this swamp." I deliberately
said that. But the, the swamp is in our
minds 'cause, uh, it's the Black people.
These are young Black youth that they're targeting.
These are young Black lives that they're targeting f- for this
country, that this man is targeting for.
N- not for the whites, not for the Hispanics or the...
but for Blacks. So we have to get out of this
slave mentality. There's no sc- uh, chains on our
arms and our legs, but it's chains in our
heads. We got to overcome the legacy
of slavery. That's why I want Trump t- to come
here and clean up this swamp. That's why
I deliberately put on red. I, I, I want him to do
that. Come on in here, Trump. And then
after Trump come in here, I want my people to go blacker than
black. Love your nappy hair, your big nose, and your Black
booty hole. Oh, uh, it's all about you.
Bye.
The next speaker is Sandy Norman.
Trump.
Honor to you, um, Chairman Hopkins,
and to all of the city council here of
Chicago.
Lorenzo Bracey,
shot to death.
Andre Dejohn Harrison, shot to
death. Marvin Cook, shot to death.
Christopher Patterson, shot to death.
Johan Adar Sanchez, shot to death in the
2100 block of 59th
Avenue. So many people
shot to death in the city of Chicago.
We didn't want the National Guard to come, but my question
is, who's really guarding the City of Chicago?
Now, I heard someone mention about young people being
fined for wearing mask. I would like you all to
go on my Facebook page, because this past
weekend I had youth out on the
streets with me here in Chicago,
and those youth that were with me, they had on
mask. And you know what I had those youth
doing? One of the youth was shot in the face
twice, once in the hand. Some of the other youth
were considered as troubled teens.
But they were with me on Friday night.
And you know what those youth were doing?
They were serving food. They were being a blessing over in the
Lawndale community. Because I didn't throw the youth
away, but I invested in the youth.
And so I say to city council, we have all of these people
that have so much to say about
violence and crime. Violence is not
happening inside of a building. Violence is happening in our
neighborhoods and in our communities.
I can't name on my hand five
churches, or really any organizations that I
really know of, that are out there in the street where the violence
is actually happening.
But people like me, I can't get a meeting half the
time. I've been ignored by the mayor.
But I'm out there in the community where the violence and the shootings are
happening, and we know that if we're gonna solve the vi- violence
problems, that there has to be economical development.
Wherever there is poverty and crime, there's
gonna be murders, and Chicago is a prime
examples. Murder go down in Chicago, and I'ma b- be honest
with you, the number of murders that I have seen, because I'm
actually in our communities, violence decrease when
everybody kill each other. If you track the
gangs, if you track just, say, from the West Side and the
South Side for the past 10 or 15 years, and when you
understa- stand real street violence, everybody kill each
other, and then we say violence go
down.
Uh, thank you. The next speaker is Zoe
Lee.
Hello. Uh,
so first of all, ACLU doesn't represent me at
all. ACLU does not represent
anyone who voted for ICE. I voted for
ICE. I don't know if you guys remember, but the previous
administration, but Biden and Harris brought
22 million illegals over here, then they dumped
50,000 in Chicago, and then put about
25,000 in our communities that's already
under-resourced. You know? So maybe you guys
missed the memo, you know, or you're just getting, you're just, you're
just getting your talking points because you're getting paid.
So anyway,
let's
see.
Oh, man.
God is saying, "Not
today."All
right, we can't do it today because he's telling me no.
But, um, anyway, it basically was,
um, President Clinton, uh,
letting everybody know that J.B. Pritzker and his
wife was on Epstein-- his first flight on Epstein
list. So y'all don't, y'all don't really talk about that.
Y'all never wanna talk about that.
Y'all just wanna talk about what Trump did, but Trump was the whistleblower.
Y'all never wanna talk about that part of it.
But I just wanna let y'all know that that's out there. J.B.
Pritzker, last term Pritzker, 'cause he's not getting another
term. We have four Republican governor candidates,
James Mendrix, Ted Dabrowski, Richard
Heidener, Darren Bailey. Now,
according to Wirepoints and Ted Dabrowski, he's running for
governor, Chicago has the highest Black unemployment rate
among nation's fifteen biggest cities.
So ACLU, I don't think y'all talking about that, okay?
And then Chicago has the second highest Black poverty
rate among nation's fifteen biggest cities.
So I just-- I don't think ACLU's talking about that too, so this is,
it's according to Wirepoints. So this is a Democratic
city, and it's been a Democratic city, no
Republicans. So we're gonna have to vote you all out.
For US senator, we are, um, Chicago Fists Red has
endorsed Jeanie Evans. She's from the South Side.
You guys should look her up. She's an antitrust lawyer, so she knows
how to go, uh, and break the monopolies, okay?
Because we're gonna have to get all new people up in here, okay?
So, um, that's who we're going for for US senator.
Jeanie Evans, no Lieutenant Governor Stratton.
Robin Kelly, hell no. Raja, absolutely
not. The Do Nothing Black Caucus definitely doesn't represent us at
all. They've endorsed them. That's how you know-- They endorsed Raja.
That's how you know they don't represent us.
Uh, the next speaker on the, uh, subject matter for agenda number
one, uh, the ordinance dealing with, uh, animal care and control and
fines for cruelty to dogs, uh, is Celine
Melcharick.
Good morning. My name is Celine Melcharick.
I'm the chief program officer at PAWS Chicago and a resident of the
forty-eighth Ward. Today, I am here to endorse Susan
Capello as executive director of Chicago Animal Care and
Control. While intake at CACC surges,
funding is flat, no matter how many animals come in, and it remains among
the lowest total and per capital in major cities across the
country. I have some facts to share.
Intake in twenty twenty-five was seventeen thousand eight hundred and
sixty-seven pets, seventeen percent over twenty
twenty-four, and twenty-two percent over twenty nineteen
pre-pandemic intake numbers. However, twenty
twenty-five was the best year in the history of Chicago Animal Care and Control for
the number of animals who had live outcomes.
Thirteen thousand eight hundred and sixteen animals were either
transferred, adopted, or returned to their
owner. Live outcomes increased nineteen percent
over twenty twenty-four numbers and were ten percent higher than twenty
nineteen numbers pre-pandemic. And very
importantly, twenty twenty-five was the highest adoption year in the
history of Chicago Animal Care and Control, with adoptions alone up twenty
percent over twenty-four. Transfers were the highest in more
than a decade, twenty-two percent higher than twenty twenty-four.
And between twenty nineteen and twenty twenty-four, inflation is
approximately twenty-seven percent.
Pet food inflation is consistent with this.
Pet veterinary services inflation since twenty nineteen is around fifty-six
percent. In this time, housing has become less
stable. As pet ownership becomes more expensive,
fewer families adopt or reclaim pets.
Rescue partners pull fewer animals, placing additional pressure on
municipal shelters. It is clear that twenty
twenty-five was a very successful life-saving year, one of the best in
CACC history. From that lens, Susan Capello has earned
the position of executive director.
Over the past several years, Chicago's animal welfare community has
demonstrated that when CACC and local shelters work
together, measurable progress can follow.
Sue has strengthened these partnerships, expanded life-saving
programming, and leveraged private resources to supplement
public funding.
We appreciate Sue's leadership, and we look forward to continuing our life-saving
work together with Chicago Animal Care and Control.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Melcharick. Uh, our next speaker, uh,
we're privileged to welcome the voice of Chicago dog
owners, uh, WGN radio personality and author
of, uh, the book Ask the Dog, um, which among
many other features includes detailed directions on
where on a dog's body you should pet him versus where you should
scratch him. So if anybody's wondering, see me after and we'll, uh, we'll
clarify for that. Please welcome Steve
Dale.
And I am a certified animal behavior consultant and years ago
served as co-chair of the city's volunteer task force on companion
animals and public safety. I currently serve on several boards,
including the advisory board for the nonprofit National Link
Coalition, which focuses on what's called the link, the
well-documented connection between animal abuse, domestic violence,
child abuse, elder abuse, and other violent crimes.
According to the FBI, which began tracking animal
cruelty as a distinct crime category in two thousand sixteen
through its National Incident-Based Reporting System, reported of
animal cruelty offenses has increased significantly.
Law enforcement recognizes animal cruelty as a potential
indicator of broader violence. Research cited by groups
such as the National Link Coalition and American Humane indicates
between forty-eight and seventy-one percent of domestic
violence survivors with pets report their abuser threatened,
injured, or killed a pet. Harm to animals is often used as a
method of coercion and control. Chicago, however,
does not currently have a domestic violence shelter that allows
families to flee with pets. While PAWS Chicago and
Anti-Cruelty can temporarily house animals, it's just not the same
as keeping families together. In New York City, Urban Resource
Institute operates the PALS program, which encourages survivors
to co-shelter with pets. At the same time, we are seeing
record numbers of people relinquishing pets nationwide,
including here in Chicago, CACC, along with PAWS
Chicago's professionally run diversion program, and Anti-Cruelty's
open admission intake helps to ease pressure on the
system. Giving building constraints and budget
realities, even with res-recent increases,
Executive Director Sue Capello is doing very well
under challenging circumstances.
I've seen EDs going back thirty years or so.
I know which ones I've said to previous mayors, "Please do a national
search." Not now. We have a competent
leader, and a search takes time, money, and attention
away from where the focus must be. If even Peter Pan
comes in to take over as ED, that line of people giving
up their animals remains the same.
That's what we need to do something about.
I suggest the self-serving noise and opposition
is just that. Look at who's supporting Susan, the
majority of Chicago shelters, former CACC
executive directors, and alders who have a long
history supporting and being at Walking the
Walk at Chicago Animal Care and Control.
The problem isn't who's sitting in the office currently, it's how many people are
lined up outside the office. And in my ten seconds,
I just want to say thank you to Alderman Lopez for creating this
ordinance.
Uh, thank you, Mr. Dale, and, uh, I'll note for the record, you hit the
post, as they say in radio. When is your, uh, program, when is your
program air? Y-you-- On, uh, W-WGN Radio, when does your show
air?
My show airs, the pet show that I posted for next year
will be thirty years. Thirty years at one radio station.
That airs early in the morning between five thirty, and I do mean early in the
morning, between five thirty and six thirty Sunday mornings.
And, uh, the afternoon show that I do, where many of you sitting in
this room have been a guest on the show, uh, airs from one o'clock to three
o'clock. That is a general radio show.
Thank you for the plug.
Thank you, Mr.-
That's WGN, seven twenty AM.
Uh, we do have three Rule fifty-nine members present for remote
participation. Uh, Alderman M-Manah Hoppenworth did make the motion
for Rule fifty-nine approval, uh, which passed.
Uh, we'll proceed with the agenda today. We have four items.
The first is approval of a Rule forty-five report for the month of February.
Do we have a motion to approve? Well, Alderman
Martin, uh, hearing no discussion, so ordered.
Uh, the next item is proposed ordinance one five
three nine three, submitted by Alderman Lopez, uh, regarding
cruelty to animals and increasing the fines thereof.
Uh, the chair recognizes Alderman Lopez to introduce the matter fo-following, which
we'll open for questions.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, members of the committee.
Um,
and thank you to our speakers, and always great to see, uh, our friends
from PAWS and Steve, uh, come out in support
of animals in the city of Chicago.
Um, it is true
that there is a direct correlation between animal
cruelty and abuse, and the abuse that we see on our streets
and in our neighborhoods. According to the
National Library of Medicine, and I quote, "Violence towards animals and
violence towards people are often interconnected
problems." We as
a committee that deals with public safety
have the opportunity today to take up an issue
that is a precursor to many of the ills that we see in our
neighborhoods. Working with
animal experts, advocacy groups, as well as
humane, um,
inspectors, who I've had the pleasure of going into neighborhoods
across the entire city, we have seen many of the
issues outlined in the ordinance presented today.
We have seen where animals are tied up,
neglected, abused, left out in the
cold, like the cold snap we saw, with no fresh
water, no
f-fresh bedding, no heat. And
oftentimes, those same animals
are forced into this condition by owners who would just as soon let them die and
replace them
at the next birth of the litter than treat them with any sort of
compassion or empathy. Empathy,
by the way, which is exactly what the Apostle has talked to us
about
meeting after meeting.
This ordinance
addresses
the starting point of so much of the public safety issues that we see because
the animals are the segue. Because if you can be that cruel to a
life form, it is not difficult to be cruel to another
human being. We know this. We have seen
this. And the law has been unfortunately
silent on the specifics that we see in our
communities.Well, today we have the chance to be very
specific to address many of those concerns in working with
our, our, our, our advocates and
individuals knowledgeable in this ar-arena to address
some of the concerns and to make s- very specific
the fact that we are no longer going to give you a range of violations, but that we
are going to hit animal abusers who ultimately will be the ones causing violence in
our streets with
where it hurts most. No longer three hundred dollar fines
or even a thousand dollar fines, but a five thousand dollar fine for the animal
abuse, um, when they are specific to this ordinance.
Um, I'm happy to discuss this with any of my colleagues, but before we do
that, Chairman, um, I do wish to make a, a, an amendment on its
face at the recommendation of my colleague, just correcting
subsection G,
replacing the term gender
with sex.
Um, and if there's no objection to that, I would be happy
to have that, uh, friendly amendment on its face.
Yeah, note for the record, that's on the, the second page of the proposed
ordinance. It's underlined language in paragraph G, uh,
so this is a, uh-
Where it says regardless of gender?
Replacement, yeah.
They'll say regardless-
Replace the word gender with the word sex, uh, moved by
Alderwoman Hadden. Hearing no objection, the, uh,
amendment is so ordered. Uh, Alderwoman
Hadden, uh, do you have a committee to convene at this point, or do, should we
proceed with discussion?
I, I'm thinking we could probably proceed on discussion on this
item, and then we have enough members, um,
next door to maybe take a pause and have folks go over
there.
Okay.
Thank you. Uh, Alderwoman Tabaras.
E- on the roll.
Yeah, we added you.
You got it. Okay, thank you.
Okay. Uh, further, uh, discussion or questions on the, uh, proposed
amendment?
Uh, hearing none, Alderman Lopez-- Oh, I'm sorry, Alderwoman Minohop
North.
Thank you. Can you-- I, I'm concerned about
pet owners who are
houseless
and what,
what kind of fines or penalties will-- I worry about
separating, um, pets from their owners,
a-and especially if they are already homeless
and, and need,
and need assistance. How, how would that work?
Thank you for the question, a-alderwoman.
We have plenty of resources that we provide both through our Animal Care and
Control Center, as well as to many of our organizations to help individuals
who are experiencing housing insecurity to provide them with
the resources to be good owners,
to be caring owners. This specifically deals with those owners who are
intentionally causing harm to their animals.
Oftentimes, you'll see individuals who have hou- who have homes, who have
housing, who are tying their dogs
in the backyard and leaving them days without
care. That's what we're trying to address.
This is not going after the homeless population or those who are dealing
with very specific issues. For example, one of our witnesses r-brought up the fact
that we have situations where individuals dealing with domestic violence have to
make very tou-tough decisions with what to do with their
pet. Um, we need to address that and work
together, uh, and that's something that I hope that we could bring to the Committee
on Housing to address as well, because that's one of the main, uh, concerns that
we hear oftentimes with individuals who are in those unfortunate situations.
We are not trying to go after those individuals.
That is, that is not the nature of this.
These are for individuals who clearly have
no regard for the life of which they are in charge of and who
intentionally will allow that life to suffer, uh,
regardless of what resources you provided.
Thank you.
Uh, Alderman Martin, followed by Alderman Sposato.
Thank you, Chairman. Good morning. Morning.
Um, I wanna call your attention, picking up a little bit
on Alderwoman Minohop North's question around subsection E, so
seven twelve two ninety, a failure to
provide reasonably necessary medical care.
Um,
I'm wondering if there is any sort of, uh, intent
requirement associated with this.
So someone who, um, is negligent but
perhaps not intentionally depriving an animal of medical
care, um, how would you envision this
language captures that? So whether the individual is homeless
or maybe they are of very modest means, they are housed, say, an
elderly person who, um, has diminished faculties, um,
how
w-would this allow for that person to be
fined five thousand dollars, um, despite not
knowingly withholding medical care from an animal?
So I don't think-- Well, first off, thank you for your question.
Second, this is not for individuals who are not
knowingly under-resourced or who have issues.
This is for individuals who know that they have a-an animal in their backyard
which may be in serious need of medical care or
whom they've intentionally refused to get any kind of rabies or vaccination
for. There are resources that we provide globally, uh,
directly as a city as well as through our partners and those who
oftentimes, like the Chicago Wolves, which will do vaccination events at all police
stations. Um, those resources are always our first line of
defense, as well as the fact that Animal Care and Control, for as long as I've been
an alderman, has had a, an array of delegate partners who assist us
in making sure that if there are individuals who are of modest means, as you
say, and, and cannot afford some of these issues, that we're able to assist
them, because ultimately the goal is to make sure that-Pets are
in happy homes. That's the goal. And we understand that there are times when
individuals cannot meet that mark, which is why many of us partner and do things
like Alderman Sposato, where he'll, he'll do pet drives for-- to help
families. Or where, for example, Animal Care and Control will provide
cat food or dog food if someone's running short, or PAWS does the same thing.
They have the same programs available for individuals who are going
through difficulties. There's an immense amount of
compassion, uh, amongst organizations in our own department for
individuals in those set of circumstances.
But at the same time, there are individuals who
are not trying for that compassion, who are intentionally
harming, neglecting, abusing, or ignoring the animals that are in their
charge, and that is the goal of this ordinance, to address
those individuals. All of us would gladly help anybody who
needs assistance. Um, I've delivered with advocates
food to help people. I'm not trying to hold them liable for their
inability. But what I do know is that if you come to a house where you have a
dog that is emaciated because the owner has tied them to the back
pole and all they have is a square patch of dirt no bigger than the
aisle here, that that person needs to be held accountable if they are
intentionally neglecting and abusing that animal.
And if there are
cuts, disease, mange, rabies, flea,
that is an-- a cruelty to that animal, um, that will eventually
permeate to the rest of that individual's lifestyle.
So we need to address that, and that's what this ordinance seeks to do.
I don't disagree at all about the need to address, um, those sorts
of activities. With E, could someone who
is, um, uh, n-not intentionally
withholding reasonable medical care, unintentionally, so
what are the safeguards in place to ensure that they are
not held accountable? Or maybe you would say I, I think they should be held
accountable. They have, um, uh...
They should be required to know when reasonable medical care is
necessary, and so, say negligence or something even lower than that,
they, they should bring themselves up to speed.
So I, so I believe the remedy to your question would be if you have a humane
investigator or even one of our ACOs that goes out and says, "We see that this
dog is living in this particular
condition. We have a remedy for your
situation." If that owner chooses to not do that
or is unresponsive to efforts to try
to take assistance to help out or willingly says, as
we've heard many times, "It's just a dog.
I don't care," then we have a very different set of circumstances that we need to
be able to address, which I think this law answers, versus somebody says, "Oh, I
need help. Oh, I'm-- Thank you for, you know, helping me.
You know, I don't know how it got..." You know, there's always two paths that
people take, especially when it comes to animals.
Either I'm in over my head and could use whatever help I can get, or
I don't care. And this is for the I don't care section.
Mm-hmm. If-
And that, and that will-- And there are individuals, um, who work for the city
of Chicago, our animal control officers, as well as humane investigators, which are
licensed by the state, who are familiar and trained to
address both of those circumstances.
Understood. Uh, two more quick questions.
Mm-hmm.
Um, one, just closing the loop on that.
Um, say someone has been offered those sorts of
resources and has unfortunately declined to accept those.
From an enforcement perspective, what would the next step be?
Is this something that Animal Care and Control works with the law
department on, works with another prosecuting entity
on to hold someone accountable?
So I will say from a practical standpoint, from what I've
seen over
a d- a decade dealing with animal care, all of our
enforcement options, by and large, have generally
been where if we are in a, a singular situation, the goal
is to r- to get that animal out of that
situation. And depending on the demeanor of the individual,
if they're cooperative, not cooperative, if it's a repeat offense, if this is a
known character where we've seen neglect happen time and time
again, um, they have that ability to make those judgment
calls.
Understood. Last question. Um, removing
discretion in terms of the fine. Um, so at the bottom-
Yeah
... right before sub-- or section two, just the blanket five
thousand dollar fine for an offense as opposed to a
range between a thousand and five thousand.
Why, why the five thousand dollars no
discretion allowed? Are we seeing-- So
for example, are we seeing situations where we have a repeat offender
who has been fined, uh, say
m-more than a thousand dollars, and it seems that that is not
having the desired deterrent effect?
So in, in certain extreme situations, we oftentimes find
that it is repeat offenses that we keep coming upon,
um, particularly on the south and west side where we see
a lot of animal fighting
and animal cruelty,
um, that needs to be addressed, as well as in even in my own na-- my own, my
own ward, where I've had to deal with multiple people time and time again.
Um, the message is not getting through.
So the go- hope is that for serious, egregious repeat
offenders, that there will be no leeway because I think that,
again, as we've heard, if, if you have the ability to
harm animals, then you have the ability-- that is a marker for your ability to
hur-hurt another human being. So we need to make sure that we are identifying
that, addressing that, and holding it as
contemptuous as we need to.
Okay. Those are all my questions for now. Thank you.
Alderman Sposato.
Uh, thank you, Chairman. Thanks, Ray.
Um, just wanna reconfirm a lot of stuff you said.
So this is a fact,
people.Cruel people start
off by being cruel to animals, and they go on to humans.
Um, that's a fact that's well documented. You could look it up.
You don't have to believe me. Um, there's some bad people out there, and,
um, unfortunately they do bad things to not just animals, but humans
also. Um, I don't know if the Paws gal is still here, but
animal rescuers won't even let a black cat be rescued around Halloween time because
of bad things that happen to the, the bla-black cats especially.
Um, but that's all I just want to say. Support this.
Um,
I'm a, a, a close friend with an animal advocate from my community.
Uh, some of the stuff they see-- Just recently I saw on the news, I don't, I don't
remember, I don't think it was in Chicago, but this guy was killing
cats by putting them in a microwave and getting his jollies out of seeing them
being tortured in a microwave. So, um,
so we need to hit these people pretty hard.
Um, some of them don't get it. I... Hopefully it would stop
them. They... I, I don't know if it will or won't, but I have no sympathy for
these people. Uh, early in my career, I had a, an, an animal
ab-abuse, uh, situation. Doesn't
happen a lot in my community, but it does happen. I'm well aware of that.
But the dog was left in a cage in a yard, a little probably
four-by-four cage, barking, crying.
You know, one of the neighbors was a friend of mine called and said, "This dog's
out here barking and crying. It's out in the rain in a cage.
They don't let it out." So of course I went there, an animal care and control.
There was a skinny dog. You could see its ribs.
No food, no water, no nothing. So, uh, they confiscated the dog, so
hopefully that dog found a good home.
Um, but yeah, just want to say we have to do serious business with these
people that have, uh, no sympathy, uh, for animals.
And of course, I believe it's a precursor for how they
treat humans. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Chairman, if I-
Yeah. Thank you, uh, Alderman Sposato. Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, uh, Chairman, and thank you, Alderman.
And I just want to add one other thing too.
This is not exclusive to dogs and cats.
Uh, in my first term, we had a scenario where we had an
individual in a city lot, a ten-by-ten,
had a horse. An emaciated
horse. No
structure, no running water, a
bucket of green water that was sitting there,
and it was eating whatever grass and, and weeds were growing along the side of the
fence. That is cruelty. That is not
breed appropriate for any animal.
So we know that we always have discussions about many of the other animals that we
have in our communities. This also applies to them,
too.
Uh, I would just, uh, remind committee members, um, if you have
more general questions about animal care and control,
uh, that aren't directly relevant to this particular ordinance today,
um, Ms. Capella will appear before the city council for a confirmation
hearing later this month. So, uh, you'll have, uh, another opportunity to ask
questions in a, a more general, uh, category.
Alderman Tagliaferro, followed by Alderman Fuentes.
Um, thank you, Chairman. And, um, Alderman, uh, thank you so much for this
ordinance. It's, um, it's very much needed.
Um,
how do, how do we
somewhat take the discretionary effect out of it?
You know, because I believe that there is an, an intentional impact on,
um, some of the folks even, um, that my colleagues raised today,
um, those that are, you know, um, suffering from housing insecurities as well as
mental capacity. Um, how do we, how do we clean the language
up, uh, to take away the unintentional impact of the ordinance
when it comes down to enforcement?
Um, and, and, and secondly, um, is this something that's going to
be enforced by Animal Care Control and the Chicago Police
Department?
Generally, Animal Care and Control is the one that has to respond to these re- to
these issues.
Okay. Um, so how, how do we take-- how do we clean the
language up to some degree, um, that we take the
unintentional impact away from it?
And, and then it, it takes away a little of the, a little bit of the
discretion, um, that, that this, um, the, the way the
current language provides. Because
essentially if, if an agent of, um, Animal Care Control responds,
uh, I'm assuming they have to use their discretion as to whether or not to
cite this particular, um, incident or not.
So I believe that that language already exists in this ordinance.
Um, I believe that is section, the new section
J,
um, where it says, "In cases where the violation of this section creates a danger
to the public health or safety or welfare of an animal, the executive director may
cause the animal to be impounded until such time that
conditions that cause the danger are corrected."
So you have opportunities per the existing code to
address them, and if you, if you do not from that point, then other measures are
taken into account. And, and that's the existing-
Let me be more specific. Um, there was a, there was an example that was
provided by one, uh, one of our colleagues, um, that gave
specifics as to, um, a, someone that may be without
home, um, that may be homeless, and they have a dog,
um, or a cat or whatever, um, animal they may have.
Um, and so, uh, th- is there discretion used by Animal Care
Control when they see a clear violation, but this ordinance
was not intended, um...
So the current municipal code now has discretion with the, with the executive
director for a week worth of correction period.
So for example, if somebody were to be
homeless-
Mm-hmm
...or in a situation, and they have a pet that somebody called
on, say there's an issue, um, they have seven days to
correct. And what I will say is that overwhelmingly-Either animal
care itself or our partners at Anti-Cruelty, PAWS or
other, or other organizations have always stepped in to try to
help keep people with their pets freely.
Um, so all of that apparatus exists currently at the
shelter
as it is right now, regardless of what we do today.
So we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that if we have
individuals who love their pets but may be in a difficult
situation in terms of maintaining them, that we can actually work to
keep them with their pets, bring them up to speed on some of their shots
and needs, and even help them with some of their food and other necessities moving
forward.
Thank you, Alderman. Thank you for le- your leadership on this, and, uh, thank you,
Mr. Chair.
And I would have... I'm sorry, and I would have to also thank all of those
organizations who really show up on behalf of the City of
Chicago to help keep people with their pets, because that is something
that taxpayers do not pay for. Um, but they, through
their respective missions, believe that diversion
a-away from the shelter is the best remedy for many of these
animals.
Thank you. Alderman Fuentes.
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Alderman, for bringing the ordinance forward.
Would you be opposed to adding language that would
specifically allow us to understand that this is intended for
individuals that both have social financial
means and are intentional with the abuse so that
it is not harming individuals who are unhoused, street-based homeless,
uh, who, for example, may have a pet outside with them in the
middle of the night
in cold weather?
Is there a recommendation where you'd want to put that?
Because I know that, for example, um,
H, which is already in the current ordinance,
says knowing... For example, that deals with poisoning or poisoning animals.
So it says knowingly poisoning
basically. Um-
Yeah. No, that-- So section H is, is specific, but when you
look at A, B, C or, or any of the other spaces, it is
not, right? And the overarching premise is no person-
So-
... shall do any of the following, which means any person.
So any person who shall. So would you
be-
If we could just add some-
Would you be accepting of-
... specific language there
... if it said any person who shall knowingly
violate?
And then I, I would add a section that, or a
phrase that
speaks to sort of the financial and social,
that they have social and financial means, right?
That they're not just keeping a dog out in the backyard while they have a
house.
And if you like, I can attempt to draft something that's
acceptable.
No, I'm happy to revisit that if you'd like.
Okay.
Um, I understand and hear exactly what a number of my colleagues have
mentioned, yourself and Alder- Alderwoman Anna Hoppenworth, uh,
specifically with regards to that.
Um, but I would like to at least get this on the books,
and then we can edit to- edit that part, uh, as part...
But also edit it also as a larger conversation with regards to the
domestic violence in the shelters and be- for individuals to be able to take their
pets as well.
Sure.
If you're open to that.
And then would you be open to sort of a
financial escalator here? A, a five thousand dollar fee, for
example, I understand for beating, torturing,
tormenting, knowingly poisoning.
Uh, but for someone who may not have the financial means to resolve
m-a medical bill in seven days, and they already don't have the
financial means to resolve taking the healthcare of their pet
seriously, how can they afford a five thousand dollar
fee?
Well, you're referring to individuals who would like to address the--
who would like to correct those concerns, correct?
Correct.
So again, most of those individuals who
have difficulty paying for the bills probably would not be the ones trying to
pay that fine. But I also believe that odds are that they would be the ones who
would gladly take help that was offered to them.
The individuals who would not take help are the ones who are intentionally
being cruel to those animals, and I don't think that they necessarily need
a- an escalator for their fines.
And then the, the current, uh, capacity of
animal care and control, do we know how many, uh,
investigators the office has
when complaints like these come in?
So the ACOs we're referring to?
Correct.
I believe there's roughly forty-eight, if I'm not mistaken.
Okay. And then do we have findings of how many of
these cases they follow through with a proper investigation?
I'll give you an example. I have a neighbor who leaves two
dogs outside year-round.
I've reported it half a dozen times.
This is the second winter those pets live outside.
Nothing's been done.
That is a travesty.
Um, I do know that we've had
some challenges when it comes to the ACOs getting
out. I do know that we also have field humane
investigators certified by the state that also do that work as well in
tandem with local police. Um, there's a whole
universe that addresses many of those concerns and issues, um,
but not quickly enough for the amount of need that is out there, clearly.
Um, and I'm sure that on the tenth, when
Director Capella's here, that is something that we could raise with her, as well as
with our own budget team and human resources, because I do know that we have
issues when it comes to filling those positions that are within the department, as
well as now I believe there's an issue, uh, with regards to
staffing-And on whether or not one or two ACOs
go out, um, without a partner, if they have to go in tandem
or one at a time. That also creates a burden for the department,
um, because where you had maybe twenty-four in a shift going out
singularly, now you only have teams of twelve as they're doubling
up. So I think there are some issues that we need to resolve.
Bless you. Uh, with regards to both staffing as
well as whatever the union work rules are on that subject.
And so-
To have an animal in that-- To your point, to have an animal that is out
there year after year with no end in sight, um, clearly that shows
a, a disregard-
Mm.
-if you're not providing proper care.
Some animals are meant for that if you give them the proper shelter,
proper bedding, proper water, all of that.
If you don't, then that's cruelty.
Yeah. Look, I, I want to make sure that pets
are taken care of as much as you do. I, I have a dog, and
that is a member of my family, right?
Um,
I don't know if this particular ordinance changes the circumstances that
we're currently finding ourselves in today, right?
For the example that I gave, but dozens and hundreds of
others. I think that because of the lack of specificity in
this ordinance, it may have some unintended consequences.
I do hope that we can work on some
specificity here so that the folks who are actually abusers are
the individuals that are held to account, um, and not
folks maybe who, who are in precarious situation
themselves, right, as human beings.
Uh, but appreciate the discussion. Thank you.
Well, you have-- you both have my word that we can
revisit, uh, to address those concerns and the other that I
raised, and especially now that our colleague, the chairman of the housing
committee, is back, um, just to raise it for his awareness as well, that
I'd like to bring up, uh, a secondary ordinance to deal with
addressing the domestic violence situations and bans that prohibit them
from-- victims from taking their pets with them whenever they go and le-leave
from those situations.
Alderman Spizzano.
Again, Chairman, I just, just wanna, just wanna let everybody know of two things.
Just, just 'cause somebody is homeless doesn't mean they're mistreating their
animals. So some of the biggest animal lovers out there are some homeless
people. Um, there's a homeless guy that I've been supporting for
years through a friend of mine that works at animal care and control.
The guy lives in a, a, like a storage container, and he has five animals that are
well taken care of, well-fed. They just don't really have a real
home. And also, just 'cause a dog is outside, I mean, we know the
difference between a dog that's being outside and not taken care of.
So I had a neighbor of mine for years, had two dogs,
Akitas. Uh, once one Akita died, he got another one, and that dog always
lived outside. So it was-- it had shelter, it had food, it had
water. So just 'cause the dog's living outside, of course it would piss my
wife and me off that it happened, but it was an outside dog.
So, um, but just 'cause somebody's homeless doesn't mean they're being cruel to
their animal. Uh, I see a lot of homeless guys, uh, sometimes o-on
the corner, instead of asking for food, they're asking for dog food.
So, um, and people come to them in droves and bring them food and, and stuff for
their animals. So that's about it.
Just wanna say some homeless people are really true animal lovers, and they will
not give their animal up because they wanna take care of it.
Thank you, Chairman.
Uh, Alderwoman Hadden.
Move to pass.
Uh, move to pass as amended, uh, by Alderwoman
Hadden. Hearing no further discussion, uh, no
objection, so ordered. The ordinance will be reported out of
committee with the due pass recommendation.
Um, Alderman Lopez, please remain.
The next item is yours as well.
Can I, um-
Wanna-- You wanna do a quorum?
Yeah.
Okay.
If you don't mind.
All right. We'll, we'll take a very brief recess, uh, to allow for
establishment of quorum in Alderwoman's, uh, Hadden's
Environmental Committee in room two oh one A.
The,
uh, committee will reconvene from recess, and the next
item, uh, is proposed ordinance,
uh, amending section eight five ten,
uh, dealing with attempts to conceal identity via masks.
And once again, uh, Alderman
Lopez.
Sorry.
Again, good afternoon, members of the commit- uh, good morning, Chairman, members
of the committee. Um,
I present this amendment to the municipal
code, which, as I was just
explaining, that
we should have enhanced penalties for individuals who wear
masks in the commission
of committing crimes and offenses in the city of
Chicago. Now,
I sh- present this today
knowing full well
that there are some who are trying to
misrepresent the nature of this ordinance.
This ordinance does not criminalize
mask-wearing. This ordinance does not
criminalize individuals who are sick or have
health issues, who have comorbidities, as we've all come to learn from
COVID. This ordinance
very simply
elevates the discussion that we've seen over the past few
years where individuals
are using
those
masks, hoods, or other pieces of clothing,
scarves, while
committing crimes in the city of Chicago.
Those crimes are already illegal.
Those acts are already against the law.
But we see time and time again
where people are being carjacked while wea- by someone wearing
masks. Stores
are being broken into. A- one of the news outlets just reported
ten thousand robberies against small
businesses. We have ATM rings where we see video
time and time again, a group of young individuals we can only
assume wearing masks.
And I say they are young because they move faster than I
do. We have to address
this. We have to address the fears that are being
felt in our communities
by our seniors, by our families, when they
see individuals
in masks going up to
cars. That
is what this is about.
That is what this ordinance seeks to do.
And Chairman, I would reserve the right to make a final motion,
but would love to hear comments and question-- answer comments, questions, or hear
concerns at this time.
All right. Thank you, Alderman Lopez.
And, oh, um, and forgive me.
I had surgery yesterday. I, I'm in a little bit of a
pain, so if you see me making faces, it's not at you
guys. If this were last week, yes, it would
be because it's you.
All right.
Today, it's not.
Alderman Martin.
Thank you, Chair. Um, first, this provides
that anyone arrested for a number of violations, which I'll
get into, could be subject to
mandatory ten-day imprisonment, five thousand dollar fine, without it
necessarily being the case that charges are ultimately pursued
successfully or otherwise, simply that an arrest is
made. Why, why, why are we stopping there?
Why would you not require that someone be convicted
of a crime and simply make it so that they would be
subject to imprisonment and a five thousand dollar fine simply for an
arrest, which may ultimately turn out to be an er- an
erroneous arrest?
So, in that regard, I'm happy to consider
that as an addition to this. Um,
this is something that was presented both, um, to
colleagues and the departments, of which both the
committee offered to have discussions on, um, with the
intergovernmental
folks, with law, and with police, and no
response was given by any of those three.
So that's why I'm happy to have this discussion today, um, because if there
are tweaks that, as you point out, that
are responsible in
nature, then happy to hear and entertain those.
Understood. And I, I should say, first and foremost, I think it's always
important and part of the responsibility of these committees to have hearings, even
if it's on issues where members may disagree.
So I can appreciate that. I think, um, you know, it
noting not explicitly that this would be just a subject
matter hearing, but the possibility for a vote, you know, that-Unclear to
me whether this was something where it was just to spark a discussion about
an issue that understandably is a very important one.
We know that it's challenging, particularly for individuals who may be
committing repeated violations, um, to identify them,
especially based solely on video camera footage if there's a mask
that's being worn. So I, I, I definitely understand the need to have
conversations around this, um, but understanding what is the
most appropriate way, um, to dissuade that behavior,
it's... I'm not confident that this is the best way, but we're having that
conversation to, to, to move things forward.
Think second, Title VIII is an incredibly broad
title. Um-
Mm-hmm
... it speaks to issues that range
from, uh, being in a tanning bed, uh,
underage, to curfew violations, to
intoxication, to disorderly conduct, which
itself can touch upon myriad issues,
including, uh, potential protests.
I'm curious why you felt it ap-appropriate
to have all of Title VIII be
something that someone could be, um,
held accountable for.
I think that was the most appropriate part of the municipal code
without having to go-
Can you say more?
Sorry. Excuse me?
Can you say more about why you felt that was appropriate, and even
not s- calling out specific items, um, but
saying everything in there? Because part of my concern
is this talks not just about masks, but also
hoods and other clothing, um, that conceal
or can be attempted to conceal a person's identity without
any sort of intent. So if someone is wearing
a, a hooded sweatshirt, and they put up their hood, and they
are, uh-
Well, no, they're, they're-
... engaging in protest, there's no intent to say...
There's, there's no provision in here so far as I read it that says it must
be their intent to conceal their identity, so simply wearing
a hooded sweatshirt that has the impact of
concealing-
So-
... an identity-
I d-
... that, that could open them up to liability.
I don't necessarily agree with that assessment because actually, as you stated,
sec- um, chapter eight deals with a wide range of offenses, and
with regards to whether there's intent.
This says that, and I... from the, directly from the
ordinance as written, "While wearing..." That, "Any violation of this
section," which is any of those various offenses listed in the
chapter, um,
"mask, hood, or clothing, uh, that conceal or there's an attempt
to conceal the person's id-identity at the time of the offense shall be subject
to X, Y, and Z."
Sure, but there's-
So there's-
... no intent i-in terms of concealment.
I mean, I, I, I know that this isn't the, the intent of your
proposal, but just by way of a hypothetical, if someone
intends... They're 17 years of age, they go to a tanning
salon, and say they are walking in with a
hooded, a hooded sweatshirt with the hood up, um,
that on its face can be a concealment of their
identity even if it was not at all their intent to do so, and in
walking in, there is a violation of that law, putting aside
whether that law was intended to go after the youth
or the tanning salon itself. So I think the lack of any sort
of, from a legal perspective, mens rea of what the person's intent was
when they were wearing a face mask, if it was from their
perspective, uh, for health reasons, or a hooded sweatshirt
because it's a little cool outside, that, that gives me some concern as
well. Um, and
then I think the last thing I would share, not as a question but an
observation, that it's a mandatory 10 days of
imprisonment. I read this to be a mandatory
$5,000 fine, mandatory community service of 120
hours. That, that strikes me as a lot without any sort of
discretion built in for the prosecuting entity
or the judge hearing this, especially given how many
different types of violations fall within Title VIII.
Um, so I will leave it there. Um, thank you, Chair.
Alderman Vasquez followed by Alderman Fuentes.
Thank you very much, Chairman. Um, I think Alderman Martin kind of, like, laid the
groundwork for a lot of the q-questions that I also have.
Um, I guess in looking at Title VIII, was there anything in Title VIII that you
might have felt was
not up to the standard of having that kind of, um,
penalty?
That'd be for the sponsor.
I'm assuming you're asking if there was something that I felt that could've been
excluded.
Yeah, like if you, if you were being more specific on, like, the types of
crimes, for lack of a better term, right?
Like Title VIII, I believe my understanding is you could put a flowerpot on a
windowsill, and that would be a violation because you're putting something that
could fall
on a windowsill, and so if you happen to be wearing a hood or whatever, that would
also mandatory have these penalties.
So are there things that are part of Title VIII that you might have felt-
So I weren't. If I may, I think the
question actually as it relates to both
of my colleagues here is whether or not
I should h- we should have
outlined every single one that I thought was appropriate versus a broader
brush. Correct?
Yeah. So for example, like, so if protest is viewed as disorderly conduct,
somebody's wearing a hood outside 'cause it's raining or snowing,
if someone wanted to, they'd say, "Hey, you violated this, plus also we're gonna
add more penalty because of it," that there are certain things that I think
shouldn't have that additional kind of, of view.
I mean, I, I have larger concerns, but I think Title VIII is that
broad.
So
I appreciate that feedback, and
again, I
think-To Alderman Martin's
point, this wasn't meant to be a subject matter, but I am happy
to take back what we're hearing, um, and revisit
and address these concerns
because I think that there are two sets of goals that are not
insurmountable if we are able to actually focus and do what
needs to be done to make this a more perfect
ordinance.
Yeah. Um,
that might be an avenue to kind of discuss.
I think also in looking at the languages, I was gonna do a point of clarification,
but I figured I'd wait till my turn.
Um, as it's written, it does not state that the person
has any intent to conceal. What it says is, "A hood,
mask, or clothing or device that conceals or attempts to
conceal," meaning it attributes intent to a
product, not a person. It doesn't say, "If a person attempts to
conceal themselves from somebody using these," it says, "If they wear a hood that
could be used to conceal." And even that language I think is a bit-
While, while in commission of a crime.
Again-
Yeah
... in Title VIII, crimes are a whole list of crimes.
True, but again, this is not criminalizing the
clothing, it's criminalizing the act while wearing the
specific... If you're using this clothing to engage
in a criminal activity, that is what should be of
concern to all of us. If it
is, like you
say, if you're outside and it's cold out and you have a hoodie, that is, that in
and of itself is not a crime. Walking down the street is not a
crime. If you are breaking into a
restaurant in the middle of summer wearing a ski
mask, you've committed multiple offenses, not the
least of which is what you're wearing on your face.
So this is just an enhancement to that.
I, I guess
I appreciate that, your perspective on it.
I just think if somebody were to, to your point, rob a
restaurant, they'd have enough penalty associated with the
action and activity if they're found convicted of a crime as opposed to like,
"Hey, we're gonna get you 'cause you also wore a hoodie while you were doing it."
So I think, I think there's... Again, because it doesn't make it clear about the
attempt to conceal, and if protesting could fi- file under Title
VIII, just wearing a hoodie, which we all know is...
I've got problems with the hoodie thing in general, not just 'cause I'm wearing one
currently. But the level of profiling and the level of
racial profiling that's occurred with people wearing hoodies and other-
Yeah
... clothing is a concern-
Respectfully-
Not because of what you're wearing
... there, there is no... Respectfully, there is no racial profiling in this
ordinance.
I'm not saying in the ordinance, I'm saying in the world and the city.
And as we know, there's been a history with police.
So it's not necessarily that you've written it with the intent, but someone could
use it in a manner that could be harmful, right?
They could say, "Hey, we saw somebody outside and we thought they were loitering.
That's a crime and he had a hoodie on, now we gotta pay an extra." That it is less
about what's written, it's the fact that what's written doesn't account for those
kind of uses
by those who could make that call.
So I think, I think that's, that's my general concern on it.
I do think to your point, if it was more refined as to what particular things we're
talking about, uh, and what that might look like in
addition, that's maybe a further conversation.
But I think as it's written currently, it is way too broad and way too subject
to interpretation by people who could utilize in a manner that I think wouldn't
solve a problem and might create larger ones. Um, that's all I've got.
And by, and by people who can utilize it, you're referring to law
enforcement?
Yeah.
Okay.
Yes, 100%. Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
Alderman Fuentes.
Uh, thank you, Chairman. Uh, Alderman, the
Division of Administrative Hearings cannot
prosecute, uh, on these offenses based
on how the ordinance is written. So this would mean the city prosecutor would have
to prosecute for every time this ordinance, uh, is
violated. This was al- this would also mean that
potentially a city prosecutor can, uh, have to
hear a case in which, uh, a
individual's participating in a protest with a PPE mask based
on how this is written with a very broad stroke of violations
of Title VIII, uh, which concerns me, uh, to be
honest. I also am a little concerned that the ordinance
itself does not, uh, provide clarity on the type of
clothing that can be utilized to conceal identity.
Who are they concealing identity to that would be considered a
violation of this ordinance? Um, but I'm also
wondering if there's someone here from the law department, I see you in the
box, um, if you could just opine
on the city prosecutor's capacity
on prosecuting violations of this ordinance and
the constitutional sort of concerns
around not specifically defining
clothing, who they're in violation to.
And then there's this issue as well, we don't have, um,
sort of a, a scale in
which days or fines can be given by the
prosecutor itself. It's strict 10 days, strict fines, strict hours of
community service. Uh, can we, can we talk about some constitutional
concerns here? 'Cause I feel like there's plenty.
Uh, we do have a representative from the law department here in the box.
Uh, please activate the microphone and counsel state your name for the
record.
Good, uh, afternoon, council, uh, Committee on Public Safety, Chairman,
members. Uh, my name is Christopher Kolb.
I am Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Department of Law.
Uh, to start with your question regarding capacity for our city
prosecutor, uh, I will clarify that I am not in our
prosecutions division. However, I did have the opportunity to speak to
the city prosecutor regarding our ability to
manage this potential caseload. Uh, under our interpretation
of the statute, it would impose a mandatory $5,000
fine, 10 days of incarceration, and 120 hours of mandatory
community service. Uh, the Department of Administrative Hearings does not
have authority to impose incarceration
So this would require the prosecution, uh, the prosecutor to,
uh, prosecute these cases in branch court.
Uh, because the ordinance, as mentioned, uh, applies to all Title
VIII violations, it would substantially increase the volume of
prosecutions and, uh, the, the
nature of those prosecutions that would normally go to branch court.
Uh, we generally would take, um, uh,
without making a, a determination regarding
the severity of a particular violation versus another, there are
certain, you know, low-lying offenses that would normally not go
to a branch court that would, uh, now be required to
go there if this, uh, concealment element was added to
it. Regarding concerns re- about
the, the scope of the, uh, concealment
prohibition, I think that there are really
two, uh, clarifications that we would recommend.
One is, what does it actually mean to conceal one's
identity? Does it require an intent element?
Does it require, you know, directing that concealment
towards law enforcement? Does it have to connect to the actual
underlying offense itself? And the second element would
be, um, clarifying,
uh, what objects can be used
to conceal one's identity. As written, I think there's a concern that the
scope is extremely broad and would protect otherwise...
uh, and would, uh, affect otherwise protected conduct, such as
wearing religious garments, such as wearing,
uh, protective winter gear and, as previously mentioned, uh,
uh, medical devices and PPE.
So, uh, I think before moving forward, we'd want
additional clarity on all of those elements.
And then I apologize, you might have had a third, uh, element there that you
wanted me... Oh, the, uh, fine range.
Uh, as a general matter, Department of Law would recommend a,
uh, a range of, uh, penalties both to
allow our prosecutors to, uh, you know, seek plea
agreements, uh, also to
actually, uh, allow for the effective, uh, enforcement
of the ordinance. Uh, especially in branch court, judges are gonna
be, uh, uh, resistant most
likely to imposing penalties that they view are not
proportional to the offense itself.
So some of these offenses, uh, I would say on average, would
carry around $100 fines. This would,
uh, bump that up about 50 times, um, and
judges may feel that that is not commiserate with the, the offense
itself.
Thank you. I'm, I'm a little more concerned with the violation of the 13th
Amendment. Often, when someone appears before a court, they can choose, for
example, between prison time and hours.
This mandates all of it: prison time,
hours, and a fine. Um, and so I'm, I'm concerned
we're, we're gonna be facing some serious legal issues
with constitutional violations as written.
Thank
you.
Thank you. May I do a follow-up with the law department?
Yeah, go ahead. A further question...
Oh, Alderman, uh, were you raising your hand, Alderman Spi-
okay. Okay, um,
state your question for law department, and then Alderman Sposato followed by
Alderman Tal- Tagliaferro.
Thank you, Chairman. Actually, as a follow-up for the law department's questions,
when were those revisions first
suggested?
I believe the Department of Law submitted comments, uh, in
2024 when, uh, the ordinance was first proposed.
But I actually-
Mm-hmm
... did not, uh, provide the analysis at the time.
It was a former team member that's no longer, uh, on the team.
Yeah. So the policy analysis and proposed revisions that you
just referenced
were sh- shared by somebody prior to your arrival to the
department?
I was with the department at the time-
Well, I mean, it was written
... but prior to my... Yes, uh, working on this particular one.
And who were they given to at that time?
I do not know the answer to that question.
That would be the Intergovernmental Affairs team? Yes?
I also do not know the answer to that question.
And I would just add for my colleagues, that is the first time I've ever
heard a response from the law department on these items.
So hearing your concerns, hearing
their concerns for the first time, I love...
I would have loved to address and revise
accordingly to, to make this a possibility.
This was filed May 22,
2024.
That is the first time I've heard any concerns from the law department that
would've made this more palatable to many of the concerns raised so far.
So, um, I would ask that that
be shared with the committee members,
um, because I think that being able to move forward to address some of the concerns
that have been shared
and make this a more functional and acceptable
ordinance, uh, should be all of our goals, and not just sitting on
opinions and evaluations to make things better, stronger,
and
more pleasing to the body.
Uh,
before we do that, uh, just for the record, uh, I
confirm the committee did not receive, uh, any communication of those concerns
from the law department neither since the introduction, so.
Um, but we'll continue with the discussion. Alderman Sposato.
Thank, thank you, Chairman. Boy, boy did this get twisted
around, Ray, let me tell you so. Um,
how about if somebody's wearing a hoodie when it's 80 degrees out? Does that count?
So, so my suggestion would be, you know-
Ray, maybe just strike hoodie and clothing.
I mean, we know, we see these videos, these bad guys.
Talked to some of these business owners that have been robbed, that they're in
there with hoodies and masks on and everything.
So maybe may- I'd like to recommend just putting mask in there, 'cause
we don't wanna offend anybody, we don't want anybody to racially profile.
So maybe if you would consider that, uh, uh, striking
those in this ordinance. Hood and clothing or device
concealing an attempt, I, I, I don't get it, but if that, if that has to
appease these people to pass this, then I'm all for it.
But the intent of this is, the intent of this is...
And I wish we had some business owners, that has been all over the news lately,
that have been robbed by guys in masks, these restaurant owners that are being
closed and everything, losing everything, that didn't have enough insurance or
whatever, that these scumbags are going in there, robbing them
blind,
concealing their identity, 'cause they know there's cameras in there and they don't
care. So
just a recommendation, Ray. Just consider scratching hoodie.
And I'm sure our colleagues will support it if we scratch hoodie.
Thank you, Chairman.
Alderman Taliaferro.
Um, I just have one point, you know, really, and, um, I
think there, y- you know, Ray, I think the intent is, is, um,
um, taken. Uh, but I, I would really, you know, as, as
our colleague mentioned, um, really change the word
arrested to a- to arrested and convicted, or just
convicted, because it looks like we are trying to impose
penalty without the proper adjudication of a case.
Um, because it, it specifically states any person arrested, um,
will be subject to those, um, those penalties.
And, and certainly, uh, as, as you know, we, we have a
lot of folks that have been arrested that, that have been relief- released without
charges. And, um, um, so I, I find it very difficult to
impose those penalties on someone that's just merely been
arrested. Um, but I would certainly change that to, um, um,
arrested and convicted. Um, otherwise, and I think we may
face some problems in court as well, um, by imposing or
subje- subjecting someone to penalties without being
convicted of a crime.
Alderman Garner.
Thank you, Chairman. Um, I agree with Alderman
Taliaferro and Alderman Martin. Alderman Martin brought up a good point
earlier, um, about the fact that you should
change the language, uh, and Alderman Taliaferro just
said, any person arrested and convicted.
I think that's a great idea, and I'm sure you're in agreement with
that. Um,
you know, I, for example,
know what it's like to be accused of something a- and to be,
uh, found not guilty by the Inspector General's office, and we all saw
what happened there. So there's nothing worse than being accused of something and
you're actually innocent, so that's good.
Can I just ask, Alderman Lopez, what was your goal when you drafted this ordinance?
I'm sorry?
What was your goal?
My goal was very simple.
Mm-hmm.
We need to protect
the citizens, businesses, and guests of the city of
Chicago. We see time and time again,
across all neighborhoods, in
videos, on the news, and in
print, individuals who
intentionally would conceal
their faces to commit crimes.
We saw this explode a- as
a trend, if you
will, post-2020,
post-COVID. And even then,
as you will recall, we had conversations
in this room with our former mayor and others.
How do you address that? And at that time, there were
individuals, groups, and organizations who said we were trying to
criminalize the masks and, and put people's health at risk, even though
that was not the case then, and it is not the case now.
We talk about that this is going to...
or we hear about, that this is going to target certain segments.
The only thing that this targets are people who are wearing masks committing
crimes.
You wanna go for a jog,
wear one of those things. Jogging is not illegal.
We just heard a c- uh, we just heard one of our speakers today say she had
30 young men on the street feeding people wearing masks.
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
That is not illegal.
Right.
Doing good work for people-
Right
... while also keeping yourself safe.
But we also know
that there are individuals who are playing on our sympathies
or our unwillingness to actually have a, a very finite
conversation on how to address those small
numbers of individuals who are engaging in some of the most
destructive behaviors in the city of Chicago right now.
Mm-hmm.
That as our other colleague from your neighboring ward mentioned, ten thousand
businesses have been hit by individuals wearing masks intentionally
because they know that that, what once was part of the municipal
code, by the way, has been removed.
Mm-hmm.
This is a common sense-
Mm-hmm
... measure
to go after only those that commit crimes. Are there things that we could tweak?
Absolutely.
Sure.
Are there things that we should address?
To my colleague from the west side's point, absolutely.
I'll amend it right now if that, if that, that point about what you just brought
up, which is arrest and convicted.
Yeah.
Hundred percent.
Yeah.
But we have to, as a
public safety committee and as a body, recognize that there are
individuals who are taking full advantage of
a mask, not for health-Not for
safety-
Yeah
... but to commit acts of violence and criminality in the city of Chicago.
Just on that point, Alderman Lopez, have you or your community noticed
aggravated assaults or violent crime being conducted while
i- items, uh, to conceal are being worn?
100%, absolutely.
The reason I ask is-
And I represent six different distinct neighborhoods.
Sure.
From Canaryville to Chicago Lawn, Back of the Yards, Brighton Park, Gage Park, West
Englewood, every single one of them has been-- has seen
this happen.
And is it the, the, the communities that you represent, is that a diverse
community?
From
White Irish to first generation Latino immigrants to African
Americans to a blend of all the above, absolutely.
Okay. The re- I, I, I'm just asking because recently two bars in my, in
my ward were just broken into over the last couple weeks.
They broke the windows, uh, they took the ATM machines, all while
wearing masks, while wearing hoods.
Um, um, and I'm asking you if, if that's going on, obviously you
represent the south side of Chicago, I represent the north side of Chicago, uh,
and I'm just seeing if that is a common theme throughout our city.
So I thank you for your time. Uh, I understand your
motivation. I, I also understand the, the points that
Alderman Martin brought up, Alderman Taliaferro, and some of the
sensitivities that Alderman Vasquez brought up.
So thank you.
Uh, Alderman Sposato makes a motion to allow for Rule fifty-nine participation for
Alderman Chico. No? You're not. Okay.
Just testing you, Nick. Alderman Fuentes makes that motion.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Alderman Sposato, your, uh, objection is noted.
Uh, Alderman Fuentes followed by Alderman Minah Hoppenworth.
But also just for clarity, 'cause we're talking a lot about, like, armed robbery
here and protecting small businesses, chapter eight does not do that.
So it would be the wrong chapter for this ordinance if that's what we were
attempting to do.
Alderman Minah Hoppenworth.
Thank you. Thank you to the sponsor for
trying to protect our small businesses.
You know, we have a lot of small businesses in the forty-eighth Ward, and
recently had a rash of somebody who was, who was in a mask,
and I wanna commend my commanders for
being on top of, of it, and, and
holding this individual accountable.
You know, I, I don't know to the point of, um,
many of my colleagues here if this ordinance truly
does what you intend it to do, what we want it to
do. I, I do hope that we spend also as much
time, you know, s- um, later talking about how we
can deter crime from happening by making sure people
have employment, you know, youth employment especially,
and housing and healthcare, especially mental health supports and on and
on. Um,
but I, I am concerned about many things in this, in this
ordinance, including the constitutionality of
s- of what we're talking about here, including the, the
mandate for community service. I think that, that, that
is something that I think we need to talk to law and the
judiciary about because, you know, um,
the Thirteenth Amendment says that we, we're long past putting
people, um, in involuntary
servitude. So I hope that we address many of
these issues, um, brought up today.
Um, I agree with, uh, Alder Martin and
Taliaferro when we're talking about is it arrest, uh, just
arrest, arrest and conviction, um, you
know, how much discretion, um, are we not allowing our,
our judicial branch to, to do its job? So thank you.
Thank you.
Uh, further comments on this matter?
Chairman, I move to, uh, hold this item until we receive review from law
department.
Uh, very well. This item will be held, uh, for further
amendment, and, uh, it's my anticipation, Alderman Lopez,
since this seems pretty straightforward, the request that you, uh, you seem
amenable, um, we can represent this at the Public Safety Committee
meeting on April ninth, uh, at which time I would anticipate
passage. Thank you. No motion necessary.
We'll just hold it in committee. Uh, the next item is proposed
ordinance five two nine eight, uh, again
dealing with, uh, public safety in, uh, chapter eight dash
sixteen, uh, sponsored by Alderman Lopez,
co-sponsored by Alderman Tabares and Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
Again, thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon members of the committee.
Um,
just don't say ditto
to all of your questions and complaints. No.
Uh, the ordinance I present to you today
deals with a very narrow section of chapter eight,
crimes by f- minors,
um, in which
in hearing from one of our colleagues at a previous meeting of the
Committee on Public Health, uh, it was brought
up that we need to start engaging parents and
holding parents accountable
for their children, for the crimes of their-- that children are committing that
they know about. Previously, this council
has in fact instituted laws that also
hold parents accountable. We saw that with spray
painting and graffiti, where parents would be held accountable for what their
children were doing on the streets, and it led to a precipitous and
immediate decline once parents were being brought
into the equation.
I w- I will be the first to say that I do not want
to criminalize
parenting.What I want to do is
wake parents up. Too often we
have youth running around with no
guidance, no parental
awareness, similar to what many of us grew up
with, knowing what the youth are doing.
In situations where there is, where there is a parent or legal
guardian, they should be fully aware of
where their children are.
If they are not, or if they are
knowingly dismissing what those children are up to,
then they should be held accountable,
plain and simple. And in this case,
they will have two options.
Upon which
it is a fine...
Or excuse me, three options. It's a fine of one thousand
dollars,
community service,
and family counseling. I could
already imagine what I'm going to hear from my colleagues with regards to the all
of the above or the either/ors. So I'll save
you. I get that. But I'm
happy to amend that because I believe for me, the goal
isn't about the money. The goal is about better parenting.
If we can create better parents, we will see, in my
opinion, a decrease in many of the issues that we're trying to solve
for. If parents are reawakened and shown how to properly
impart values
and
discipline on their children in the home,
that is the starting point, the nexus of many of the issues when they
inter-interact with the law or with the city of
Chicago. And with that, I would gladly open this up and again
reserve the right to close.
Alderman Taliaferro.
Again, thank you, um,
thank you, Alderman, for your leadership in, um, bringing this matter to the, uh,
committee. Uh, if you could just answer, I, I really just have a couple of
questions, especially as in, in regard to the, um, Parental
Responsibility Act that, that we currently have on, um,
on record with regard to state laws.
Um, this goes a little bit beyond that.
And, and whereby, uh, where I have a problem is, is, um,
that a parent or guardian, uh, can
be subject to fines or imprisonment, and I wanna
stress imprisonment, um, as if they had committed the crime
themselves. Um, I, I think that
that falls into a constitutional challenge.
If I'm not reading this-- if I'm reading it incorrectly, ple-please let me
know. But that falls into a constitutional challenge.
Although a parent can be imprisoned, uh, for their
involvement, um, but they're generally not imprisoned
for acts of someone else, even their own minors.
Um, but as I read it, and I, as I say, if I'm in-incorrect, um, please let me
know. But it, it, it says punishable by, by fine or
imprisonment and shall be held liable...
Oh, I'm sorry, it shall be held as themselves with all
charges to be pursued by the Chicago Police Department.
Um, but prior to that, I, I believe I read somewhere that as if
they committed these acts themselves.
Explain that portion for me.
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, Chairman, you're referring to the very first
section
that's in this ordinance.
Um, yes, eight-sixteen, um,
zero-zero-five.
And it says, "Shall be held to-
"Responsible and accountable for the activity of said minors as if they committed
the act themselves."
Yes.
Is it... Are, are we looking to hold the parent or
imprison, uh, the parent as-
So-
... if they committed the act?
So this is modeled after where we've had great success dealing
with, for example, other issues
such as the Troubled Buildings Ordinance, where once you have individuals who've
been notified or are aware or are willingly allowing certain criminal
activity, illegal or criminal activity to go on, that we
actually would hold the owner responsible.
It was the same mindset behind this, that if you are a parent and you are
knowingly allowing your child to engage in these acts, then you are giving
willful consent and should be held
accountable as well.
But I, I think where we differ there, though, um, where the parent can
be held, um, liable for actual damages, and those
are the, um, damages that are caused every-- as a
result, uh, whether they be financial or
whatever, um, uh, because of their children or
their unemancipated children, and also they could be held liable for
attorney's fees. Um, but I, as I'm saying, this goes a little bit
farther, um, than what the state allows for, and, and we're
looking at imprisonment. Um, and so I'm asking, um,
and perhaps our law department can, you know, give us a little bit more
clarity. Um, I, I don't believe I found anything
where, um, a parent can be faced with
imprisonment for the acts of their unempa- unemancipated
minor
unless that parent contributed, um, um,
in that crime themselves. So that's what I, that, that's what I'm very
concerned about, that, that this, as it is written,
allows for parental impr-imprisonment, um,
for their child's involvement but not theirs.
And as I say, generally, we cannot arrest someone or imprison them
rather for the acts of their minors unless there is some liability
along with
it.Yeah.
Again, state your name for the record, sir
My name is Christopher Cole. I'm Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Department of
Law. Uh,
Chair Taliaferro, I believe you are correct that I, at
least, am not aware of any other, uh, section of the code that would authorize
imprisonment, uh, for this type of vicarious
liability. Regarding the, um, you know, broader
question, uh, regarding the constitutional concerns, that's something
we would have to look into more, uh, deeply and, uh, can get back
to you.
Okay. So that's, that's my understanding, um, um,
Alderman, is
I can be charged and convicted and imprisoned for my part,
whether I was negligent in raising my child or allowing my child, or
willfully allowing my child to do something.
However, um, if, if I have not contributed or
participated in his crime, I can't be imprisoned for that.
But if I contributed to his crime, then I can be
imprisoned for it. So I, I, I think because of that, I can't
support it, um, because I'm, we're looking to hold a
parent liable, um, as if they committed the act
themselves, which I believe will fall short of being
constitutional in our country.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Alderman Sposato.
Thank you once again, Chairman. Um,
yeah, it's a tough one. You know, you don't want to hit up parents too hard, but
are you contributing? My question would be, I guess this is for law, are you
contributing to a crime if you know that your 16-year-old son,
Johnny, you're letting him go out late at night
doing whatever. You don't know what he's doing, but he's doing something if you're
allowing a 16-year-old to be out, let's just say, at 2:00 in the morning, and he
does something really bad. Are you somewhat responsible?
I would say yes, 'cause you knew Johnny went out. You didn't do nothing about it.
You let him go out. So the, my question to you is, even though as much as I don't
wanna... Some parents have their challenge.
I don't want, I don't want them to go to prison for stuff like this.
But is that, are you responsible for if Johnny does something, you're letting him
go out and not doing nothing about it?
I would say yes. What say you?
Again, Ch- Christopher Cole, the Assistant Corporation Counsel of the Department of
Law. I mean, I think ultimately your question is a
philosophical one. Legally speaking, it would depend on the
specific facts and circumstances and, um,
you know, a particular law that was being violated.
As a general matter, I would say
no, someone that is not themselves committing a crime is generally not
liable for, uh, the cr- crime committed by another person, even
if they are related.
Okay, I'll be more specific. Johnny's 16 years
old. You let him use your car to go out.
You buy him alcohol and he, and he, and he drinking alcohol.
He does something stupid. Then are you responsible?
Purchasing or providing alcohol to a minor is a crime.
We know that.
However-
It's your own child, so...
Again, it would depend on the specific circumstances.
Uh, it would require a fact-intensive, uh,
analysis of... even in this hypothetical.
Johnny and his friends are at, they- they're at your house.
They're drinking in the basement. Now it's 2:00 in the morning, they wanna go out.
You let him take the car. He crashes into somebody.
Of course, we know they're gonna sue the, the city, the police for chasing the bad
guy in the car and everything. But are you, as a parent, somewhat responsible for
that?
It's... Johnny's parents need help.
Johnny needs an intervention, yeah. And the parents need an intervention.
Again, it does appear that there's underlying criminal conduct.
But, um, regarding liability for the, uh,
the actions of the minor, it would, again,
require, you know, a specific, uh, analysis
of all of the-
Okay, well-
... the circumstances.
I, I appreciate you dancing around the question.
I understand you have to do what you gotta do, so I, I accept it.
I don't, I, I, I know what's going on. There's bad parents.
Some parents just have their challenges, people. I, I, I don't doubt that.
I mean, they, they have kids that are out of control, and they can't control them,
and they're at, they're at their wit's end. They don't know what to do.
But some parents
enable some of these kids to do some of the things they do.
So we've seen, we've seen some of these shooters.
We've seen what happened to some of these parents that are getting guns for these
kids, all right? So they're held liable buying a gun for their kid, even though
he's 18 or not a kid, uh, their adult child.
So like I say, this is a tough one. You don't want to hit the
parents too hard for something that Johnny did, but, um, just
something to think about.
Yeah.
Thank you, Chairman.
Yep.
Alderman Lopez.
If I may, in response to that, Alderman Sposato, I just want to point out,
especially for our members, for the
public, Chapter 8
sec- Chapter 8-16-125
states already in the municipal code, "No person over the age of
18 shall knowingly or willfully cause, aid, abet, or encourage
to commit any act or omission in violation of any law,
statute, or ordinance of this city, county, State of Illinois,
United States, where the violation of such law or ordinance is punishable
by fine or imprisonment." We already have that on the
books. This is simply
adding to that
and acknowledging parental responsibility
in allowing minors to engage in any of
those illegal activities. What I
do think we need to address, and
again,
the goal here isn't about the fines.
It's about changing behavior. It's about helping parents
be better parents. And
while I've heard, again, I'm gonna put you on the spot
again-Did
the de-- law department do a review of this
ordinance?
We review every ordinance that aldermen introduce.
Nice. When did the review of this ordinance take
place?
I do not have that information.
Best guess.
I would assume in twenty-twenty-three, yeah, shortly-
So this ordinance was introduced in October of
twenty-twenty-three.
This year, this was among several ordinances that were presented
to the Intergovernmental Affairs team as well as to the c- uh,
mayor's office and committee for moving forward.
I have not seen a single comment from the law department on any
of the issues regarding this ordinance.
And I don't know if the committee has either.
I know when requests were made both to the police and law department, no response
was given by the law department. Is that correct?
Alderman, if you could clarify your question.
Did you-
... go to committee-
Did the law department provide
a r-
Did you, did you request a legal analysis of the ordinance?
Mm-hmm.
Oh, uh, again, I do not know who you communicated with, uh,
but-
Okay. I'm, I'm not gonna beat you up too much.
Yeah, it... Alderman Lopez has stated for the record, the, the committee was
aware of concerns within the law department about parental
accountability, uh, and how that might play out in various proposed
ordinances. Um, but that awareness was just from verbal
discussion. We did not receive anything in writing.
So, Chairman, I will again, as I did previously, uh,
ask that we hold this in committee
pending review of whatever this
mystery analysis was from three years ago, two and a half years
ago, so that we can make the necessary
amendments to appease my colleagues here to address legality and
then present it at the next meeting.
Yeah, thank you, uh, Alderman. I appreciate that, and it, uh, it's not simply a
question of appeasement, um, but I do believe, uh, we do want a
defensible ordinance here. And of course, it will be incumbent upon the law
department to defend any potential legal challenge.
Um, and, and so we need to make sure that they're on the same page.
So I appreciate that. Uh, Alderman Vasquez?
Uh, yes. I, I appreciate some of the conversation
attempt to hold, but I would actually motion to do not pass.
Um, okay.
So can we do that with a roll call?
Well, I asked for the final motion, so if they were not doing the hold,
then I'm going to make a motion to report.
Yeah, if... I mean, a motion is in order because it's on the
agenda. Uh,
need a parliamentary ruling here. Um, yeah, I'm...
You know, Alderman, I'm gonna recognize your do pass motion, uh, and call for a
roll call. Um, but simply state that if your do pass motion fails, the
item remains in committee by default, as Alderman Lopez did offer-
Then I mo- I move to lay that motion on the table.
Okay.
I guess my motion was to-
All right
... do not pass.
All right. Uh, that's ac-actually, that's in order.
Um, okay, so we're gonna have a roll call, uh, on the motion
to weigh the motion of do pass on the table, and we'll
have a roll call. Um, the net effect of that would be,
again, Alderman Lopez's item then does remain in
committee.
So this-- Right. So Alderman Vasquez made a do pass motion.
I recognize the validity of that motion.
A do-- I'm sorry, do not pass motion, which would kill the item,
right? I recognize the validity of that motion, so it's on the
floor. Alderman Lopez responded by
moving to table the do not pass motion, which would have
the net effect of keeping the matter in committee.
So it would negate the do not pass motion.
So if you wanna keep the item in committee, vote
yes on the motion to table, which is now before
us. Okay?
Um, Alderman Yancy?
Yes.
Alderman
Chico?
We'll come back to him. Uh, Alderwoman Gutierrez?
No.
Alderman Lopez?
Yes.
Curtis didn't say. Okay. Uh, Alderwoman Tabaras?
Alderman Cincho Lopez?
Alderwoman Fuentes? Alderman Talia
Ferro? Alderman Srizzaro?
Yes.
Alderman Vasquez? Alderman Knudsen?
Alderman Gardner?
Alderman Martin?
The best of me, David.
I'm sorry. What was that? Was that Chico?
Uh, Alderman Chico, state your vote, please. I didn't hear you.
Yes.
Uh, Alderwoman Minna Hoppenworth?
Alderwoman Hadden?
Alderwoman Silverstein, are you still on?
She's not. Okay. Uh, and Alderman Hopkins is a
yes.
What's our total on the motion to table?
Uh, the motion has seven ayes, nine nays,
so the motion fails, uh, which means the do not
pass motion is back on the table, and I'm assuming you're wanting a roll
call on the do-
That's right
... not pass. Okay.
Okay, the motion is to do not pass the proposed
ordinance. Uh, we'll have another roll call.
Alderman Yancy?
Yes.
Alderman Chico?
Alderman Chico, are you still with us?
Okay, we'll come back. Alderman Gutierrez?
Yes.
Alderman Lopez?
No.
Alderman Curtis? Alderwoman Tabaras?
Alderman Cincho Lopez? Alderwoman
Fuentes? Alderman Talia
Ferro?
Alderman Srizzaro? Alderman
Vasquez? Alderman Knudsen?
Alderman Gardner?
No.
Alderman Martin? Alderwoman Minna Hoppenworth?
Uh, Chair Hadden?
Silverstein still not
on. Uh, Chair Hopkins is a no. Is that
everybody?
Okay, the total please. Uh, Alderman Chico, are you still with us?
Last chance. Have all voted who wish, as they say in
Springfield.
No? Okay. Total?
Uh, the total is ten yes versus
five no. The do not pass motion fails.
That will be reported out accordingly.
Passes. The m- the item fails, the do not pass motion passes.
Okay. Uh, having no further business to come before the committee, Alderman Gardner
makes a motion for adjournment. All in favor? Hearing no objection.
Thank you,
everyone.