It's very important, guys.
It makes sense. It's going to be tight.
All right. The Committee on Workforce Development will now come to
order. Today we have two items on the agenda, the approval of the October
Rule 45 report,
as well as an ordinance
02025-0015584, an
amendment of the municipal code Title 2 by adding new sections prohibiting any
city officer granted access to sensitive locations from
participating in any extremist activity.
Before we begin, I'll conduct a roll call to establish quorum. Alderman Yancy?
Alderman Yancy is present. Alderman Hall? Alderman Hall is present.
Alderman Beale? Alderman Chico? Alderman Chico is present.
Alderwoman Ramirez is online. Alderman Quinn? Alderman Quinn is here.
Alderperson Gutierrez is online. Alderman Coleman online.
Alderman Curtis is on his way. Chair Rodriguez is present.
Alderman Talleferro?
Alderman Talleferro is present. Alderman Casada?
Alderman Casada is present. Alderman Sposato?
Sposato here.
Alderman Sposato is here. Alderperson Vasquez is online.
Alderwoman Clay is online. Non-committee member Martin is also
present.
For the quorum, we have eight
members present. We have a quorum.
By Rule 59, let's see here.
All right, by Rule 59,
Vice Chair Gutierrez, who's online, has requested
remote participation. I'll take a motion by
Alderman
Talleferro, if that's okay,
to accept her attendance. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Any opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
I do have a couple others who may join us,
and we'll bring them in when they get here, if they get here.
So Alderwoman Gutierrez, you are on the roll.
Thank you, Chairman. Good morning.
At this time, we will begin public comments,
limited to 30 minutes out of respect for everyone's time.
Each speaker is limited to three minutes. Our first speaker is Mr.
George Blakemore.
Good morning to the aldermen.
And
it's just
shameful.
Shameful.
This system is broken.
You're not paying into the police retirement fund.
You're not paying into the fire
funds. And the city is just
out of control, and it's been out of control.
I don't want to hear nobody get up here say nothing about Brandon Johnson.
It's because a white man. White man, that's a Black man.
It's all the same. It's corrupt, fraud, and
abuse right here.
Musical chair. They having another meeting going on, Mr.
Blakemore, over in the chamber. Why you not over here?
Why are you over here? And Mr. Blakemore,
you need to be cloned.
I got every right to be over there.
The same thing in the same place and at the same time.
You all are abusive.
You all are bullies. Look at that other man back here while I'm
talking.
Mr. Blakemore, don't beat up on these old aldermen.
It's the people.
They let this happen.
The people.
They
don't represent no
people.
It's a slot. It's
a game.
It's
corruption.
They slate them. Somebody slated them.
Who slated them? The machine, the Democratic Party.
Don't talk about Trump.
Don't say nothing about that big white man.
These here,
right here are corrupt.
Right here.
At the same time, why would you do that?
You all are abusing me. I got every right to be at this other
meeting. Get away from
me. Get away from me.
Looks like 501 teacher trying to hustle some
money.
The people are not here.
One or two speakers. The people are not here.
The people are at fault. When you know better, you do
better.
They don't know.
And Mr. Blakemore, that's why they abuse you.
And when I asked him what happened to the rules committee, he
smiled. All of a sudden, they were, "Oh, Michelle Harris." And he works for
Michelle. All of them are corrupt.
All of them.
My mother and my father say, "All y'all get out and clean up this backyard."
Mr. Blakemore. Next up is John Cantonzara
I know you'll be shocked as I speak against this ordinance.
I find it ironic that it's in your committee, and not police and fire or
public safety. How heavy are Brandon's buckets of water that you're carrying?
Because it should not be in this committee, for no other reason but to make sure
that you ram it through.
Alderman Martin, you have a degree from Yale in law.
You might want to get a refund. Well, that's what the website says.
I didn't think so, because if you worked for the attorney general, that
explains why the Safety Act is so screwed up with attorneys like you putting
provisions in. Because this ordinance that you put forth is a joke,
and I'm going to give you a couple examples why.
Your first slide, should you put it back on the screen, says,
"Eliminating anti-government extremism in city government."
But yet this is all about the police department only.
There's no other city employees that are doing things that are extreme?
We know you hate the police. Thanks for putting it on paper finally.
You're literally outing yourself.
Because then who gets to decide who the extreme groups are that these
activities are encompassed in? You?
Who does it? The President of the United States, which changes with the wind
sometimes?
What about BLM, who was responsible for more damage and
literally loss of life in 2021 than
any other extreme group? And how many CTU members literally
championing that mindset? But nothing. When is this going to stop?
And let me also explain to you how ridiculously
clueless our law department is. Under
278.120, Office of the Administrator and
Duties, you put under E, "To conduct investigations into all incidents
of officer-involved death, as a term defined in 50
ILCS 727.15."
Again, that is subject to current litigation right now.
The Amendment One, which was passed two years ago, prohibits
any governing body from enacting
law that is in violation of collective bargaining
agreements. And our collective bargaining agreement says that the COPA
administrator and their investigators need to be lead homicide
investigators, and we will continue fighting that case in court.
You don't get to do an end around with another piece of legislation that's a
violation. We'll see you in court because you just clearly have no clue
what you're doing. And if this committee pushes it through, shame the hell
on you. We will be keeping a scorecard.
We have a year to go, and some of you will not be sitting in this chamber next-
Next up is Jessica Jackson.
Now, my comment really was going to be towards John, the
FOP man that laughed when I said that
Kwame Raoul would be investigating my complaint
against
city council and the mayor. And
while I agree with what he said in terms of what he just
said,
it's kind of bad that he would laugh.
But
I get it, because being a white male,
you're probably not accustomed to your rights being violated like
that. But as a Black person, you know that
that's how it goes. That's the reason why when you were up here talking,
they looked straight ahead. I'm up here talking, and look how they looking down,
playing with their phones and stuff like that, because that's the way that the
world operates, especially the United States of America.
That has taught everybody that they can be disrespectful to Black people.
That's the reason why all these other groups come in, jump
on the civil rights bill,
and get all type of rights that they are not even entitled to,
and has ended up tying up a whole bunch of time, a whole bunch of
money, and a whole bunch of nonsense.
It is disheartening to see the police in here today
when the alderman can use the police to
mistreat us,
while at the same time, the mayor gives a executive
order to tie the police hands against illegals or
to tell ICE that they can report the police if they feel that
they did something that's outside of the law.
So he can play ping pong with the police.
You're pro-police when you getting them to attack us in City
Hall. You're anti-police when it's time to go against the illegals.
You know, how ridiculous is this?
Michael Rodriguez is a disgrace,
and he believes that he is an untouchable.
For some reason, some cartel or something got that
man thinking he is a untouchable.
But one way or another, we're going to get you out of that seat
because you're too smug to be a public
servant.
You're too smug because you're standing on rights that
nobody in your family,
nobody who looks like you, nobody of your race,
nobody of your ethnicity,
fought for anything that you're trying to give for these illegals.
You are a bottom-feeder leech, and teaching your people
to leech just like you.
My mother used to say,
"Every dog got his day, and a good one going to have two or three."
We coming for them seats.
Thank you. The last person to speak is Sully Peterson Quinn
Good morning, members of the committee.
My name is Sully Peterson Quinn, and I am the campaign coordinator for the
Grassroots Alliance for Police Accountability.
The Grassroots Alliance for Police Accountability is a Chicago-based coalition
united by a common demand for safer neighborhoods through equitable and just
community policing practices, community-led oversight, and transparent,
accountable policing that serves the needs of all Chicagoans.
Our members include GoodKids MadCity Englewood, One Northside,
the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, Target Area Development, Southwest Organizing
Project, Community Renewal Society, Policing Project, and Impact for Equity.
Our coalition has endorsed Alderman Matt Martin's ordinance to expand the authority
of the Civilian Office of Police Accountability because we believe this measure
strengthens public accountability in policing.
When there are credible concerns that officers are actively participating
in racially biased hate groups, it is essential that those investigations be
conducted by an independent civilian body, not by the police
investigating themselves.
This is not a hypothetical concern.
In 2021, when dozens of Chicago Police Department employees,
including 13 active duty officers, were found on the
membership list of the Oath Keepers, a white supremacist organization,
the Bureau of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation which
resulted in no disciplinary action of any kind against the officers.
In a subsequent report, the Office of the Inspector General found the BIA's
investigation materially deficient and called on the police
department to reopen the inquiry, which they declined to do.
If this ordinance had been in place at that time, we might be looking at a very
different result. Our coalition also acknowledges that the right to dissent
against the government is protected by the First Amendment.
This ordinance defines active participation in violent
anti-government extremism as grounds for investigation by COPA.
Violent anti-government extremism is not the same as public dissent.
We raise this point to emphasize the importance of safeguarding constitutional
rights through the careful implementation of this ordinance.
Any interpretation of this ordinance that is used to punish peaceful dissent is
unconstitutional, and we maintain that protecting constitutional rights
and ensuring accountability are not mutually exclusive goals.
Additionally, part of our coalition's support was conditional on the fact that this
ordinance exclusively amends the procedure for investigations involving police
officers, the only armed employees of the city.
Ultimately, our coalition decided to endorse this ordinance because it
meaningfully strengthens civilian oversight.
It affirms that those with public authority are held to the highest standards, and
that independent oversight is essential in achieving that standard.
We urge its passage alongside a continued commitment to safeguarding both
accountability and free speech. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. At this time, there's no further public comments.
I want to thank you all for sharing your opinion today.
Next item on the agenda is the approval of the Rule 45 report for October of
last year. I'll entertain a motion from Alderman Quinn.
Do pass. Any objections? Seeing none,
we'll pass that. Thank you so much.
We will now also bring on a couple of alders who requested Rule...
Jesus.
Online participation, Rule 59. Thank you, Alderman.
We have Alders Coleman, Ramirez, and Clay with us
online.
I'll apply their participation to the previous motion if there's no
objections.
You object? All right. We'll do
all those in favor of allowing their participation, signify by saying aye.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. There's one nay, I believe.
Next, we'll be moving on to the second item on our agenda.
We sent out a substitute motion to that
item last week and again this morning.
Can I entertain a motion to accept the substitute ordinance by Alderman Quesada?
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
We now have the substitute before us.
All right. Today, we have Alderman Martin with us today,
the sponsor of this ordinance, who will get us
kick-started. In addition, we do have an opening statement from
Lauren Jones from Impact for Equity.
In addition, available for comment, we have with us today
Chief Administrator White from COPA, Deputy
Chief Walker from CPD, Director Patterson
from OPSA. We also have the law department represented by Justin Edge as
well, if there's any questions from aldermen, alderpersons, to any of these
individuals. So we will get this kick-started with Ald-- oh,
forgive me, Alderman Telefero.
As I said last week, I do appreciate
Alderman Martin bringing this matter before the committee, and I understand
the process on which this matter began.
But again, I sincerely believe that this is a matter, as I said last
week, that should be before the Committee on Police and Fire.
With that, I make a motion to refer this matter to the Committee on Police and
Fire.
Second.
May I speak on the motion as a non-voting member?
I'd like Alderman Martin to speak on the motion, if there's no objection to that.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, colleagues.
So this item was introduced to the Workforce Committee
last year, I believe last February.
And while there have been some changes that have happened that we can
get into, we can certainly get into them right now as
needed. I will note that there are a number of different committees that do have
overlapping jurisdiction with this item and with other items as
well. I felt that in talking with the Legislative Reference
Bureau before introducing it, that the workforce
... committee would be the most appropriate one, given the fact that per our rules
of order and procedure, it notes that all personnel matters generally
relating to the city government are the province of the Workforce Development
Committee. I certainly will concede that
Police and Fire Committee could handle this topic, as could
the Public Safety Committee.
And finally, I would note that in terms of overlapping jurisdiction, I chair Ethics
and Government Oversight, and there are times where Police and Fire has taken up
items that the Inspector
General's Office has taken up,
as has the Committee on Public Safety.
And so, I think as we can get into the fact that
I've worked over the last 14 months very closely with a number of city
departments on this revised ordinance, I feel
that the Workforce Committee is an appropriate one from a
jurisdictional perspective,
and can adequately take up this item. Thank you.
If I may respond, Chair.
Let's do this.
If we can keep it to you two commenters,
we can have one more round. So go ahead, Alderman Teddy Farrell.
Thank you, Chairman.
At the bare minimum,
and I'm not
disagreeing with what Alderman Martin has said, but at the bare minimum, under
these circumstances where there are multiple jurisdictions, it's common
practice in this body to have a joint committee meeting.
And I say this because there are members of the Police and
Fire Committee that are not
members of this committee that deserve a right to vote
on this item in committee, rather than waiting until or if
it reaches the full council vote. And so
although I understand that there were multiple departments that
were subject to the initial ordinance,
when it was narrowed down to
just simply the Chicago Police Department, this is a matter that
involves, in all matters that involve the Chicago Police Department, should
either be in Public Safety or Public Safety, a joint committee with
Public Safety and Police and Fire or the Police and Fire Committee.
And because this directly refers to, and
only, the Chicago Police Department, I renew my motion to refer
this matter to the Committee on Police and
Fire, with a promise that I will have a
vote on this matter. But this matter does
deserve to be, and should be, referred to the Committee on Police and
Fire to give the members of that committee their due right
to vote on this while in committee.
And a rebuttal. We'll give each of you two comments on the matter.
The only
thing I would add is
this ordinance doesn't only pertain to the police department,
it pertains to other departments as well.
And so I respect very deeply
your points, Chairman, and
still feel that this is
an appropriate committee to take up this item.
There has been a request from a member to have Law opine on the matter.
Or LRB.
Go ahead.
And if you'd please identify yourself.
This is fine.
Yeah, that's fine. Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Justin Edge, Assistant Corporation Council, Department of Law.
I don't disagree with
anything that has been said thus far.
We frequently have matters which are in overlapping
areas of jurisdiction for the committees.
I don't have any
position that would sway this legally one direction or another.
Now, is there a specific question that someone
would... I heard that you wanted the Department of Law to opine.
I see you, Chair
Alderman Satko.
Yes. Me. It's specific to the police department, so that's my
question. Why wouldn't this be in Police and Fire?
This is not city workers. This is not aldermen.
We have some baggage ourselves. This is not streets and sands.
It's not firemen. It's not anybody other than policemen.
So why
Workforce? Why is this
okay? I think this is totally inappropriate. This should be in Police and Fire.
I have much to say about this, but starting, first of all, and it's in the wrong
committee. I don't know. Could I hear it?
Could this have been in
special events if I want to hear it in special events?
It is, as had been said, in an overlapping area.
Why is it overlapping, I believe, is part of your question.
Where is the overlap at all with Workforce Development?
All
Chicago Fire
Department employees are employees of the City of Chicago.
Just definitionally, that is why it would be within Workforce
Development, which is specifically considering issues of-
All right. We'll have order. Let's go to the vote on the motion to re-refer.
Alderman Yancy.
Duane Yancy.
Was that a no? Okay. Alderman Hall. Not present.
Alderman Chico.
Yep.
Alderwoman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
Yes.
I'm a no, Chairman.
Alderwoman Ramirez.
Okay. Alderperson Gutierrez.
Alderwoman Gutierrez, a no.
Alderman ColemanAlderman Curtis
not present. Chair Rodriguez is a no. Alderman Tally Farrell?
Yes.
Alderman Casada.
No.
Alderman Sposato.
Nick Sposato is a yes.
Alderman Vasquez is not present. Alderwoman Clay.
No. All right. I have one, two, three, six nos,
four yeses. All right. The motion fails.
We will move forward. We once again have Alderman
Martin, who will kick this off, then go on to Lauren Jones
from Impact for Equity,
with individuals ready to comment from
various organizations in the city.
Alderman Martin, take it away.
Thank you again, Chairman.
So as one of his first acts as president
last year, President Trump pardoned hundreds of individuals who stormed the
US Capitol,
battered law enforcement officers, and threatened members of Congress.
Last year, our body responded. We passed an ordinance prohibiting
individuals who were convicted of participating
in the January 6th insurrection from being employed by the city.
But that wasn't the end of it. President Trump subsequently rolled back
protections to keep extremists out of our military and federal law enforcement.
And then last fall, the Coast Guard tried to remove swastikas
unsuccessfully as a hate symbol for service members.
I believe that this is the backdrop that we are operating under,
and requires that cities like Chicago act with clear
responsibility when it comes to stepping into the shoes of the federal
government in combating anti-government extremism.
I'd also note that the Biden administration had in place
similar sets of rules from which we took the language that ultimately
is in the substitute ordinance before you.
In 2024, our Office of Inspector General found that the city's
handling of extremism in its police ranks have fallen short of the
commitments made by city and CPD leadership.
Specifically, the department opined that the city had not adequately
considered whether CPD members' associations with certain groups
or organizations might violate CPD's rules and
regulations, which prohibit, among other things, any action or
conduct that impedes the department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals
or brings discredit upon the police department.
And specifically referenced in this report were alleged associations
with organizations including the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers,
and the Three Percenters. And so in crafting this
ordinance, we looked at what was initially passed by
this body last year by Chairman Villegas and several
other members, myself included, along with Alders
Taliaferro and Conway to say, well, okay,
we're looking at what happened to individuals who were
charged with or convicted of anti-government extremism involving the January 6th
insurrection. What about other individuals who have similar associations
but were not at the US Capitol on the
sixth? And so in putting together this ordinance, it does several
things. It prohibits members of the police department from actively
participating in extremist organizations.
It authorizes the
Civilian Office of Police Accountability, or COPA, to investigate
extremism allegations.
And it also directs the Office of Public Safety Administration to check
for potential extremist behavior as a part of CPD's hiring process.
So with
COPA, if a person is already in the police department, they're generally
going to investigate allegations there, and then with OPSA, for individuals who are
looking for employment in the police department.
Going into more specifics, what does active participation mean?
What do extremist activities mean?
As I mentioned, much of this language was inspired by
policies that the Biden administration had in place before they were rescinded by
the Trump administration. And I believe that this
has a high bar in place and is content neutral.
When you're talking about what active participation means, you're talking about
fundraising, recruiting, sharing confidential information
that you took from the city, or getting
tattoos, wearing clothing with extremist symbols.
And then when it comes to the extremist activities associated with
that participation, again, a high bar, which involves
advocating, engaging in, or supporting overthrow of the government
or altering it through unconstitutional or violent means, as
well as advocating, engaging in, or supporting
hate-based or bias-based behavior, such as committing a hate
crime.
As I mentioned at the top, we partnered
with numerous departments in revising the substitute that's before
you. We received and incorporated input from, among others,
COPA, OPSA, the police department,
CCPSA, as well as multiple community
organizations, whether it's the ACLU
or the GAPA CCPSA coalition that was mentioned during public
comment.
We have representatives from
many of those departments here to testify.
They can answer questions, as can I.
And with that, I will turn things back over to you, Chairman.
Thank you so much. Before we move on to Lauren Jones, if that's
still the case, I want to recognize Alderman Curtis for the
quorum.
Thank you.
Lauren Jones, go right ahead.
Good morning. My name is Lauren Jones.
I'm the director of the Criminal Legal Systems program at Impact for Equity,
a law and policy nonprofit here in the city.
I'd like to begin by thanking the Workforce Committee, Alderman Matt Martin, Jamie
Srnec, and the rest of their team for the work they put into crafting this policy
proposal.
I would also like to thank and acknowledge the community members that came out
today to have their voices heardI'm here speaking on behalf of Impact for
Equity and the Grassroots Alliance for Police Accountability or GAPA.
Together, we work with communities directly impacted by police misconduct to
develop and implement lasting changes that make our neighborhoods safer
and strengthen our systems of accountability.
In 2024, Chicago's inspector general released a report exposing the Chicago
Police Department's inadequate internal investigations into officer
affiliations with extremist groups like the Proud Boys, Oath
Keepers, and the Three Percenters.
In response, communities spoke out, and their message was loud and clear.
Chicagoans cannot trust an institution that tolerates
extremism, particularly white supremacist extremism, to keep their
community safe.
Law enforcement officers are the only city employees with the legal power
to commit violence and even exact death in the course of their day jobs.
With that power, they have the responsibility to be fair and objective, seeing
beyond a person's race, ethnicity, gender, and political
affiliation as they discern who is or is not a threat to public
safety.
An officer who affiliates with groups that champion hate, bias,
and fascism cannot be trusted to perform the most critical element of this
job.
To quote the inspector general, Deborah Witzberg, "We cannot ask people to trust a
police department whose members are allowed to dabble in hatred and
extremism."
This country has a long history of white supremacists infiltrating law enforcement,
and this ideology continues to pervade departments across the country.
Despite multiple instances of officers proven to be affiliated with dangerous
extremists, CPD leadership has shown little to no interest in doing the
urgent, necessary work of tracking and weeding out these officers.
Multiple inquiries by CPD's Bureau of Internal Affairs into officers with ties to
these groups concluded without significant disciplinary action.
Many of these officers returned to work policing Black and brown neighborhoods.
This ordinance aims to prevent that from happening in the future by transferring
the power to investigate alleged affiliations with hate and extremist
groups from the police department's BIA to the independent investigatory
body, Civilian Office of Police Accountability or COPA.
If implemented, COPA would have the power to investigate these allegations as well
as examine harmful patterns of racism and extremism they
observe within the department.
While CPD leadership will still have the final say on disciplinary action, we
believe this reallocation of investigatory power will lead to more
fair, transparent outcomes, and ultimately begin to rebuild
trust in the police accountability system.
We are concerned that in this political climate, designations like anti-government
extremist can be applied broadly, sweeping up those working
tirelessly to protect our neighbors and our democracy.
However, because this ordinance applies only to the Chicago Police Department, the
GAPA's coalition support for the transfer of investigations to COPA outweighs
our concerns about the potential for broad application in the future.
We believe that it is time for Chicago to follow the lead of Los Angeles and San
Francisco, major cities that have already responded to the threat of white
supremacy and extremism in law enforcement by barring officers from engaging with
these groups.
If white supremacists and extremists are able to carry a gun and a badge, it does
not matter how many consent decree paragraphs are complied with or how many
community events the department hosts. There will still be a deep lack of trust.
We urge this committee to vote yes and take this pivotal step towards justice and
accountability. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Jones.
That's it for the presentation. We'll now move on to alderpersons who may have
questions on the matter. We can direct them to the panelist or to our lead
sponsor. Alderman Sposato.
Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate it.
So,
we have two sides of the story here.
I see we have one side that is one person that is for this.
Do we have anybody that's against this?
Or are we just bringing people that are supporting it?
We don't have a two sides of the story here?
I don't know exactly how to put it. I mean, this is it, just somebody that supports
it, nobody that opposes it, like somebody from the FOP or somebody from
police department, somebody, a city worker, an attorney? Nothing.
Just she's the only one here?
To my knowledge, Alderman, there was various city departments
that were consulted on the matter and others.
I'll let this chief sponsor address your question.
But my understanding is on the level of city departments, there's at
least no opposition.
That's true, and we do have representatives from our city departments,
in part at your request, Alderman,
to make sure that if you have any questions as to their
opinion on the matter, that it can be directed towards them.
Well, I see we have Deputy Chief Walker here, but I don't think she's taking sides.
She's just going to say, "We don't have a real problem with it." Why would they not
have a problem with it? My problem is you're singling somebody out.
This is a very accusatory type
ordinance. I mean, we're singling out police.
And once again, we can't stop with the January 6th thing.
We don't mention a damn thing about the Black Lives Matters riots with billions of
dollars of damage. Multiple people were killed.
So if somebody
trespassed, and listen, a couple of hundred of those people deserve to go to
jail and stay there for a long time.
But the thousands that just trespassed were let in by police officers.
I mean, they deserve the slap on their wrists, and that was it.
But you guys are all focused on those bad videos where they're doing bad
things, but you can't talk about the other stuff.
So many of those people just trespassed.
So we're not mentioning other groups.
We're only mentioning Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and who's the third one
we said? I don't know.
Three Percenters. But somebody's involved with Black Lives Matter or
an anti-Jewish group, that's okay? A police officer, that's okay?
We're going to have order.
There you go. Or those
anti-ICE protesters. So, I mean, why would they be okay? We've seen what happened.
We saw what happened with the Black Lives Matters riot.
We see what happens at these ICE protests. We see what's going on.
We don't know who these people are.
SoI'm baffled why we're singling police officers
out here. It's a baffling thing to me.
And listen, we have
aldermen that participate in hateful stuff, okay?
We've had flag burning. We have aldermen praising
people chanting, "From the river to the sea." I hope Deborah Silverstein could
come in and talk about what, "From the river to the sea" means.
That's hateful speech. That's anti-Semitic speech.
We're praising kids for walking out of school with signs and chanting that.
Deborah, do you consider, "From the river to the sea" hate speech?
Yeah.
Thank you. Okay. I'm glad you popped in.
So,
Chief Walker, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but
I'm sorry, you're not HR, right?
Uh-uh.
You're not HR. So to the best you can answer then.
To the best of your knowledge, you're deputy chief, you should have some knowledge.
We have a pretty intense hiring process, don't we, in the City of Chicago for
police officers?
Yes, we do.
If you could, I think there
might be a handheld as well, but if that works, fine, go ahead.
If you would, identify yourself for the record.
Hi, I'm Deputy Chief Tracy Walker in Chicago Police Department, Bureau of Internal
Affairs.
And the question was directed to you as far as our HR practices, correct?
Yeah. If she knows. I know she's not HR, but she-
I'm not. I'm going to direct it to-
But you do know that we have intense-
We do
... intense process to go through.
Some-
There's a background PSU
... some Jose Medina could never make it through to be a police officer.
There's all of that in place, sir. I'm going to direct this to Executive Director
Patterson, who's sitting here, who can answer that. She's OPSA.
Okay.
I'm used to talking to Joy with PSA.
Well, you're used to talking to me, too.
Good thought.
Ara Patterson, Executive Director of OPSA. That is correct.
We do have a rigorous
background process as a part of the HR process for
hiring potential candidates that go to the Chicago Police Department.
So if you had a candidate that came to you, applying for a job, and you had
pictures of him flag burning, pictures of him at Black Lives Matters riots,
pictures of somebody at anti-Semitic things, marching with a sign that
says, "From the river to the sea," you think that person could get hired?
We would review-
That would be a disqualifier?
We would review the language of the ordinance.
There are several activities that would be based on the
definition that we would have to flag,
as a part of our investigation. And then we would
present that information to the superintendent for him to
let us know whether or not that is someone that they want to hire to
become a Chicago police officer.
So being with PSA, since you cover police, fire, and OAMC, you don't see a
bit of a problem that we're just singling police officers out here?
It's just an opinion. I don't mean to put you on the spot.
I
have a big problem with just singling one group out.
That's one of my biggest problems.
I don't like it, period, but just singling out police officers, I have a big
problem with that.
I think generally when you single out any particular group, it does
raise-
Concerns
... more legal scrutiny that comes with that, for sure.
I'm not here to opine on the legality of this.
I'm here to answer questions regarding how, if this were to be passed, it would be
operationalized in OPSA.
One second, Alderman.
Chair Martin wanted to respond to that.
Yeah, I would welcome
Justin Edge from the law department coming, because what was introduced applied
to many employees beyond the police department.
We were advised, based on input from the law department, that it
would be appropriate to narrow the scope in order to address
constitutional challenges. So if Justin could
opine further, that would be great.
That is...
Thank you for your question. Justin Edge, Department of Law.
I'm just taking a seat because I have so many papers with me in case I need to
cite something.
Now, yes, when this was first introduced, it's on the record.
You can take a look at it. It did apply beyond just
members of the Chicago Police Department.
I'll tell you that DOL's... We went through
an intensive review of many
different versions of this ordinance because this is an
incredibly difficult area to legislate
in and not violate the law.
Those violations in constitutional protections come in two different challenges.
They come in facial challenges, which means every single
application, or essentially all applications of this law, are going to be
unconstitutional, and then those that are as applied.
As applied, interestingly, those situations, while they can be
dealt with, with the mechanisms that are addressed in this legislation,
they can also be addressed with many of our existing personnel
rules as well. And I can cite specifics, again, if I can pop open my
papers here. But
specifically to speak to the question of why CPD and
only CPD,
there's an incredibly high bar in First Amendment
matters of the government doing preemptive,
before it happens, blocking of different types of speech.
First of all, this was designed in such a way as to be what's called viewpoint
neutral. So it would be applying to any group that
is as meeting the definition there.
So we're talking about unconstitutional
means, including violent means of overthrowing the
government or calling for its change through unconstitutional
means. So that could come in lots of different forms, as well as
advocating for or supporting hate crimes.
Those are the two basic prongs of the definition there.
But still, it's an incredibly high bar.
Essentially, the case law on this requires that the government must
show that in essentially all situations, the government
interests
outweigh the interests of not just the current or potential
employees, but all future employees. So-...
quite a difficult area to legislate in, and that's why we spent so
much time going back and forth, and back and forth.
So when I say all, I'm looking at the field of people that are
affected by their speech potentially being chilled by not being able
to say what they would otherwise like to say,
participate in political activity, things like that, which are otherwise
protected if they, again, if it's someone outside
of the Chicago Police Department's
work,
including the hiring process or a current employee.
But to narrow that field of all,
you can focus it down more, and the case law supports having
higher standards on individuals whose actions are
reflective of the values of the
institution which they're a part of.
So I could even refer to specific parts of-
There should be higher standards on city employees, period.
So not just policemen, everybody.
Firemen, Streets and San,
CDOT, and more so more us than anybody.
Aldermen should be held to the highest standard of anybody.
So we have some people here that did some bad things,
bad anti-government things, anti-America, whatever you want to say, so-
All right. Thank you, Mr. Edge
... we only got elected, so.
Thank you, Mr. Edge. Thank you.
Thank you, Justin. I'm not trying to give anybody a hard time or something.
It's obvious I have a real hard time with this.
So people's lives change, okay? We had one of the most amazing
testimonies ever. A former alderman that was here who did some bad things as a
kid and turned out to be a great individual, a very productive person.
Now, does that mean he would've been held back forever?
What if somebody comes in to get a job, a police officer, and they have
a tattoo with a swastika or "tattooed from the river to the sea" on there, or
an upside down burning flag or something like that. Would that be a disqualifier?
And you don't have to answer it, I'm just bringing this up.
So I'm not trying to put anybody on the spot.
I mean, it's just so far reaching. We're acting
like the city's burning down here and we got to do something about it, and
there's really nothing going on, but yet we're going to say, or we're trying to
say, "We've got all these bad police officers out there.
Oh, we have to track them down. Oh, we have to find out who's doing what." So,
I appreciate, Chairman, letting me have my say.
I'm sure I'll have something to say again as some other people speak, but I just
don't see the need or the cause for this, and if we are going to do this, I think
it should be certainly start with us, and then
with city workers second. I don't think we should be singling out any group.
That's what I have to say, but thank you.
Thank you, Alderman.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Note that was 15 minutes, so I want to give you-
I was talking at my pace.
Okay. Yes.
All right.
Yes. We constantly complain to each other about others, but-
I know
... that's fine.
I didn't know I had it in me to talk for 15 minutes.
Alderman Curtis, you're up. And then, for the record, non-committee member
Silverstein is here.
Alderman Curtis.
Yes, I know.
Thank you, Chairman. When this ordinance
was first brought to me, I was definitely going to support it,
because I feel that there is no room in City
Hall,
in county government, state government,
or the City of Chicago for hate.
When I read the
ordinance, it only pointed out CPD.
It's like if
you guys was a panel
of a hiring team and we had a plumber, electrician,
police officer, a firefighter,
a truck driver,
all of these guys would qualify for it except CPD, and you have to
tell him that, "Well, every one of you qualify except
for
the person that's applying to be a police officer."
It's wrong.
You can't single out one without the
other just because of an old ordinance.
If we're going to do the entire city, I agree with Alderman
Esposito, we have to do the entire city and not one
group.
And basically, that's
my reason for not supporting this ordinance today. Okay.
Okay. Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Yancy.
Thanks, Chairman.
Wow, this is a wild conversation to have this early on a Monday morning.
I want to start with
the BLM protests in 2021.
My esteemed colleague talked about trespassers
versus looters.
So if I remember correctly, in Congressman Rush's office,
there was, I don't know, a half dozen police officers who were hanging
out,
eating popcorn, drinking tea,
while chaos was going on around them.
So
I don't
want to get into the back and forth about
protesters versus police, but we have a
mechanism for law enforcement to engage
those who are doing bad.
It's not apples to apples.
When we hear,
and it sounds like my colleague thinks that phrases like
"From the river to the sea" is
problematic,
especially for city employees. But it's not anti-American, at
least I don't think it is. I don't know everything, but I don't think it's
anti-American.
And then I want to talk about two experiences I had with law enforcement
personally. One,
2011, I was with a group of young people...
I'm sorry, I was with a group of seniors,
and we were near a high school that was being patrolled by a police car.
And thePolice officer got on the PA and started singing a song, and I'm going to
sing a little bit. I'm not a singer, but I think there are people of a certain age
who'll be familiar with this song, and it goes, "Here they come,
walking down the street.
They get the funniest looks from everyone they
meet. Hey, hey, we're the Monkees." So this is a white
police officer singing this around while driving around a Black high school.
2016, I was involved in a protest with GAPA in front
of the FOP headquarters.
And at that time, armed
police officers on duty and off called us
n*****s and monkeys.
I don't want those officers
carrying guns patrolling our neighborhoods
without... I mean, there should be some sort of recourse to prevent that.
There's nothing safe, that feels safe as a
Black American, that law enforcement
officers are carrying guns
while verbalizing this kind of hatred.
Now mind you, these things happened
five years apart.
It's still unnecessary. And so I don't see the problem with a
mechanism that holds law enforcement officers
accountable when they are tied to
extremist groups that are looking to stifle my own rights as a human
being and as a resident of this city, state, and country.
So, while I understand that there are both sides to this coin,
if we're not having a conversation with the people who are directly impacted by
this and listening to those words,
then we're just going to stand in our position and have
like half the country... Like the country is today, where we got half the folks who
are leaning into this president and some of the behaviors around
the people that support him, and then leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.
We have to be adults in this room to have a
conversation about how we pass legislations that impact
not just all of us, but more importantly, the least of us. And so, yes, I agree.
People with guns that have the ability
to kill on duty, and if we look at historical context on how
they
haven't been held accountable, whether it was BIA or
OPS or COPA today,
then what are we doing?
This shouldn't be that controversial of a conversation to have.
Thank you, Alderman. Move on to Alderman Quinn, please.
That's out of order, ma'am. Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the record, could we get the Chicago Police Department's official position on
the ordinance?
Neutral.
It's my understanding that we are
cooperating with the ordinance.
What does that mean?
I-
Is Chicago Police Department in favor or against?
We're neutral on this one, sir.
Okay.
So you're not for it, you're not against it, you're just there. Okay.
Thank you.
This question is for the sponsor.
Alderman Martin, I believe in your opening testimony, you mentioned that this just
isn't limited to the Chicago Police Department. Is that accurate?
Say that again.
That this-
What is it?
... ordinance isn't just limited to Chicago-
The initial version of the ordinance-
But-
... was more expansive.
Okay.
And then the substitute that's before the committee only applies to the police
department.
Only applies to the Chicago Police Department. Okay.
And
we feel like it's too much
of a risk. Is that accurate? Is that the right word?
A risk to expand it to all city employees?
No problem. Thank you, Alderman, for your question. Justin Edge, Department of Law.
I really appreciate the question because I just said a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo
earlier and didn't get to actually get a chance to make my point, so I apologize
for everyone who had to hear that. Yes.
Essentially that's it. Now, this
ordinance, if I might specifically point to this Section 4,
has lots of protections in place and requires a rulemaking that will have
an appeal process, that has things in place such as will
require a review of all available evidence, the totality
of circumstances. The reason I specifically do that, not
just to get back to the point I wanted to make, was because of Alderman
Sposato's point that he made about a tattoo that someone may have received in their
youth. While working directly with CPD, we
received some great input about exactly that
situation. Whether it may be a tattoo that explicitly says something or something
that just means different things in different contexts.
And so I would think that some of the later additions that we made once we really
got the CPD's feedback on the last version, which
involved adding that totality of circumstances, adding that assessment
of all available information to make sure that
no decisions are being made on a single factor alone,
was trying to balance out the potential risk there.
Because, as we know with any type of wrongful termination, it's
a lucrative field of law that lawyers will jump right into
and potentially take cases and potentially
pursue wrongful termination or non-hiring
suits and things like that. So we have to be very careful about how we do it.
And yes, there is some risk analysis that's weighed in there because we are
dealing with multiple complex First Amendment issues.
And so yes, I will tell you that
weDOL never reached the position of
saying, "The only way you can do this is if you focus on
CPD only." It does lower the risk
drastically, and the ways in which we made a number
of different changes from the original version of this ordinance lowered
risks drastically of employment lawsuits.
So that's what we were approaching it from, was from a position, as you asked,
we're trying to limit risk and liability.
And I just wanted to say that if any alders here or in
other committees want to work on efforts
to address similar issues with a broader
group, as Alderman Martin had said he was trying to do from the beginning here,
DOL will be happy to work with engaging in back
and forth with early drafts and giving you all the information.
Part of why we had such a good exchange was because
we found the alderman was very willing to accept feedback.
We were going back and forth, and again, over months and months.
So, I am not saying that DOL's position is an
absolute no, but it is a balance of risks, and it led to a number
of different changes from the earlier version that included.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You're welcome. I'm seeing no further questions.
Oh, one second.
Alderman, you went 15 minutes.
All right, listen.
All right.
All right, I'm sorry. If you want to cut me off, go ahead.
No, I'm not going to cut you off.
Okay.
Go ahead, Alderman.
I'll try not to take 15 minutes again. I'm shocked I did.
Listen, everybody, the substitute ordinance.
The first whereas. So the first paragraph you're going to see, "Hate
groups," okay? "Extremism is on the rise across the United
States with the number of anti-government and hate groups." Hate group is a hate
group, no matter what. Whether you hate Jews, Italians, Irish, Blacks,
Hispanics, whatever, a hate group is a hate group, okay? Hate group.
We know there's hate groups out there. I'm not denying it.
Anthony,
let me talk to COPA over there, so let me line up and say.
I like to see people when I talk to them. So you're in charge, I guess, right?
You're going to be in charge of this?
Right.
For your office. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, okay?
Do you consider
flag burning anti-government? I consider it, but I'm not
in your position. I consider somebody who's out burning flags, somebody's
trying to... And listen, we say overtake the government.
Some of those buildings they burnt down, I don't think they were trying to overtake
the government when they took the police station and burnt it down, or a
governmental office. They were just trying to do damage or whatever.
But if somebody's burning flags, to me that would be
anti-government.
So would you consider that if a group of police officers got out and
said, hypothetically, they're standing around, they're burning flags, and they're
saying, "Screw America. We hate America." Well, they don't have to say hate.
They don't use the word hate, but they're burning a flag.
To me, that's hateful speech. Or they're going into Jewish, not even in a Jewish
neighborhood. They're going in a lily white neighborhood or a Black neighborhood,
and they're saying, "Singing from the river to the sea," or, "Screw the
Jews," or whatever you want to say. Would that be hateful stuff to you?
Mainly the flag. Let's start with the flag burning.
You'd think that's anti-government?
Well, thank you, Alderman Sposato. First of all, that is a layered question.
If you'd introduce yourself first.
So sorry.
No worries. Thank you.
Lakenya White, Chief Administrator of COPA.
So first, that is a layered question because there is protected speech involved in
that as well. But again, all our investigations
require evidence, right? So of course, we have to do an investigation to
see if this person or individual is involved in any type of group.
And then also getting that
officer or civilian member's statement.
Because again, we investigate only Chicago Police Department members, and
that also includes civilians as well, too.
So I can't answer that question without doing a thorough investigation.
Well, if they admitted, they're there, "Hey, we're having a flag burning.
The five of us are getting together. We're burning a flag." Okay?
They're not denying it. They're saying, "We burned a flag.
That's our First Amendment right." Would COPA have a problem with that?
Again, protected speech.
Okay.
And we'll have to do an analysis on that.
"From the river to the sea" is protected speech, you know?
Oh.
Schools are out there with those signs.
You had teachers,
and the CTU praising them for being out there with those kind of signs.
I had a problem with it. I know my colleague had a problem with it.
I don't know if anybody else here had a problem with it.
I don't think really everybody knows what it is.
But even if people do know what it is, do they have a problem with it?
I don't know. I don't think so. I have a problem with it.
But I didn't mean to put anybody on the spot.
This is just a frustrating ordinance to me.
They're singling out police officers.
We're acting like the city's burning down with problems over here, and we got to
get these guys when,
I don't know, Deputy Chief, have we seen, are you aware?
I'm not
really sure why they sent you here other than you're a deputy chief.
But have we seen problems with this kind of stuff on the rise?
Has HR talked to you or the superintendent
about this stuff and say we got to get a grasp on this stuff? Not to my knowledge.
I'm not an expert on it.
Deputy Chief Walker, Chicago Police Department, Bureau of Internal Affairs.
No, we have not seen a rise in this.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
You got it. Alderman-
I'm obviously a no, so...
That's surprising.
That's what it is.
Alderman Casada.
Oh, go ahead. Thanks.
Do you have a point to...
After.
Okay.
Sure thing.
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to our committee members and everyone in
attendance. I understand some of the points that
my colleagues are making when trying to conflate
instances of protected
speech or things that we don't find that we agreed to, or hate
speech, which I think that we need to be united against.
But I think what we're talking about here in this ordinance is the
actual material impact that people have done to
inflict harm, damage,
to the federal government, right? And to our democracy.
And I think that right now in this moment where there is a
substantive, and substantial increase rather,
in extremism and authoritarianism and this
normalization of fascism, I think that it's well within our
right to actually take a look at the unique risks that
come across withWith
extremism in our law enforcement and people who do carry weapons.
We should not take these things for granted, and we should not
turn a blind eye to people who participate in actual violence
against the United States. And so I think that's something that we are talking
about here. I think that this ordinance is not anti-police in
nature. I think we're saying that if there are people who have participated in
those activities against their fellow countrymen, that they should
be held to a standard. And we do have that within our right
as our hiring powers. So again, I
don't think we should be conflating a lot of these different topics that we're
talking about. And this is not in any way a vote
against the police department as an organization
or their necessity in maintaining public safety.
We're just saying that if there are people who are engaging in those activities and
they're sworn police officers, they're not actually keeping the public safe, and
those are not the people that should be working in our police department.
They should be people who are taking care of our communities and upholding law, not
their extremist political
ideologies. So again, I respect what people are bringing up here,
but I think we need to focus on the root of the matter and the substance of this
ordinance. Thank you.
Thank you. Alderman Curtis.
Thank you. I just feel that, and again,
if
this was the original ordinance, I would vote for it
because it would be fair all the way around.
No problem.
But it's like saying if
they're going to hire someone to be a custodian
and a police officer the same day, they would look
more so into the background of the
candidate for CPD than they would a
custodian. When in fact,
if,
let's say, the candidate for police didn't
have
no type of background of
Proud Boys or anyone like that, but let's say
the custodian or the janitor does.
I would be more afraid of a custodian
because they have access to the building.
I just feel that
pointing out CPD
is not a good reflection
of--
Again, we have seen,
not only during this administration, but others,
where
basically the police is just getting beat up on and beat up on.
But again, if we do it citywide,
I'm okay with this.
Other than that, again,
I just can't support it. It's not fair.
Thank you, Chairman.
You're welcome, Alderman. And to close, we'll have Chair and
Alder Martin. Go ahead.
Thank you, Chairman.
I
really appreciate this dialogue, and as I've shared, and as
you all know, look, it started off in terms of a much broader application.
Because while, to be clear, this was an effort that started in
response to January 6th, but also the Inspector General's advisory on
this topic, that, to be clear, did focus on the police department.
But we felt as a starting point, it would be important to expand more
broadly. And so that initial language in the ordinance that was introduced,
it applied to, and I quote, "Any city officer, member of the police
department, supervisory employee, or employee whose position in city government
grants them access to sensitive locations, buildings, infrastructure,
systems or information." That's how it started.
And while I stand by that language, I
also stand by the need to work closely and
collaboratively with all of the departments that this would touch,
including our law department. And I do feel at the end of the day,
despite me wanting this to have a broader application, I
believe that the pared-down substitute ordinance that's before this
committee is responsive to issues that have been identified
nationally and locally, and it's better to move forward than
to do nothing at all. And if there are individuals who want to
have subsequent conversation to say, "Look, I want to push the law department
more. I want to look at the scope. I think that we're being too
conservative when it comes to that scope." Look, there's a reason why this
is version 17. There's a reason why
we've spent 14 months on this. A lot of care and
attention went into this, anticipating many of the points that were brought
up today. So I appreciate you all sharing your
opinions. I hope that
I can earn your support on this ordinance.
And even if you're not there, I sincerely appreciate the dialogue,
and the attention that this important issue has been given. Thank you, Chair.
All right. Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Quesada moves to-
Hold on.
Yes, Alderman. Yes.
Thank you, Chairman, again.
Sure.
You can easily earn my support. Just make it all city employees, plain and simple.
Derrick Curtis, Marty Quinn, I believe, I don't speak for them, but make it all
city employees, I don't have a problem with it.
You're singling out the police officers, I have a problem with it.
So thank you, Chairman.
Alderman Quesada on the motion do pass.
We'll do a roll call vote. I'm assuming that would be called anyways.
Alderman Yancy?
Alderman Yancy is a yes. Alderman Hall?
Not present. Alderman Beal? Not present. Alderman Chico?
Not present. Alderwoman Ramirez?
I'm a yes, Chairman.
Yes. Alderman Quinn?
No.
Alderperson Gutierrez, Vice Chair?
Vice Chair Gutierrez a yes.
Alderman Coleman?
Not present. Alderman Curtis?
No.
Is a no. Chair Rodriguez is a yes. Alderman Tellier
Ferrell?
Not present. Alderman Quesada?
Aye.
Is a yes. Alderman Sposato?
Nick Sposato's a no.
Is a no. Alderman Vasquez, not present. Alderwoman Clay?
Yes.
Alderwoman Clay is a yes. By a vote of
six to three,
the ayes have it.
I'll report this vote as a recommendation do pass at the next
city council, Wednesday, April 15th.
With there being no further business before the committee, I'll entertain a
motion to adjourn. So moved. All those in favor signify
by saying aye. Any opposed? Any opinion, the chair, the ayes have it.
Meeting is adjourned.