Clear bags not tinted in color that do not exceed 12.
Clear bags not tinted in color that do not exceed 12 in by
6 in x 12 in will be permitted.
6 in x 12 in will be permitted and are subject to search.
food and
Food and beverages including in metal canisters are not
permitted.
Cell phones must be placed on.
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior to entering the
meeting room.
individuals must remain seated
public comment speakers are permitted to stand only when
providing public comment.
small
Small handheld devices may be used only while seated in the
user.
user must refrain from interfering with the view or hearing
of other.
of other individuals.
Individuals are group.
Individuals are groups failing to adhere to these rules
will be asked to see such Des.
will be asked to see such disruptive conduct in Failure to
comply will result in their being sub.
comply will result in their being subject to removal from
the meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago city council
rules of conduct for public meetings 2023 to 2027
pursuant to the Chicago city council rules of
pursuant to the Chicago city council Rules of Order and
procedure rule 49 the sergeant at
procedure rule 49 the sergeant-at-arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct to be followed during the
public.
comment period and the duration of all committee and city
council.
Council meetings.
profane vulgar threatening abusive or disruptive language
is not permitted.
demeaning discriminatory or harassing behavior in speech
directed towards others is not permitted.
disruptive behavior including disruptive or disrespectful
conduct during others presentations is not permitted.
backpacks large bags and sharp object
Backpacks large bags and sharp objects are not permitted.
Clear bags not tint.
Clear bags not tinted in color that do not exceed 12 in by
6 in.
6 in by 12 in will be permitted and are subject to search.
food and beverages incl
Food and beverages including in metal canisters are not
permitted.
cell phones must be placed on silent prior to
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior to entering the
meeting room.
individuals must remain seated
public comment speakers are permitted to stand only when
providing public comment.
small handheld devices may be
Small handheld devices may be used only while seated in the
user must refrain from inter.
user must refrain from interfering with the view or hearing
of other individuals.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules will
be asked to see such disruptive conduct in failure.
comply will result in their being subject to removal from
the meeting by the sergeant-at-arms.
city of
City of Chicago city council
rules of conduct for public meetings 2023 to 2027
pursuant to the Chicago city council Rules of Order and
procedure rule 49 the sergeant-at-arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct to be followed during the public
comment period and the Dior
comment period and the duration of all committee and City
Council meetings.
profane vulgar threatening abusive
Profane vulgar threatening abusive or disruptive language
is not permitted.
demeaning discriminatory or harassing Behavior
Demeaning discriminatory or harassing behavior in speech
directed towards others is not permitted.
disruptive behavior including disrupt
Disruptive behavior including disruptive or disrespectful
conduct during others present.
conduct during others presentations is not permitted.
backpack
Backpacks large bags and sharp objects are not permitted.
Clear bags not tinted in color that do.
clear bags not tinted in color that do not exceed 12 in by
6 in by 12 in will be permitted and are subject to search.
food and beverages including in metal canisters
Food and beverages including in metal canisters are not
permitted.
cell phones must be
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior to entering the
meeting room.
individuals must remain seated
public comment speakers are permitted to stand.
public comment speakers are permitted to stand only when
providing public comment.
Small handheld devices may be used only while seated.
user must refrain from interfering with the view or
hearing.
of other individuals.
individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules will
be asked to see such disruptive conduct in Failure to
comply will result.
comply will result in their being subject to removal from
the meeting by the sergeant.
the meeting by the sergeant-at-arms.
city of Chicago
City of Chicago city council
rules of conduct for public meetings 2023 to 2027
pursuant to the Chicago city council Rules of Order and
procedure rule 49 the sergeant-at-arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct to be followed during the public
comment period and the duration of all committee and City
Council meetings.
profane vulgar threatening abusive
Profane vulgar threatening abusive or disruptive language
is not permitted.
demeaning discriminatory or harassing Behavior
Demeaning discriminatory or harassing behavior in speech
directed towards others is not permitted.
disruptive behavior including disruptive or disrespectful
conduct during others presentations is not permitted.
backpack
Backpacks large bags and sharp objects are not permitted.
Clear bags not tinted in color that do not exceed.
clear bags not tinted in color that do not exceed 12 in by
6 in by 12 in will be permitted and are subject to search.
food and beverages including in metal canisters
Food and beverages including in metal canisters are not
permitted.
cell phones
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior to entering the
meeting room.
individuals must remain seated public comment speakers are
permitted to stand only when providing public comment.
Small handheld devices may be used only while seated in.
user must refrain from interfering with the view or
hearing.
of other individuals.
individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules will
be asked to see such disruptive conduct in Failure to
comply will result in.
comply will result in their being subject to removal from
the meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
Thank you.
There were so many more.
City of Chicago city council
rules of conduct for public meetings 2023 to 2027
pursuant to the Chicago city council rules of
pursuant to the Chicago city council Rules of Order and
procedure rule 49 the sergeant-at-arms.
procedure rule 49 the sergeant-at-arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct to be followed during the
public.
following rules of conduct to be followed during the public
comment period and the duration of all committee and city
council.
Council meetings.
profane vulgar threatening abusive or disruptive language
is not permitted.
demeaning discriminatory or harassing behavior in speech
directed towards others is not permitted.
Des
disruptive behavior including disruptive or disrespectful
conduct during others presentations is not permitted.
backpacks large bags and
Backpacks large bags and sharp objects are not permitted.
clear bags
Clear bags not tinted in color that do not exceed 12 in.
6 in by 12 in will be permitted and are subject to search.
food and beverages
Food and beverages including in metal canisters are not
permitted.
Cell phones must be placed on.
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior to entering the
meeting room.
individuals must remain seated
public comment speakers are permitted to stand only when
providing.
providing public comment.
small hand
Small handheld devices may be used only while seated in the
user must ref.
user must refrain from interfering with the view or hearing
of other individual.
of other individuals.
individuals or groups
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these rules will
be asked to see such disrupt.
be asked to see such disruptive conduct and failure to
comply will result in their being subject.
comply will result in their being subject to removal from
the meeting by the sergeant-at-arms.
rules of conduct for public meetings
the many the committee on Workforce
the meeting the committee on Workforce Development will now
come to order.
uh today we have 2 items on the agenda first the approval of
of the December 7th meetings rule 45.
of the December 7th meetings rule 45 report and second
02024
202400007332.
202400007332 and ordinance adopting an arbitration option
certain.
certain police disciplinary cases introduced by Alderman
Yancey. Um, we have a quorum of present.
Yancey. Um, we have a quorum of present a number. We have a
more of the majority of members present, but I will
through the roll call alderman. Yansi.
Almani is present Alderman Hall.
Alderman Beale
Alderman Biel's presence Alderman Chico
I'm
Is present all the woman Ramirez?
other
Other Woman Ramirez is present Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Quinn is present Vice chair Gutierrez.
Is his presence?
uh Alderman Coleman
Uh chair Rodriguez is present.
Alderman Talia Farrell
Alderman tell
Alderman Talia Ferrell is present Alderman Ramirez Rosa.
Almond Ramirez. Rosa is present Alderaan.
Almond Ramirez. Rosa is present Alderaan pasado.
Alderaan pasado is present all the person Vasquez.
uh Alderman Curtis and all the women
Uh Alderman Curtis and all the women clay are online will
we will get to that we do have a quorum.
we will get to that we do have a quorum, uh by rule 59
committee members Alder.
committee members alderman.
uh clay Alderman Curtis and Alder
Uh clay Alderman Curtis and alderwoman Clay here.
Okay.
so we'll do all the
So we'll do Alderman Curtis have requested to send a
meeting by remote.
meeting by remote me means on the rule 59 due to unrelated.
meeting by remote me means on the rule 59 due to unrelated
emergencies. Uh, do I have a motion to allow? Uh, Alderman
Curtis?
Curtis and all the women clay. Well all the women Curtis to
participate.
participate remotely.
So moved by alderwoman. Um
so moved by alderwoman, um Ramirez all those in favor
signify by saying I I
any opposed an opinion of the chair of the
Any opposed an opinion that chair the ice have it Alderman
Curtis will be recorded. Uh, Alder.
Curtis will be recorded. Uh, Alderman Alder person Vasquez
also will be recorded as
presence
very good
Do we have any non-committee members present?
like it.
Very well.
At this time, we will begin the public.
At this time, we will begin the public comment period the
public comment period is limited to 30.
public comment period is limited to 30 minutes out of
respect for everyone's Time Each speaker is limited.
respect for everyone's Time Each speaker is limited to 3
minutes. Our first comments are today is virtual. Can we
have Queen Adis Suey from the color of change speak?
I can folks hear me.
Yes, we can go ahead you have 3.
Yes, we can go ahead you have 3 minutes.
Thank you. My name is Cora and I'm providing this public
comment on behalf of color.
comment on behalf of color change and the Coalition for
police accountability and transparency.
Many of you heard me testify last week. The vote on private
arbitration was delayed but the ARG
arbitration was delayed but the arguments for justice in
this matter remained the same there's
this matter remained the same. There's a glaring error in
arbitrator Edwin Ben's ruling an arbitration.
arbitrator Edwin Ben's ruling an arbitration in the
policing and contracts this error critically undermines the
fundamental principles of the Illinois public Labor
Relations.
Relations Act and finding that he was legally compelled to
award the fop the right to private closed or proceedings.
before fop approved arbitrators when police officers.
been found to have unjustifiably killed assaulted.
community.
Numbers, Mr. Been found that he had no Duty
Numbers Mr. Been found that he had no duty to even consider
the public interest and Welfare of the of the people of
Chicago.
Mr. Been a
Mr. Buns award violates the plain language of section 14 of
the plra.
section 14 subsection H Lays
Section 14 subsection H lays out a clear framework for
arbitration with various factors.
arbitration with various factors that an arbitration panel
must consider when there is no agreement between parties or
when parties on negotiating a new or amended agreement.
amongst other things the
Amongst other things the fact is expressly includes the
interest and Welfare of the public.
these factors are Not Mere, so just
These factors are Not Mere so just suggestions. They are
mandatory considerations.
any
Any fair and impartial arbitrator must find that there is a
Paramount public.
Paramount public interest and police accountability
transpar.
transparency protecting taxpayers from hundreds of millions
of dollars.
of dollars of liability from CPD in this conduct and
ultimately Public Safety that the city of Chicago has the
duty to stop a pattern and practice of federal
constitutional.
constitutional violations committed by officers who have
been protected from discip.
been protected from discipline for their abuse of members
of the public and that fundamental, Illinois public policy
strong.
strongly favors police accountability and transparency.
city data analysis released just last week showed that
between 2019 and 2022 the city spent.
between 2019 and 2022 the city spent 295 million to resolve
lawsuits involving.
lawsuits involving more than a thousand police officers
engaged in the misconduct over 60% of law of cases in that.
time period involved at least 1 officer that was repeated
claims of misconduct.
Patrick with Mr. Benn ignores
section 14 of the plra does not give arbitrators
unrestricted freedom to impose terms.
unrestricted freedom to impose terms and disciplinary
disputes. The role of an arbitrator is to facilitate a
balance and just resolution 1 that is firmly rooted in the
law and taken to the account.
law and taken to the account the wide array of factors
outlined in section 14.
outlined in section 14 to suggest otherwise is not only a
misrepresent.
misrepresentation of the statute but a gross
misrepresentation of the ARB.
misrepresentation of the arbitrator's role.
police violence in Chicago has not just cost tax payers
billions of dollars in liability in
billions of dollars in liability and legal costs. It has
caused irreparable harm to individuals and families. It has
cost people.
cost people their freedoms. They have cost people their
lives.
it
It has made us all less safe.
the people of Chicago have the right to demand an
arbitration process that is here strictly to the letter and
spirit of the law 1 that takes into consideration the
interest and Welfare of the public.
There is fertile legal ground to stand on.
there is fertile legal ground to stand on we ask that you
reject the arbitrator's award to the fop and reject another
decade of police and community.
decade of police and community in.
Thank you very much for your comments our next public
speaker.
speaker is FOP President. John. Kinson, Zara.
Order please we're not.
Order please. We're not going to have that.
Mr. Kensar, please.
Say I couldn't be more disappointed.
Say I couldn't be more disappointed in you Mr. Chairman
for?
not having democracy.
for the second time
For the second time to not allow me to be sitting in that
box to provide Witness.
box to provide witness testimony and to answer all their
medic questions including this was brought up at the first
Committee hearing that there were Alderman who said they
could wish they could hear from the fop and ask questions.
could wish they could hear from the fop and ask questions
instead of getting a 1 argument from the city of attorneys.
that you're going to get yet for a second time to sit here
and say that no Union officials have ever sat in that box
and gave testimony is another outright deception if it's
not a lie, I know for a fact plumbers have sat in there and
gave testimony about lead pipe and all that other.
this city. So again, you're carrying the mayor's
carry it well because you're certainly doing that but
talk about some misconceptions that continue not only the
last council meeting but prior to that a lot of the
and they keep using the Jason Van dijk and laquan McDonald
and all of this that
Crim.
we cannot do that because the hearing
motion by our defense attorneys wanting to know why.
motion by our defense attorneys wanting to know why an
investigator did something or didn't do something. How is
that a fair process and we want to talk about closed doors.
that a fair process and we want to talk about closed doors
the police board the same police board president just
a motion to continue the past practice of
deliberations and executive session away from the public
and having these conversations in private the same thing as
an arbitrator does
as an arbitrator does is has listens to testimony. This is
all about fairness.
all about fairness and more importantly about fairness.
It's about Labor.
It's about labor law you all took an oath to uphold this
state constitution. You are all in violation of it who
voted no against this the first time you will have a
second.
budget at the Apple. It's never too late to do the right.
right thing. But again shame on you for not allowing.
CounterPoint in that box because all you're
Mayor Brandon Johnson's talking points.
attorneys right there. It's
labor and every
ing at the spine that that mayor can decide what he's going
to call balls and Strikes on in violation of state law and
that some of you are willing to carry the water in
violation of state law, but let me be clear. Our path is
very clear going forward you reject.
very clear going forward you reject this a second time
today and tomorrow our goal is to not only take you to
civil court for everyone who's facing.
civil court for everyone who's facing a police board case
currently under this arbitration award, but all
back to 2018 when his proposal was perverse present.
back to 2018 when his proposal was perverse presented to
the city anybody went to the police board we are
the city anybody went to the police board. We are literally
going to sue the hell out of this this body and since Jason
Ervin said, oh, well, we've spent money on worse things.
Let's write the check get your checkbook ready.
Thank you, Mr. Kenson's our next stop is
um, forgive me
from the coalition
from the Coalition for police accountability and
transparency David and melson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman members of the committee.
Uh, I've previously submitted written.
Uh, I've previously submitted written comments and I'm
going to Briefly summarize those. I'm here today
representing the Coalition for police accountability.
transparency as well as Chicago Council of lawyers civil
liberties.
liberties Committee of which I'm co-chair.
uh
Uh, we thank you for your prior votes rejecting the
arbitrator's.
arbitrator's decision that serious police misconduct cases
have to be submitted.
have to be submitted arbitration. And we ask that you again
reject the arbitr.
reject the arbitrator's most recent decision of January 4th
the same effect.
Contrary to what the arbitrator has said and contrary.
what you just heard from the head of the police Union the
arbitrator.
arbitrator's decision.
is
contestable and may well be overturned in.
contestable and may well be overturned in litigation about
this issue.
We believe the arbitrator's decision fails to give proper
weight to the public interest and Public Safety in seeing
that suff.
that sufficient processes are in place to assure that bad
offic.
officers are removed from the police force when they abuse
their powers,
The decision also fails to give proper weight.
the decision also fails to give proper weight to the
Public's in public public Financial interests and seeing
that bad officers.
Are removed from the police board.
reporting by WTTW earlier this week
Reporting by WTTW earlier this week documents at a
relatively small number of bad officers.
relatively small number of bad officers pasta City and
average of 1 million.
average of 1 million dollars every 3 days.
As a result of their misconduct finally the arbit.
As a result of their misconduct finally the arbitrator's
decision fails to give any consideration to the possibility
of enhanced.
of enhanced processes in arbitration such as continued use
of the public procedures employed by the Chicago Police.
board rather than the clothes processes.
board rather than the clothes processes associated with the
ordinary arbitration.
decision is striking in its arrogance in suggesting a
public officials violate their oath of office by daring to
disagree with the arbitrators opinion.
It defames.
It defames our Coalition members by accusing us telling a
big lie.
big lie and stating that private arbitration is conducted
behind.
behind closed doors, even when even though everyone.
that is the case and even though the same arbitrator has
admitted.
admitted that elsewhere in this case.
decision is also inaccurate and threatening the city with
excessive damages if it continues to disagree with the
arbitrator and has a tarity to change his ruling in court
the arbitrator well knows.
The arbitrator well knows that the cost of any such
litigation Pals.
in comparison
with what the city pays on average every 3 days as
of serious police misconduct
that decision does involve a new constitutional provision.
but no Illinois court has yet had an opportunity to do pine
on scope of that constitutional provision and that will be
another subject to be taken up in that litigation.
So for all these reasons we again urge you to reject.
the arbitrators erroneous opinion and
The arbitrators erroneous opinion and open the way to a
court challenge of that decision. Thank you very much.
Next up is police board president Kyle.
Next up is police board president Kyle Cooper.
uh followed by Jasmine Smith
Good.
Good afternoon chairman members of the committee. My name
is Kyle Cooper and I'm the current president of the Chicago
Police board while I'm relative.
Police board while I'm relatively new to my role for over
60 years the
60 years. The police board has decided the most serious
Place cases of police misconduct it has and continues to do
so.
so out in the public charges brought against officers are
are made public on the police board's website the board
conducts disciplinary.
conducts disciplinary hearings and take final action in
public and the board publish.
public and the board publishes detailed written decisions
explaining the rationale behind it.
explaining the rationale behind its findings. This
long-standing system has effectively promoted transparency
and accountability and handling.
and accountability and handling serious cases of police
misconduct and I can personally attest to you the fact that
the board members objectively and seriously consider the
facts evidence and law.
facts evidence and law of each case before reaching a
disciplinary decision. This means that sometimes officers
are found guilty.
are found guilty and sometimes they are acquitted in fact a
recent, Chicago.
a recent Chicago Reader article found that in 2022 in the
first half of 2023 the board ruled.
Chicago police officers.
commit serious misconduct are
are acquitted where the superintendent
guilt now 40 years after the Illinois public Labor
Relations. Act was passed the police Union.
Relations. Act was passed the police Union for reasons that
are murky at best and Sinister at worst has decided it.
wants these cases to be handled by private handpicked
arbitrators.
arbitrators and proceedings that by their very virtue are
shrouded in.
shrouded in secrecy.
and a decision filled with direct threats to both you and
your colleagues and bizarre references to conspiracy
theories that you heard about today arbitrator. Ben has
granted the Union's request the arbitrator's ruling.
be a serious setback for police accountability in Chicago.
and I urge you to again reject this decision. I see
for 4 main reasons.
first
numerous Studies have shown that when police disciplinary
cases are funneled through private arbitration officers
either.
either evade punishment altogether or their recommended
sentences.
sentences are routinely reduced by as much as 50%
making it more difficult to hold accountable police
officers accountable.
officers accountable will likely increase not decrease the
amount the city will have to pay for police misconduct
judgments and settlements. In fact as you've heard today
and as WTTW reported last week over the last 5 years.
police misconduct has already caused Chicago tax.
142.8 million second.
142.8 million second cases currently before the board and
set for public Hearing in
set for public hearing including a case that's set to be
heard next week involving the Adam Toledo shooting that is
scheduled would be driven behind.
scheduled would be driven behind closed doors third
according to the recent arbit.
according to the recent arbitrator's decision officers
would remain on the payroll while the deck
would remain on the payroll while the decision to fire them
is before an arbitrator four.
is before an arbitrator forth. The arbitrator's decision
reinforces an arbitrary.
reinforces an arbitrary retroactive date. There is simply
no valid legal basis.
no valid legal basis and law in fact
Retroactive date again I urge you to do as you did last time
and reject the are.
time and reject the arbitrator's decision. Thank you.
Next up is Jasmine Smith followed by Jessica Jackson.
Hello, um.
I just want to address the fop president and spokesperson.
John Kazar called he called for transparency.
John Kazar called he called for transparency in his Vogue
attacks the lunch against against me.
attacks the lunch against against me and his YouTube rant
on December 13th. So let's talk about transparency. Let's
address the issues too much further facts more so than a
hand.
hand up in propriety. Let's address the label SLP.
and practice as well collateral is stopple issues of
midnight crew that are indeed the second.
midnight crew that are indeed the second generation of
disgrace Commander Jon Burge.
disgrace Commander Jon Burge and his insubordinate Kenneth
bod.
disgrace Commander Jon Burge and his insubordinate broen.
The list goes on alone. Cause taxpayers of Fortune. Let's
not forget.
not forget formerly Force retired Sergeant Brian p forber.
the third generation 1 of the highest paid cops in Chicago
whom is leading the cops in Chicago.
whom is leading the cops in Chicago whom is leading the
country in wrongful convictions.
country in wrongful convictions along with his 2 Partners
detectives, Kevin.
detectives Kevin Eberly and John Foster over 20 wrongfully.
convicted men are still rotting in these God for
table and at
Table and atmosphere of the change in a witness we welcome
transparency so we can share some light.
transparency so we can shed some light on where it is
expected to cause taxpayers.
expected to cause taxpayers a minimum minimum of a billion
dollars to the wrongfully convicted victims in what?
what about the victim's family whom have Old Wounds
snatched ripped open? I activize some Smith fight against
the atro.
the atrocities perpetrated against my community of color
you people
You people all you bad characters and actors be where
weapons formed against the righteous of the chosen child.
longer possible Freedom all I got a minute 25 seconds left.
I just want to say of course.
We say no to the arbitrations. They stand to say that it's
about um, the Union laws and things like that if if you
guys allow,
guys allow this arbitration to be passed we going to
continue to go for generations and Decades of police who's
able like forbert we was able to force to get him to retire
because of his conflict the interest but he's able to
retire with a picture why these innocent people are rotten
in jail these police are not
in jail. These police are not being held accountable. I
feel like that they are
not humans like us
time.
the misconduct that these police continue to get away with
not all cops.
not all cops are bad that is true. But the ones that are
need to be held accountable and need to be
Condemned just like you guys condemn our people.
next is
Next is Jessica Jackson followed by Anthony driver Junior.
Um, I wasn't really sure what I was going to talk about
until Michael Rodriguez hit us with the I'm not gonna stand
for that.
So since you want to tell us what you're not going to stand
for then I think it's only right and befitting.
for then I think it's only right and befitting that I let
you know what we not going to stand for.
What we not going to stand for?
Is to keep looking at Rosa?
be in position after he
Be in position after he sat here and suppress all the
citizens.
citizens of Chicago's boats, but at sanctuary
citizens of Chicago's boats, but at Sanctuary City.
And then he comes in here.
And then he comes in here and parades around with his
coffee cup.
coffee cup like he's still the man.
That's what we not.
That's what we not going to continue to stand for. We're
not.
not going to continue to stand for.
illegal immigrants being able to break into
Illegal immigrants being able to break into vacant
buildings.
and live
And live there in our communities. We not going to keep
standing.
standing for that.
We're not going to keep standing.
We're not going to keep standing for our money.
Not being given to us.
Not being given to us so that it can be spent on a bunch of
illegal.
illegal immigrants. We not going to stand for that. So
while you're talking about how you're going to stop.
while you're talking about how you're going to stop our
freedom of speech of responding to why.
freedom of speech of responding to yay if we want to say
boo.
I don't know.
I don't know what to tell you, but I will tell you this.
We're not going to stand for weak Alder.
We're not going to stand for weak. Alderman.
that are continuing to watch this city go to the dirt for a
bunch of illegals.
but a few of you
But a few of you all that will stand.
build talifero
Lopez the few that will stand we got you back.
it
It may seem like it ain't a lot of us in here, but we out
there. We doing it. We got your back.
there we doing it. We got your back and for all y'all that
don't want to stand and don't do what?
don't want to stand and don't do what do the right thing
understand this.
understand this be you black be you white be you Hispanic
be your Chinese be whatever you are. We not going to stand
for that you
for that. You not going to keep on taking our tax dollars.
And giving us no representation. So as you flip through
them papers Rodriguez acting like you don't hear me when I
know you do know.
know you do know this. We ain't going to stand for the
Rudin.
rudeness. If you can't give us the respect that we deserve.
rudeness. If you can't give us the respect that we deserve
we going to get you rolled up out of here, too.
we going to get you rolled up out of here too you and bass
players Romel whatever.
players Romel whatever y'all are not above the law just
because y'all allowed to bring your people.
because y'all allowed to bring your people over here
illegally.
But we got you.
but we got you we ain't standing for that this
But we got you. We ain't standing for that this arbitration
stuff. Who's ever right? I wish you well. I wish you well
who's ever right because we need to police but we need
police and be done, right?
so we got you but this
So we got you but this rudeness.
You gonna stop that?
You gonna stop that Rodriguez.
Thank you, ma'am. Next.
Thank you, ma'am. Next up is Anthony driver Junior followed
by Gabriel.
Thank you.
Thank you chairman.
Uh, I'm here to just speak very briefly.
Uh, I'm here to just speak very briefly, uh about the
arbitration vote and to bring a few things.
arbitration vote and to bring a few things to the to this
body's attention.
November of 2018 Richard Olsen aalia police officer
chased the suspect who committed a traffic violation
The fleeing car crashed into a tree with 2 people in it.
osen
Osen never notified dispatch or anyone else for that
matter. He never radioed in for medical assistance, even
though he was only a few blocks.
though he was only a few blocks away from a fire station.
He simply left the scene.
He was given a 24 day suspension.
some quotes from the police board in Joliet
State the story. He gave us had zero credibility. He had no
excuse for a police radio with dead batteries, and he said
that his cell phone was in a cup holder, but he looked down
and it was gone and he decided that.
and it was gone and he decided that he was searched for his
cell phone the next day.
his story was so
His story was so unbelievable commissioned a price on I try
not to laugh in his face. I was insulted by the story
because there was nothing.
because there was nothing about it. That was believable.
He was then.
He was then a few years later put up for a promotion and
that board denied his promotion.
that board denied his promotion and arbitrated by the name
of Edwin being overturned that board.
of Edwin being overturned that board and promoted him in
2009 former Inspector General.
2009. Former Inspector General Joseph Ferguson recommended
the firing of all Chicago firefight.
the firing of all Chicago firefighters that his office
determined had false falsified their mileage reimbursements
to the tune of over hundred thousand dollars each.
to the tune of over hundred thousand dollars each that when
being overturned that decision in order they be rehired
immediately.
Essentially because everyone does it.
Essentially because everyone does it he is quoted as saying
padding mileage accounts was encouraged.
padding mileage accounts was encouraged in almost a work
rule.
and he ALS
And he also went on to say about the office of the
Inspector General that they risk becoming a power.
Inspector General that they risk becoming a powerless
entity, which is not to be taken seriously. And now here we
are Edwin been is now rude on the issue of arbitration. He
compares the city council's actions to Donald Trump's big
lie. He insultingly says that that's not how democracy
worked. Does that sound objective to you.
worked. Does that sound objective to you and arbitrator is
Authority simply by existing.
Authority simply by existing does not mean their judgment
is beyond reproach.
He doesn't have to consider the bigger picture. That's why
we vote for.
we vote for city council members.
I could be mistaken, but I've never seen the name.
I could be mistaken, but I've never seen the name Edwin
being on the ballot.
This hearing is being painted.
This hearing is being painted in a V binary lens. That is
simply not true. This is not pro cop versus anti-cop.
It's Pro.
It's Pro or anti the Public's right to know.
That is what we are.
That is what we are pushing for information. I share this
information.
information not to personally attack everyone been or his
decisions. He used.
decisions. He used the authority that was given to him, but
I do share this to 100% And unequivocally say that this
decision should lie with the city council a representative
body. That is
body that is duly elected. That is why we voted for you you
have
You have that Authority some values that were fighting for
Trans.
transparency is 1 of them.
Please stand with the people of Chicago.
Please stand with the people of Chicago and defend our right
to know.
Please fight for transparency. Thank you.
Next speaker is Gabriel Miller followed by Frank chap.
Next speaker is Gabriel Miller followed by Frank Chapman.
Gabriel
Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I would like to offer my comments in opposition.
I would like to offer my comments in opposition to this
blatant attempt to undermine police accountability in
Chicago, which is the police arbitration decision.
for decades the people of Chicago have fought to have a say
in Who police is their communities and
say in Who police is their communities and how their
communities are policed.
in the context of the historic vote to directly elect
Police District counselors for the first time last
februari. This attempt to undermine police accountability
is just the latest.
is just the latest from the Fraternal Order of Police.
seek to deny the people of Chicago any seat at the table in
the process of reviewing cases.
the process of reviewing cases of police misconduct.
the most serious ones
there is no police accountability without transpar.
there is no police accountability without transparency.
the question of police arbitration
The question of police arbitration is as simple as whether
or not the people who pay taxes that fund CPD should have
any ability to hold accountability hold.
any ability to hold accountability hold accountable the
officers who are supposedly.
officers who are supposedly charged with keeping them safe.
I also want to address the fop talking points.
I also want to address the fop talking points that
desperately attempt to position themselves.
desperately attempt to position themselves as part of the
labor movement.
What?
What is the difference between the police and other?
What is the difference between the police and other jobs
like plumbers teachers and health workers?
Well, the latter don't carry guns billy clubs and toss.
Well, the latter don't carry guns billy clubs and tasers
with which they can brutalize and kill members.
public.
We are talking about a police department that has given
Chicago the title of torture capital of the United States.
We're dealing with cases.
We're dealing with cases of wrongful conviction where the
state's attorney.
State's Attorney's Office literally has a no call.
State's Attorney's Office literally has a no call list of
officers who are not.
officers who are not judged to be credible in these cases.
because they've lied and because they've done these wrong
things.
torturing innocent men and women
locking them up for the rest of
Locking them up for the rest of their lives and fighting
tooth and nail sometimes.
Married to State's Attorney. This is the web of corruption.
that the people desperately need to have a seat at the
table and after Decades of organizing to get to this point
where we have a pinch of power. We are not going to see
that Stripped Away.
So we will.
So we will not allow these perverted labor talking points
from the fop to obscure the real issue here, which is
democratic access.
to
To the process of policing, right?
So we're asking the Alders in this room. And once this
comes to a vote in the full city council to have.
comes to a vote in the full city council to Have Courage.
We know when.
We know when this vote got voted down the first time that
we had enough Alders standing with us.
To vote this thing down.
and if there are some Alders who have been wavering under
pressure from the fop you are going to hear from us. We are
going to be outside your office we are.
going to be outside your office. We are going to be on your
phone line. So have courage.
And stand with the people. Thank you.
Thank you. Next up is Frank Chapman follow?
Thank you. Next up is Frank Chapman followed Last by Brian
Young Jr.
my job
Frank Chapman executive director of the National Alliance
of conservation political repression
I'm here to speak against the arbitration.
I want to just say this.
the name
The name of laquan McDonald was mentioned.
There was a Lynch.
There was a lynching in Chicago.
where a white police officer by the name of Jason Van Dyke
shot somebody in 16 times named laquan McDonald on video
on video didn't hear hit the hit the video for 400 Days.
No transparency there.
and then when we finally get to see the video we
And then when we finally get to see the video we see this
murder this wanting.
murder this wanting brutal murder.
What was the fop doing about this deaf?
What was the fop doing about this defending him?
How much money did they raise?
Oh 500 thousand dollars def.
Oh 500 thousand dollars defending a murderer. This is the
only Union in the United States that I know of that defends
murderers.
We need transparency. I'm not just speaking on.
We need transparency. I'm not just speaking on behalf of
myself. I'm speaking on behalf of 230,00.
myself. I'm speaking on behalf of 230,000 voters that voted
for us when we had empowering communities to Public Safety.
Fe
februari 28th last year
we want transparency we voted for this not for the f
We want transparency we voted for this not for the fop to
come along and undermine it and torpedo.
With an arbitrator. Thank you very much.
Nexus Brian Young Jr.
Whoever comes behind me.
Brian Young Jr.
Okay, we have.
Okay, we have uh, no more public speakers at this time
given the time.
given the time we've had 10, uh public speakers.
given the time we've had 10, uh public speakers multiple
individuals won't be able to please maintain order.
okay, we'll
Okay, we'll take we'll take the next person on the list.
Who's the next person on the list.
Keith Khan
Okay, you'll be the final speaker. Thank you. That'll be
the 10th and final speaker. Thank you.
Sir, please maintain order please maintain order.
All right. This is our 10th and last speaker. Go ahead sir.
All right, go ahead.
I have very little.
I have very little to say really I don't need to say
anything. Um, we don't need too much more information to
make an informed decision about this.
Um, I just speak.
Um, I just speak uh to uh, sort of, you know reset the the
room a little bit in the sense that I reject the the
parameters that the fop is set up for this conversation,
and I think that as
And I think that as Frank just very eloquently said, this
is nothing more.
nothing more than an attempt to undermine police
accountability.
Anyone that looks into the issue knows that.
Anyone that looks into the issue knows that Chicago has a
long and shameful history.
long and shameful history of police torture and brutal
treatment of its black and brown citizens and all kinds of
people.
people of Our Fair City. It's part of the reason that we
have.
have the reputation for corruption that we do.
transparency is in the best interest of
Transparency is in the best interest of all communities.
I honestly have nothing less I shouldn't have to say
anything else. I have to.
anything else. I have to pay for parking do the right
thing. Thank you.
okay time has
Okay time has expired for public speakers by rule 59.
committee members clay and haul you.
committee members clay and Hall you you need to maintain
order sir. Thank you.
Uh, we buy rule 59 committee members.
Uh, we buy rule 59 committee members clay and Hall have
requested send the meeting by remote.
requested send the meeting by remote means uh due to
unrelated emerg.
unrelated emergencies. Uh, all the women Ramirez.
unrelated emergencies, uh, all the women Ramirez, uh renews
your motion alderman alderwoman.
your motion Alderman alderwoman alderwoman you renew your
motion by uh, rule 59 to allow.
all
All those clay and haul. Thank you.
All those clay and haul thank you. Oh, there you are. All
there been Hall is here for the quor.
there been Hall is here for the Quorum. We have also
non-committee member.
non-committee members here as well Alder person Coleman.
is also recognized for the Quorum. So we have only
alderwoman clay to let in all those in favor of all the
women, um, Ramirez, uh Ramirez
women, um Ramirez, uh, Ramirez's motion to allow rule 59
uh alderwoman clay to be present signify by saying I
any opposed
The eyes have it. We have a question.
The eyes have it. We have a question all of
thank you.
Thank you chairman. I thought Alderman Curtis was also on
Earth. Yes. We've already allowed him in. Okay, I guess
thank you. Thank you.
Okay.
Our first order of business is the approval of the rule 45
report from December 7th 202.
report from December 7th, 2023. Every member of the
committee should receive the copy in their email as well as
a hard copy today can high can
a hard copy today. Can I can I have a motion to approve the
rule 45 reports. So moved by Alder Vasquez all
rule 45 reports. So moved by all their Vasquez all those in
favor. Please respond by saying I
and he opposed in the
And he opposed in the opinion of the chair of the ice
habits.
The second item before the committee today.
Is item 02024?
Is item 02024 D 0000073 32?
Is item 02024 D 0000073 32 an ordinance adopting an
arbitration option in certain police?
arbitration option in certain police disciplinary cases
introduced by alderman yans.
introduced by Alderman Yancey, we have a substitute
ordinance. So 2024 - 0000733
ordinance. So 2024 - 0000073 32 correcting a minor typo by
inserting the date January.
inserting the date January 18th 2024 in line 2 of Section 1
that currently has dates. Can I get a motion to?
these substitutes all the anti uh moves to accept the
substitute all those in favor signify by by saying I
and the opposed and the opinion of the chair the eyes have
it.
Very well. I do want to acknowledge several of.
Very well. I do want to acknowledge several of my committee
members have asked for additional individuals.
members have asked for additional individuals to be on the
panel. I will state again that precedent has been that
Union counterparties to the city of Chicago. Do not speak
on Expert panels. So these agreements at septembar 7th
meeting dozens of Union Conte.
dozens of Union contracts you uh, and uh, we're we're voted
on.
on while you Union Representatives spoke during public
comment, not 1 Union.
comment not 1 union representative was on the panel several
other individuals including from the Chicago Police board
asked to be on the panel and I've denied those requests. So
we will now move on to the substitute that we have.
we will now move on to the substitute that we have here, uh
before us the issue of police arbit.
uh, before us the issue of police arbitration and
disciplinary cases that we previously
cases that we previously voted to reject in December and
send back to the
The arbitrator the arbitrator has returned the same
agreement.
back to this body unchanged.
Okay, uh, we have 2 experts from the city to answer
questions about the arbitration agreements. Uh,
questions about the arbitration agreements. Uh Alderman. Do
you have are you in line after the after?
you have are you in line after the after the uh,
the the statements by the uh testimony
Sure, um.
Sure. Um, we will do that. I have 2 experts from the city
to answer questions about the arbitration agreement City
Porter Adams Chief labor. Negoti.
Porter Adams Chief labor negotiation negotiator for the
city of Chicago and David Johnson.
city of Chicago and David Johnson outside Council for the
city of Chicago.
Uh before moving on to questions. Um
We'll have your your your statement.
Just very brief, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much.
Just very brief, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much for
the opportunity to speak. Um, I just want my name
specifically added to the record.
added to the record, uh that regardless of my position on
this issue. Um, I think it's very important because this is
an important issue.
an important issue, um that we deal with in this city. Um,
I just want to express my position that uh, whether I'm
support or against the ordinance which I um, I certainly
believe that both sides.
believe that both sides should be given an opportunity to
present. Um, so regardless of the issue or regard,
present. Um, so regardless of the issue or regardless of my
position on the issue, um as I spoke with you earlier, uh,
I think we need to hear the views of not only the city in
this case.
this case, um, but if necessary the the attorneys
their represented the fop as well. All right, we're going
to get some questions.
And we'll put you first like that's okay. So, uh is is that
okay Nick? I'll put you.
Got it. Got it.
Okay.
um
We will move on to Cicely Porter Adams.
We will move on to Cicely Porter Adams, uh to speak to the
ordinance.
Thank you. Good afternoon chairman rod.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Chairman Rodriguez and committee
members. My name is cesal.
members. My name is sezali Porter Adams, and I'm the City
chief labor negotiator.
chief labor. Negotiator here with me is Dave Johnson David
Johnson outside counsel.
Johnson outside counsel, and we are back for 4 you today to
discuss?
discuss or answer any pending questions around arbit.
been supplemental final opinion and award.
been supplemental final opinion and award and the interest
arbitration between the city of Chicago.
arbitration between the city of Chicago and the John Dineen
Lodge 7 formerly.
Lodge 7 formerly known as fop
the sole issue in this award is the form for lengthy
suspensions.
suspensions and discharge cases for police officers.
suspensions and discharge cases for police officers as you
recall. We presented this issue at the December Workforce.
committee, and it was rejected by the city council on
December's meeting since that time. The parties went back
before arbitrator.
before arbitrator been and thereafter. He issued a
supplemental opin.
supplemental opinion and award that you have before you
today.
in
In short arbitrator bands stood by his prior deck.
in short arbitrator bands stood by his prior decision and
refused to adopt any portion of the city's proposals to
address the expressly stated concern.
address the expressly stated concerns of openness
transparency and account.
transparency and accountability. He spends a significant
portion of his award touting the rule of law yet he fails
to address how the city's proposals run a file of that rule
of law. He does not because he cannot
additionally a substantial portion of his
Additionally a substantial portion of his award is devoted
to finding that the Alters who?
to finding that the Alters who disagreed with his position
violated their oath of office and he advised us that they
should use the second.
should use the second vote as an opportunity to correct
their errant.
their errant thinking.
to suggest that the AL
to suggest that the Alters who align their views with those
they represent somehow violate their oath of office is
something that we have never seen before by any arbitrator.
merely because they disagreed with his opinion his opin.
merely because they disagreed with his opinion his opinion
and conclusions are that any contr?
and conclusions are that any contrary views to his as
expressed by this legislative body.
expressed by this legislative body are per se illegal and
errant.
errant those opinions his opinions and conclusions are
unprofessional. They fail to recognize that there's
diversity in thought they fail to recognize that his
is the not the only view that is correct and at bottom they
ignore that the city's proposal.
ignore that the city's proposals have always been
consistent with the existing.
consistent with the existing law.
In doubling down on his original position, he fails to take
into consideration that our proposed.
into consideration that our proposals comport with the rule
of law and address.
of law and address the Public's need and policy for Trans.
transparency and openness in government.
transparency and openness in government and so doing the
arbitration award does nothing to build the Public's trust
in the police disciplinary process.
in the police disciplinary process and enrolls the
integrity and legitimacy of that process.
Unfortunately the award incorrect.
Unfortunately, the award incorrectly posits the choice
between Pro arbitration.
between pro-arbitration or against arbitration and many
others have.
others have adopted that thinking but respectfully that is
not the choice. We are faced with in this award in both of
the city's proposals. We have always provided.
the city's proposals. We have always provided for an
arbitration for police officers. So neither the city's
proposals nor his adoption of those proposals.
proposals nor his adoption of those proposals would run a
file of the rules of law.
file of the rules of law his conclusions that our proposals
are consistent with establish.
are consistent with established law is simply wrong as a
matter of law. They are also wrong as a matter of Pollock.
matter of law. They are also wrong as a matter of policy.
They are wrong as a matter of transparency and they are
wrong for the city and the police department. I turn it.
back over to you and thank you for the time.
Thank you, Sicily. Any questions from Alder persons?
all the alderman bill
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, can I ask how much the city is
paying your Law Firm?
paying your Law Firm per hour?
I do not have that information.
I do not have that information handy. I don't off the top
of my head I think.
of my head. I think those the the bills are um are
generally foiled the amounts are foilable. I think if it's
faux,
foilable that mean you should know a bit.
They're Foy.
Your foil but the amount is I don't know sir.
Okay.
I just you know think it's kind of odd.
I just you know think it's kind of odd that a law firm
doesn't know how much to charge in the city of Chicago. Um,
but it's the same time. Um, we're hearing both sides.
and before
And before let me just back up first. I also want to go on
the record with.
the record with my colleagues that um, this is a 1 sided
hearing.
hearing and um, you know, each side should have an
opportunity to uh, answer questions and go.
opportunity to uh, answer questions and go on on record for
you know Pro or against so um,
but I just think it's it's
But I just think it's it's you know, I'm saying your
opinion and I have the utmost.
opinion and I have the utmost respect for all of you all
I've worked with you all over the years. Um, but I I do
disagree, uh that your opin.
disagree, uh that your opinion is skewed because you are
being paid by the city of Chicago.
and um
you know the are
You know, the arbitrator is supposed to be a neutral body.
that both sides sit down with the arbitrator come up with.
what we
think should be right whether we like it or not. And I
think that was done.
think that was done and I've never seen a Orden.
think that was done and I've never seen a ordinance broken
out because we don't like something.
out because we don't like something um, if we don't like
it, let's go to Springfield and change the law.
okay, I don't think uh using this body as a
Okay, I don't think uh using this body as a as a tool to
carry water.
carry water is is not a um, it's not right to put this body
in this position at this particular time. Um, you know, I
believe in transparency I believe in
believe in transparency, I believe in openness. Uh, but the
law is the law.
law is the law and the law says that you know,
when it comes to this body to deal with you know, whatever.
the arbitrator agrees with both parties whether you like it
or not. You hold your nose and you vote for it.
And so this is a political stunt.
Um, and I think you know, unfortunately we're spending a
lot.
lot of time and effort on things in this.
lot of time and effort on things in this city that we need
to be spending time on but we're not spending time on uh
kids dying in the Street carjackings murders, uh, you know,
education people getting shot on downtown.
education people getting shot on downtown, but we're
focusing on the wrong stuff
and so I just think we need to regroup.
and so I just think we need to regroup and and get focused
as a city if we gonna save this city. If not, then we're
gonna continue to go down the wrong path. So that's my 2
cents. Thank you Alderman any other questions from my
committee persons?
other than
Other than Quinn thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I also would
like to add my name.
like to add my name, uh to the list that's being created
about.
about this being a 2-sided conversation.
about this being a 2-sided conversation, um in in our uh
initial testimony,
initial testimony on this subject matter, Mr. Franic
representative,
represented that it would be an uphill battle for the city
of Chicago to prev.
of Chicago to Prevail in court. Is that still your opinion?
I believe order Adams I that opinion is based on the fact
that courts are differential.
that courts are differential to enters arbitration awards
that um, the courts will pay difference to those. There are
however, except
however exceptions carved out to vacate interest.
arbitration Awards and those exceptions are applicable
here. So now I would push back on that statement.
here. So now I would push back on that statement that there
the arguments that we if we have to make on this issue are
either frivolous or unsupported by the rule of law what has
changed.
changed between then and now that would
If Mr. Franic was sitting here would he say the same things?
I'm just I'm a little I'm a little confused. Yeah, well
I'm just I'm a little I'm a little confused. Yeah. Well if
I speak on behalf of of Jim in my partner and
I speak on behalf of of Jim in my partner on record here in
the city council saying it's going to be an uphill battle
and then all of a sudden we have a different a different,
uh set of circum.
uh set of circumstances apparently and I just want to know
well
want to know well what's changed?
because I
Because I saw that anything has changed that there are
several. There's a I think the the chairman had said.
there's minor typos in the substitute.
So it doesn't sound like much.
So it doesn't sound like much has changed, but please
enlighten me so.
enlighten me. So in terms of what's an uphill struggle
uphill battle.
uphill battle legally, that's what there are several. Those
aren't my words. There are several moving there are several
parts or pieces to the puzzle the first 1 the threshold
issue. I
issue I suppose you would characterize it is should there
be an arbit an option for arbit?
be an arbit an option for arbitration?
and leaving for leaving to leaving leaving to the
And leaving for leaving to leaving to the to the side for
the moment what that arbitration looks like.
the moment what that arbitration looks like that issue.
Yeah, that is definitely a pill. Uh, you have to go but you
know the arbitrator been decided, you know, I I think
decided 17 interest arbitration Awards.
decided 17 interest arbitration Awards, you know, I'm aware
of maybe 3 interest arbitration awards that didn't award.
arbitration option. The most recent of those was 15.
years ago. Yes the issue of whether or not you can maintain
legally.
in a
In a court of law maintained the police board's exclus.
jurisdiction over separ.
jurisdiction over separations, uh and suspensions over a
year that is that it
year. That is that that yes that is uphill. That would be a
very very difficult argument to make but there are other
pieces to this.
pieces to this and that is what does that arbitration look
like? What are the circumstances under which that
arbitration is.
arbitration is conducted. What are the rules of engagement
as it?
as it were and then that's where we make a our proposal
which we consistently propose in front of our been.
that'd be open to the public in the
That'd be open to the public in the same manner as not only
police board hearings are.
police board hearings are but I think you may have seen
from our descent our CES Des.
from our descent our CES descent from the October award.
This is that without precedent.
You know, it's San Antonio is the seventh largest city in
the country and their are their arbitration.
the country and their are their arbitration hearings are
open to the public and go online and and watch 1 of the
arbitration hearings. We don't see why.
We found I found nothing.
We found I found nothing in either arbitrator bends
October.
award or in his January 4th award the 1 that's before.
today. I don't see anything in there that's responsive.
that issue. And that's what I find very frustrating about.
this the same goes with what kinds of what sort of the
qualifications for an arbitrator to decide these kinds of
cases what we imported in our proposals.
Before arbitrator been where they at. The arbitrator have
the same kind of qualifications that we expect of the
police board members and that is required under the consent
decree, and this is not an own.
decree, and this is not an owner thing.
Or the arbitrator to have to do.
Or the arbitrator to have to do if we it would be satisfied
by simply.
by simply certifying that he or she has read the materials
that are required to be reviewed and read by the police
board members.
board members again, there is nothing.
in the
In the logic of Mr. Ben's January 4th award or his earlier
October award or even his or even his earlier awards that
responds to that. And again that's frustrating the issue.
responds to that. And again that's frustrating the issue of
are those issues illegally up.
are those issues illegally uphill?
That's a in many respects its unfun.
That's a in many respects its unfunded ground our our my
view my personal View.
view my personal view of it is there's a reasonably strong
a strong argument that this arbitrary and capricious you
need a a reasoned rational.
response from your arbitrator of why it would somehow
completely undermine or subvert arbitration.
completely undermine or subvert arbitration were it to be
open to the public were the arbitrator to have the same?
open to the public were the arbitrator to have the same
kinds of Education credentials, uh that no pay status those
arguments.
Those arguments are to my mind are absolutely very strong,
and I don't see those as being any kind of
the again
Again, the specific manner in which that arbitration is
heard.
heard and which it is conducted that's separate and apart.
from something any to my knowledge any interest.
from something any to my knowledge any interest arbitrator
has ruled on in the past in this in this state.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Alderman Alderman Pat.
chairman, um
Is there if I call you to?
is there if I call you to cecilian David you guys okay with
okay. Thanks. I appreciate.
okay. Thanks. I appreciate it. Okay, so I have a question
for both of you as you can.
for both of you as you can answer it separately. You can
answer it together my my first
answer it together. My my first question to you is do you
think this?
think this is a fair hearing to just have the city Side in
here and not to have the fop?
here and not to have the fop side to say whether it's the
attorney whether it's when somebody on their board do you
feel that this is would be is a fair hearing. I don't feel
it is so I'm just asking your opinion.
it is so I'm just asking your opinion and if you don't want
to answer it, I'm fine with that, but I don't think this.
fair to have 1 side just like last time what?
fair to have 1 side just like last time what say you
All right, you say that we didn't have to answer it. I'm
sorry. What I can say is.
sorry. What I can say is and presenting collective
bargaining agreements and awards to city council, which is
something I do as a chief labor negotiator.
something I do as a chief labor negotiator, the process
that we are following now is consists.
that we are following now is consistent with that practice.
So and I I don't think that practice is unfair
Any other thing?
And the only other thing I only other thing I would point
out Alder is this is a 64 page.
is this is a 64 page award following on the heels of a you
know.
of a you know, 74 page award. I think all of the arguments
in favor or the arguments that we are contesting here have
been played.
been played out in considerable detail in these documents.
Okay, so speaking of arbitrators. Um, I just want to say
something and you guys could tell me if I'm wrong or not.
Um
arbitrators are agreed upon with in this case the fop and
there's a group of them.
there's a group of them and when you decide something's
going to go to arbitration.
going to go to arbitration the city and the fop.
Each have a choice to eliminate 1 arbitrator.
Factor fiction we I think you're speaking about the panel
of arbitr.
of arbitrators. Yes. So it is a panel decided by the city
in fop and at the end of each year either party.
in fop and at the end of each year either party reserves
the right.
to a strike 1
To a strike 1 of those arbitrators, okay.
so
So my colleague Samantha nogent, I'm sure.
So my colleague Samantha nogent. I'm sure she's not going
to be upset. I mentioned her name, but she offered.
to be upset. I mentioned her name, but she offered a
suggestion and I believe an ordinance or it is to uh
propose just last week to have training for the arbitrator.
So we're hearing from these are people that don't know what
they're doing. I disp.
they're doing. I dispute that but she's making a suggestion
to say, uh, let's have training for these people. Um,
David I mean
Jim was here last time.
Jim was here last time and you're like saying the opposite
of what he said it appears to be him know. All right. No,
I'm I Jim and I talked pretty frequently on.
I'm I Jim and I talked pretty frequently on these and we
are in alignment on this I can assure you. Okay?
are in alignment on this I can assure you. Okay, I'm sorry
and I misunderstood you. I'm glad to hear that. You know
that this is Steve hill climbing uphill battle or whatever.
So on and so forth. Okay, uh with that I just want to say
someone of my disappointment and some of our speakers I
know.
know everybody has a right to speak, but you have the
police board.
board president speaking against this I don't think that's
right. And you also have the president of the ccps.
speaking against this. I don't think that's right. That's
just my opinion. So I just want to state that and then once
again,
again chairman, I just want to be on record for sight. I
want my colleague here.
want my colleague here about my disappointment as fop or
the attorney or somebody at the speak on their behalf, but
thank you very much for giving me a chance to speak. Thank
you guessed.
you guests. Appreciate you. Thank you chairman. Thank you.
all and Kristoff tell you Farrell.
Thank you chairman. Um mine is more of a point of
information. Um, but I I didn't believe it was necessary to
uh to butt in um in the Floor of your calling on.
colleagues. Uh, I it was my understanding as I read the
arbitration award.
arbitration award, um by arbitrator have been please
correct me.
correct me if I'm wrong chairman, uh that there is a
mention of
uh the open
Uh the open and open process, uh, and open and transpar.
uh the open and open process, uh, and open and transparent
process through the arbitration agreement and and I think
uh in my reading arbitrator been sighted, um the
arbitration rule that's that's um, um held by a national
arbitration rule that's that's um, um held by national
Arbitration Association that by rule you could not um,
an open and transparent process or an open process. Um, but
it was my understanding in the reading of the award.
it was my understanding in the reading of the award that as
long as the fop and the city agreed.
that it could be an open process and that's why we have
other jurisdiction that have an open and transparent.
process through the arbitration process am
process through the arbitration process. Am I correct in my
reading?
chair
Chairman, or either the well, I'll let 1 of the attorney.
speak, but I will say that the arbitrator also called our
body.
body undemocratic and I couldn't believe that and it spoke
to this.
to this bias in my humble opinion, but you are an attorney
and I am not so I will not go and J with you my friend. We
will let the attorneys do that.
So what we asked the arbit.
So what we asked the arbitrator when he talks about what
the rule of law is.
the rule of law is, he spends a substantial portion of time
talking.
talking about Labor Act in the right to work.
talking about Labor Act in the right to work and that right
to arbitration.
to arbitration and our criticism and frustration with that
is our proposed.
is our proposals also address that so to say that what we
propose.
propose violates the rule of law is just not correct. So
now on the
the openness of the hearing when he cites to is the National
Academy for arbitrators and I will say to answer the latter
part of your question that yes anything can.
part of your question that yes anything can happen based on
agreement the parties could agree to do.
agreement. The parties could agree to do anything.
virtually anything and so
Virtually anything and so that would become the that's what
a collective bargaining agreement.
a collective bargaining agreement is. It's an attempt to
reach an agreement, but we can reach that agreement.
reach an agreement, but we can reach that agreement in this
situation the arbitrator writes the award and his
of that award. He says that having an open hearing is
something that could only be achieved by our agreement and
that's not that's that's not what we agree with that is not
the rule of law on that point. Let me see anything. The
only thing I would add is that to the extent the Alder the
arbitrator sites the National Academy rules. Um
arbitrator sites the National Academy rules, um, first
place couple of points 1 they're not any.
place couple of points 1 they're not necessarily quite as
Adam.
adamant as he characterizes them and the second thing I
think.
think it's probably more important is those kinds of rules?
of procedure in arbitration come out?
arbitration where
here how
Here. However, we are talking about where public interests
are involved public.
are involved public parties namely the city is involved in
our view.
our view and I is that it absolutely is appropriate that
this are this arbitrator should have
exercised his authority
to acknowledge and to wreck
to acknowledge and to recognize the public interests at
stake and hold.
stake and hold that the arbitration hearing should be
public in the same manner.
public in the same manner as it is before a police board.
uh hearing officer. And again, we emphasize there that
that's been public for 60 years.
that's been public for 60 years and there's been no showing
there's not even been a there wasn't even a claim.
there's not even been a there wasn't even a claim that that
somehow inappropriate or that has somehow frustrated.
somehow inappropriate or that is somehow frustrated the
process of arriving at a just result and discipline case.
Okay. Um, thank you and
I um, I was just hoping to see if
there
their uh was some opportunity for that discussion.
their uh was some opportunity for that discussion while you
were in contract negotiations that um, you know, both sides
can be satisfied.
can be satisfied 1 satisfied with an open and Trans Pro.
process by opening the arbitration.
process by opening the arbitration, um up to the public.
Um, but if that is not been something that's been discussed
or if that has been an issue where there was no compromise
on I can certainly understand that as well. So, uh, thank
you.
you Mr. Chairman for the time.
All their ask us go, right?
All their Vasquez go right ahead. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I want to thank my colleague,
uh Hawn.
uh honor and Tyler Farrell for raising the point. Um,
rather than getting into the ideology of it. Just think
through a process when it comes to uh finding agreement.
through a process when it comes to uh finding agreement, uh
through bargaining agreements there was
through bargaining agreements. There was a time prior to
the agreement being presented to us where the president of
the fop did offer.
the fop did offer up some level of public arbitration as a
conversation. Um as things were moving forward he kind of
backed away from that situation. So I think to to to your
point, uh where I find agreement is if there was somewhere
to find agreement and make it public arbitration process. I
think that can be a conversation.
think that can be a conversation with folks to meet but
it's clear in conversations even
it's clear in conversations. Even when I followed up with
the fop president that there is not the want to even engage
in that conversation, which I think puts us.
in that conversation, which I think puts us in the position
we're in and so um when we are speaking for our
constituents and those who've been reaching out to us, it's
why we find ourselves having a vote, uh down the
arbitration. Um,
Any of those things?
Any of those things would be open to at least having the
conversation. It doesn't seem that there's the appetite for
it nor for an understanding of what the Arbiter should
prepared to or training or anything as it relates to the
subject matter. Um
the only reason I say that
The only reason I say that is so it's not framed any
differently. They're just has
differently. There just hasn't been that conversation. In
fact folks have decided they don't want to
fact folks have decided. They don't want to talk and figure
out on that agreement when it comes to the fop side, so
out on that agreement when it comes to the fop side. So
just wanted to to, you know confirm that. Thank you very
much.
any other questions from
The committee seeing none, I believe all.
The committee seeing none. I believe all their jansy is
moving a dup not pass recom.
moving a dup not pass recommendation for the committee on
Workforce Development report at the next city.
Workforce Development report at the next city council.
Okay.
Okay, we will we will uh conduct a roll call votes on item
2 of the agenda.
Uh, we will start with so just a reminder a yes vote is a
vote to recommend.
vote to recommend do not pass at the next city council
meeting.
meeting a no vote is to vote against recommending you do
not pass recommend.
not pass recommendations in the next city council meeting I
will start uh,
I will start uh with alderman. Jansy.
Alderman jansy is an i Alderman Hall.
Alderman Hall is an i Alderman bill.
Allen V. And no Alvin, Chico. I got you other than Chico.
Isn't no Alderman Chico is in no alderwoman Ramirez.
Alderwoman Ramirez is an i Alder.
Alderwoman Ramirez is an i Alderman Quinn.
Alderaan Quinn is a no.
Alderaan Quinn is a know all the vice chair Gutierrez.
Is an i Alderman Coleman?
Alderman Coleman is an i Alder.
Alderman Coleman is an i Alderman Kurtis online. No.
Alderman Curtis is a no chair is an i Alderman Talia
Ferrell.
Alder is an i Alderaan Ramirez Rosa.
Is an i Alderaan?
Is an i Alderaan pasado?
Alderman pasado is uh, no other.
Alderman pasado is uh, no other person Vasquez.
all the person Vasquez
All the person Vasquez is an i older woman clay.
Hi alderwoman Clay is.
Hi alderwoman Clay is an i.
The vote is 10 to 5.
Is that correct?
All right.
All right, I will report item 2 of the agenda as do not.
pass recommendation at the next city council meeting on
Wednesday.
Wednesday, January 31st with there being no further
business.
business before the committee. May I have a motion to
adjourn? So moved by the Vice chair all those in favor
signify by saying I any opposed in the opinion of the chair
the eyes have it?
the eyes have it we are adjourned.