I open, but they have to register.
Yeah. Next meeting open.
They have to
Yeah,
for the new meeting.
I have it ready? You ready? Yeah. Okay, perfect.
Okay. City council members,
if you can please look at your Eev device
and sign in to the city council meeting
for February 15th at 11:30 AM we'll be getting
new city council meeting.
So you need to log into your e device for the city council.
February 15th, 1130 am Meeting.
In order to be counted for quorum,
please hit refresh and log into city council.
February 15th, 2024, 11:30 AM It is,
it is open right now.
Please open into that new meeting so you can be recorded
as a quorum on the roll call
when the meeting begins.
You.
Okay. You are in the right screen.
Once you've entered into the city council,
when the quorum is called
and the Mayor gavels in, it will pop up to vote,
but you are in the right screen.
Just make sure you're in the new meeting.
Just make sure in the new meeting
and it will pop up when we gavel in.
Council will come back to order.
Madam Clerk, please take a quorum roll call.
The quorum is now open. The quorum is now open.
Please raise your hand if you need
help with your eev device.
Please mark yourself present. The quorum is now open.
I'll now take a voice.
Vote for those who have not voted using the e device.
Alderman Robinson. Not present. Alderman Hall.
Alderman Hall is present. Alderman Harris not present.
Alden. Mosley not present. Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Rodriguez is present. Alderman Scott not present.
Alderman Ccho Lopez. Alman Cche Lopez is present.
Alman Waga Pack. Oh, we're present. Alman Alder.
Alder person. Rodriguez Sanchez. Alder person. Vasquez.
Alder person. Lawson not present.
Alderman Vasquez not present. Alder person hadn't
not present your mayor. We have a quorum.
Thank you very much. Madam Clerk.
There are 42 members present. We do have a quorum.
There are a number of,
there are a number of members who have requested
to participate in today's meeting remotely reason stated
by Rule 59, alders Robinson, Harris,
Mosley, Scott Rodriguez, Sanchez,
Lawson and Hadden.
And I'm sorry. Okay.
With the exception of we'll remove Lawson, so Robinson,
Harris, Mosley, Scott, Rodriguez Sanchez and Hadden.
Can I get a motion to approve their remote participation?
It's been moved so that they can be added to the quorum.
Um, thank you very much.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Any opposed? Signify
by saying nay in the opinion of the chair.
The ayes have it. Madam Clerk,
please mark the various alders participating remotely
as present on the quorum call.
Let's stand please for the Pledge of Allegiance.
An alder person. Lawson,
I have you on record being present in chambers,
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice morale please remain standing
for the invocation which will be delivered
by Alderman David Moore.
Thank you Mayor. Bow our heads please.
Ians Father, as we step to your throne of grace, I ask
that you first forgive us for our sins and our shortcomings,
although look beyond our faults and see our needs.
Oh Lord, as we come to petition you, oh Lord,
to just have mercy, have grace
and give us direction as we do the will of the people.
Oh Lord, as we fight and work for the people Lord
and not ourselves, oh Lord, let us keep the people in front.
Oh Lord, let's focus on them oh Lord, so
that we can make sure that the city
of Chicago is a better city.
Oh Lord, ask that you cover each
and every alderman in this council.
Oh Lord. Cover their families. Oh Lord.
Give them a peace of mind where they can
make the right choices for their communities.
Oh Lord, we ask that you put a hedge of protection
around our mayoral Lord and give him direction.
Oh Lord, that he listen to you first
before anyone else in his decision making.
Oh Lord. So as we come
before this body, oh Lord, we wanna make sure
that we're listening to the residents
of this great city, oh Lord.
And that we provide the services, the resources,
and the policies that they want to see.
And in might the name of Jesus we pray. Amen.
Amen. Thank you. You may be seated.
This is the portion of the meeting for public comments.
The council will now begin
The public comment period, which is limited
to a maximum of 30 minutes.
Each speaker is limited to three minutes.
Speakers cannot yield
or transfer their time to another speaker.
Any written comments that have been submitted will be posted
and made available for all dramatic review.
Our first speaker today is Lan Madano.
Uh, I didn't have a speech prepared for this.
Uh, so I'm going off the dome here.
Um, recently, I,
I'm alon in the Chicago Alliance against racist
and political oppression.
Recently we lost a comrade of ours
by the name of Shasta Jones.
Shasta was a fighter. She loved the people deeply.
Um, and uh, she was on the front lines of the fight for, uh,
police accountability and community control.
She was an instrumental part. She was a leader.
And if Shasta was here today, uh,
Shasta would be up here speaking
and also adding her voice to the chorus, uh, demanding
that city council vote to oppose arbitration.
And so I'm here. I'm here on behalf of Shasta.
I'm here on behalf of our organization,
her family, all of her loved ones.
Uh, you know, tell city council oppose arbitration.
So thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Our next speaker is John Cantera.
I'm gonna talk super fast
'cause I got a lot more than three minutes to say.
But I wanna start with pointing out.
You see all the empty chairs here?
They all got your marching order.
They all got up and walked out
'cause they didn't wanna hear me speak 'cause
they knew I was speaking at this.
That's pretty disgusting. Transparency and democracy.
But that's just what you've turned this chamber into, uh,
us versus them mentality.
But let me educate some
of you alderman from 50,000 foot view of what arbitration is
and how we got here today,
because I think at least 10
of you are what's gonna decide
this decision one way or the other.
Arbitration. And this body, this city of Chicago,
was the one who helped pick Ed Ben as an arbitrator.
Interest arbitration was granted to police
and fire in lieu of the ability to strike.
The process is very simple
because the previous administration refused
to negotiate a full contract.
We were forced to break it up into two segments.
That second segment was never done under Lightfoot
and it certainly wasn't getting any movement here.
So we were forced to go to arbitration.
The, the list of arbitrators is seven deep.
The city got to strike three arbitrators from that list.
We got to strike three. Ed Ben was the last man standing.
They knew Ed Ben's position on arbitration
for termination cases was rock solid.
He had done it several times in different
jurisdictions over many years.
So if they were so hell bent on this not becoming reality,
then the city should have struck Ed Ben from ever being one
of the arbitrators possible, but they didn't.
So they are as culpable
as anybody when Ed Ben makes this decision.
Ed Ben's decision, I will remind you,
is grounded in 45 years of legal expertise in labor law.
This is all about law.
There's a lot of emotion about police conduct,
about police murders.
Again, murders are adjudicated in a criminal court.
This is about discipline.
The police board, there's a lot
of fallacies also about transparency.
The police board deliberates in closed session.
You had the new president
of the police board standing here last month telling you
about the difference in now.
And as opposed to in the past about
how officers are basically getting exonerated
because they knew this was coming down.
They knew their days were numbered about having the sole
authority about deciding these cases.
So they started being more fair.
But I'll just leave you with the simple
caveat of why we're here today.
With this proposal specifically, we had the ability
to opt out of this agreement, which is what we did.
But when you go to 26th
and cal any murder, a detective
who investigates a murder is put on the stand
and have to answer for their investigation on why they did
something or why they didn't do something.
Our members have never had that ability at the police board
to bring in a COPA investigator
or internal affairs investigator
to put him in a witness chair
to testify on why they did something or why they didn't.
The hearing officer has every single time refused
that motion period.
That is not transparency, that is not a fair process.
That is all we have ever asked for.
You do have a legal obligation to, uh, the law.
If you don't like the law, you don't get to say,
I don't like the law, I'm gonna ignore it.
You have to go and change it in Springfield.
We're willing to have that fight too if you want.
But do your duty, do your up oath
to uphold the Illinois constitution
and labor law is part of that law and constitution.
If you vote no, you worry about the squeaky wheels.
We'll be coming for your chairs.
Thank, thank you very much for your comments.
Our next speaker is Neil Reza.
Hello. Thank you for letting us speak here.
I'm with the industrial workers of the world.
That is a revolutionary industrial union.
We're associated with Antifa,
so we oppose those fascists on the Chicago police force too.
We believe in organizing the unorganized.
An injury to one is an injury to all,
all working class people need to stick together.
Uh, I don't think you're gonna find very many labor unions
that believe a police labor union is real.
It's absurd concept.
Uh, none of the labor union organizers
really consider the the police union to be valid.
The whole idea of the police in the first place,
they're union busters and slave catchers.
That's the history of the police in this country.
So, so to think that a, a labor union
of police officers could be part
of the working class movement is just an obscenity.
The function of the police is to serve and protect the 1%.
Our union urges people
to vote no on the closed door arbitration.
There's nothing just about it.
Working class people stick together.
Remember where you came from. You work representatives here.
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is John Johnson.
I'm John Johnson. I have a simple idea. It is very easy.
You can't hear me. Okay? I have a very simple idea.
It is very easy and I do believe it will save some lives.
The idea is to fight against fear.
In this way, anything electronic can be traced.
So if you call 9 1 1, it can be traced.
If you call 3 1 1, it can be traced.
My proposal is have a lockbox
and city hall on the floor without a camera
where if someone has, uh, knowledge of a crime
where someone knows the name of someone
that has killed someone, they can drop that note in the box.
Don't, do not sign without fear of retaliation.
'cause to tell the people to go to somebody's door
and say, well, who did it?
That's a little ridiculous because people want to live too.
So have a Dropbox somewhere in city
hall, not on the first floor.
'cause somebody might see 'em walking in
and not in the neighborhoods.
Have a Dropbox. They could come right there,
right down the name anonymously, put it in the box
and go about their business without fear of retaliation.
The reason why so many people can do what they do,
they're not worried about retaliation.
No one's going to say anything. I don't blame them.
You know, we all like to live,
but the thing is things have to change.
Chicago is getting more crowded now
and we gonna need someone to put stuff in that Dropbox.
Thank you. That's all I need. Alright.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Our next speaker is Anthony Prewitt.
Good afternoon. Distinguished members of the council
as well as Mayor Johnson.
Um, this is my first time here.
Um, so I pray that the words that come
through my mouth be those that have
been anointed through me.
The great words of Frederick Douglas, the father
of the Negro American Freedom movement once said,
if there is no struggle, there's no progress.
Power can sees nothing without demand.
I'm a little more Martin than I am Malcolm.
The young people are more Malcolm. Be afraid.
Be very afraid. Dr. King once said, we must work
to assert our demand by means of the ballot,
by admonishing them, by the power of love.
And wisdom will always, always
overcome the self-destructiveness of hate
and undying bitterness.
We do not need to hate while we figure this out. We don't.
Someone has to have the sense enough to meet hate with love.
So many doors close in our face and what do we say?
The problem can't be solved. Right?
But while I'm here to tell you we solve more complicated
math equations, hate can be solved.
However, the table needs more seats for the voiceless
to be heard and especially the youth.
I currently have a child who unfortunately
does not attend CPS.
He's at a private school where he, my wife
and I are experiencing racial and social economic biases.
And it seems to be a problem when a man
with a year long 10 speaks his mind
and ever so eloquently, my voice is being pushed down.
I told this gentleman,
I saw my mother get raped when I was four years old
by the police officers.
I said, sir, can you tell me, sir?
You said, well, I didn't do that.
Well, you're the head of it.
I'm the head of my family and the head
of this world is God.
And God sees all but the devil doesn't see all I vote no.
'cause we need to have transparency. This is America.
Let's not forget what the Constitution, sir,
the Declaration of Independence.
These are words that were written hundreds of years ago
because my people have been enslaved for over 224 years.
Now we have a problem because a lot
of people are getting paid under the table.
Well, let's go ahead and get rid of that table.
We need equality, not just for some, but for all.
Because guess what?
It's just gonna get worse
because this city is the center of the world.
We've got everything we need right here,
and it's getting crowded.
And guess what, in the next five years is
gonna get even more crowded.
What are we gonna do? Our transportation system is fall.
Roosevelt, why do I look up and see concrete falling?
Oh my, what happens when that one falls down?
That's a big lawsuit. So let's make sure
that we go arm in arm and work together.
Now, mayor Johnson, I was told you're from the west side.
Let's not forget where we're from. I'm from Chicago.
I was born in heaven, but I land in Chicago. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Our next, our next speaker is David Melton.
Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members
Of the council, members of the FOP, members of the public.
My name is David Melton.
I'm also a member of the Coalition for Police Accountability
and Transparency, as well as co-chair of the Chicago Council
of Lawyers Civil Liberties Committee.
I want to thank you again for your prior votes
rejecting the arbitrator's decision, which erroneously held
that serious MIS police misconduct cases could be submitted
to arbitration and ask
that you again reject the arbitrator's most recent decision
of January 4th to the same effect.
The arbitrator's decision is wrong.
It fails to give proper weight
to the public interest in public safety.
In seeing that sufficient processes are in place to assure
that bad officers are removed from the police force when
they abuse their powers.
It also fails to give proper weight
to the public's financial interest in seeing
that the few bad officers are removed from the police force.
Reporting by WTTW last month documents
that a relatively small number
of bad officers cost the city an average of $1 million every
three days
as a result of their misconduct.
Finally, the arbitrator's decision fails
to give any consideration to the possibility
of enhanced processes in arbitration such as those employed
by the Chicago Police Board rather than the closed processes
associated with private arbitration.
The decision is striking in its arrogance in suggesting
that public officials violate their oath of office by daring
to disagree with the arbitrator's opinion.
It also defames our coalition members by accusing us
of telling a big lie
and stating that private arbitration is conducted
behind closed doors even though the same
arbitrator has admitted elsewhere.
That that is in fact the case decision is also inaccurate
and threatening the city with excessive damages if it
continues to disagree with the arbitrator
and has the temerity to challenge that ruling in court.
The arbitrator knows that the cost
of any such litigation pales in comparison
to the amount the city is forced
to pay every three days on average
for serious police misconduct.
Overturning the arbitrator's decision is
not guaranteed in litigation.
That is true, but it is far from the hopeless cause
that some have suggested courts
and two other jurisdictions have already rejected similar
efforts by police unions in those states
to move serious police misconduct cases behind closed doors.
The decision here will involve a new constitutional
provision that no Illinois Court has
yet had an opportunity to opine upon.
And it involves serious public interests.
It is surely worth the cost of the fight.
For all those reasons, we again, urge you
to reject the arbitrator's erroneous opinion
and open the way to a court challenge of that opinion.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Our next speaker is Davidoff.
Hi. Thank you. Uh, hello.
I'm David Orloff,
a lifelong Chicagoan living on the northwest side.
Um, last year residents elected me
to the 14th District Council to fight
for police accountability, restorative justice,
and evidence-based approaches to community safety.
41 district counselors representing millions
of Chicagoans are demanding
that city council again vote no on the arbitrator's proposal
granting CPD officers the ability
to get around the police board.
It is appalling that right
after we've had this historic election giving people the
most voice over safety in their communities.
The Fraternal Order of Police, um,
is launching this anti-democratic campaign
to end transparency and accountability
and make themselves above the law.
There has been a lot of misinformation thrown around
by the FOP and certain members of city council.
These are the five facts on police arbitration.
Number one, this ruling is a conflict
of interest wherein arbitrator Edwin Bend is seeking
to give himself more business
to decide police misconduct cases.
Number two, this EP arbitration decision is unconstitutional
at face and violates our federally mandated rights.
We've heard from the unaccountable arbitrator Edwin Bend
that Illinois state law is more important than Chicago.
Well, the Constitution Bill of Rights
and Civil Rights Act are all more important
than the Illinois state law.
And Ben is no judge.
We've already seen these federal statutes successfully used
in court to overturn our local rule on public safety
whenever we fall short in the consent decree
and numerous other lawsuits, like for millions
of racially discriminatory pretextual traffic stops ongoing.
Number three, we pay billions
of dollars in police misconduct settlements raising our
taxes and rents.
Number four, arbitrators don't live here
and have no responsibility to the city or the people.
They're selected by the representatives of police found
to have committed severe crimes and misconduct.
That's why they already reduce
or eliminate punishment for police misconduct 78%
of the time, according
to the Chicago Office of Inspector General.
Number five, our police must follow the laws set
by those elected by the people.
If they are doing nothing wrong,
then they'll have nothing to hide.
Hide. No one in this city
or state has the power to take away our constitutionally
mandated and federally guaranteed rights.
Private arbitration will systematically undermine our basic
rights that are protected, um,
that have been protecting police
officers who have no regard for the law.
Um, the people of Chicago demand transparency
and accountability city council.
This is your chance to stand
with the people on the right side of history and the law.
Anyone voting for FOP abuse today will be held responsible
for the rising taxes and rents tomorrow when the
superintendent is unable to fire the worst cops on the force
who repeatedly commit abuse, vote for accountability
and against arbitration.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for your comments. Comments.
Our next speaker is Jasmine Smith.
Yeah, it's me. Hello everyone.
This is activist Jasmine Smith. I'm with Chicago Alliances.
Everybody has spoke and, and
and basically is voicing their opinions
and trying to get the aldermans to vote no.
It is beyond me that we have have to even go
through a second vote when they've already voted no
to the arbitration the first time.
But we are here and I just wanna make it clear,
this is what's going on right now has not been publicized
and no, you don't see the mass numbers,
but if it don't go our way, we are fighting day in, day out.
But everybody to be transparent, everybody
to be held accountable for they misconduct, a lot
of these laws that we face right now to this day
was never even built for us, my people at all.
And we are fighting and we saying enough is enough.
So I'm telling you guys that whether you vote our way
or you don't, we gonna continue to fight
and these numbers are going to grow.
And that's a fact. And he making it about a labor law.
Labor law that protects,
y'all heard it many times again, murderers.
I'm dealing with wrongfully convicted people, torture
survivors by the hands of these cops.
I was luckily by the grace of God was able to expose Brian p
for Bird on the news and that pushed
and forced him to have to be retired.
But had he not made the news, he'll still be one
of the highest paid sergeants on the force right now.
Has he been charged for his crimes
of having over 20 men wrongfully convicted,
still suffering behind bonds?
No. He gets to go away with our tax paying dollars
and collect his full pension.
For now we have to go day in and day out
and fight a system, a system where we have people
who has the voices to stand by us now.
So I'm telling you guys the best bet.
Your best bet is to stand with us and not against us
because the mass numbers are coming back
and people in their families are tired
of taking these beatings and whoopings
and injust by the hands of people that's supposed to protect
and serve us and that we vote in.
So I'm, I'm just giving fair notice
and warning that it's either going to go the right way
or it's going to be wrong.
And you guys gonna regret for making the wrong decisions.
Thank you very much. Our next speaker is David Gelfand.
Our next speaker is David Gelfand,
our next speaker who Husam.
Yes. Yes, Mr. Gelfand.
Thank you. I'm Dave Gelfand.
Thank you for the opportunity to finish my sentiments.
Um, this is regarding the, uh, drug encampment on Clinton
and Lake and Fulton Streets.
The city's policy of enforcing the now Sunset Bryant
agreement to protect the rights
of the unhoused has converted a barrier of the removal
of drug, the drug encampment from the public way.
These tent encampments have been largely commande
by those dealers with
who have a vested interest in keeping these encampments
in place as a thriving market for narcotics,
which are currently under the protection of the city.
This approach allows predatory criminal abuse
by unhoused population at this location,
which now poses a real danger to our neighborhood.
When will the city acknowledge
that its current blanket policy
of protecting the unhoused is in fact leading
to an environment where good intent is being hijacked
by criminal elements that endanger those homeless as well
as law law abiding residents in this neighborhood?
We implore the mayor's office
to implement immediate measures
to address the drug epidemic pla plaguing our neighborhood.
This includes incessant police presence,
unannounced drug inspections with canine units,
the development of alternate shelter solutions
that prioritize both public safety
and the wellbeing of those in need.
Additionally, biweekly pressure washing cleaning
of the sidewalks to mitigate the unsanitary conditions
caused by human waste is imperative.
We believe these requests are not only reasonable
but necessary for the safety
and livelihood of our community.
The cost of inaction far outweighs the investment required
to implement these measures.
We cannot afford to wait any longer for change.
Thank you for your attention in this urgent matter.
We eagerly await the response
and hope to see swift decisive
action from the mayor's office.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Our next speaker is Husam Raja mda.
Good morning. Uh, my name is Husam mda,
the US Palestinian Community Network in the
Arab American Action Network.
First, I'd like to say thank you to the city council members
who voted yes on the ceasefire resolution,
and thank you to the mayor for breaking the tie.
We know that Chris Jones and the Tribune editorial Board
and even the governor went after you.
It wasn't easy. We thank
and commend you all for your courage.
I'm here today to encourage elders in this chamber
to vote no on arbitration.
The city of Chicago voted
for a better police accountability body
and process last year.
We cannot undermine the democratic
choices of the people of the city.
The city of Chicago must move forward
and must set an example
with this entire country and entire world.
We cannot take 10 steps backwards as a city
and allow the FOP
and its openly Trump supporting racist president
to influence our democratic decisions.
He and his FOP cabal don't care about black, latino
Arab and other people of color in the city.
We know what he, who he is and what he represents
because we were standing downstairs
with him in the speaker's line
where he was spewing the same racism
that he spews in the press all the time.
But this time he was doing it in front of the black leaders
of the Chicago Alliance, including one
who had been wrongfully convicted
after he was brutally tortured by Chicago cops.
Hey Ray, you don't wanna hear this bro? Okay.
That torture happened behind closed doors
and led to the conviction.
What happened was racist and illegal
and took years from a brother's life.
Voting arbitration will make sure that police crimes
aren't swept under the rug.
That police crimes don't continue
to secretly devastate black
and brown communities in Chicago.
As a representative of two important Arab
and Palestinian organizations here in Chicago
and a proud member of the Chicago Alliance, I ask
that you vote no arbitration.
Thank you all for your time.
Thank you very much for your comments,
your Honor. There are no
Further speakers who have
timely signed up for the public comment.
Thank you very much. This concludes the public comment
period for resolutions.
We do not have any next up communications.
I city Clerk Valencia informed the city council
that all those matters, which were considered
by the city council at the regular meeting held on
January 24th, 2024, required by statute
to be published in a book or pamphlet form or in one
or more newspapers were published in a pamphlet form on
February 15th, 2020, 24.
By being printed in full text
and printed pamphlet, copies of the Journal of Proceedings,
the city council of City of Chicago I city clerk CIA also
informed the city council that all those matters
were considered by the ca City Council.
Regular meeting held on January 1st 30 January 31st, 2024,
which were required by statute to be published in book
or pamphlet form or in one
or more newspapers were published in pamphlet form on
February 15th, 2024 by being printed in full text
and printed pamphlet, copies of the Journal
of the Proceedings of the City council of the city
of Chicago I City Clerk Valencia, also transmit here
with the following miscellaneous communications requiring
city council action zoning reclassifications
of particular areas which are referred
to the Committee on zoning landmarks and building standards
and building standards, your Honor,
that concludes the reports and
communications from city officers.
Thank you very much. Uh, Madam Clerk, while you're there,
please add Alder Vasquez, uh, to the quorum please.
He'll be added Thank you. Committee reports.
There are none for matters on the agreed upon calendar.
Is it okay if I refer to you?
Alderman Mitchell for the agreed upon calendar
is she's remote.
Uh, she's here. The, the the chair recognizes all woman.
Hes who is participating remotely.
Ma madam uh, chair all Woman Hess. Mr.
President, could you ask Alderman Mitchell Mitchell's.
Got you. Yep. Okay. He's got you. Thank you.
Alderman Mitchell. Thank you you.
Mr. President Chairman Harris received from the clerk a
listing of items proposed for the agreed calendar consisting
of congratulatory, commemorative
and memorial resolutions offered by alderman
offered by several alderman.
I move passage of this agreed calendar
and omnibus. Thank you
Very much. Hearing
no objections. So ordered for new business.
The clerk will call the wars Beginning with the first ward
Zoning amendments which are referred
to the committee on zoning landmarks
and building standards, traffic regulations,
traffic control signals and traffic signs,
which are referred to the Committee on
Pedestrian and Traffic Safety.
Grants of privilege on
and over the public way, which are referred
to the Committee on Transportation and Public Way.
And exemptions from physical barrier requirements
for commercial driveway alley access
for parking facilities which are referred
to the Committee on Transportation and Public Way.
Al Nal has proposed ordinance for approval of a plaid
of Brownsville by the Lake Re subdivision, which is referred
to the Committee on Transportation and Public Way.
Almond Robinson has proposed ordinance for a transfer
of funds within the fourth ward ward wage account
for the year 2024, which is referred
to the committee on the budget and Government operations.
Almond Robinson also has proposed ordinance for amendment
of vacation of the area bounded by East 26th Street,
south Lake Park Avenue, east 31st Street and South.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Drive by authorizing full release
of utility easements previously established,
which is referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Public Way.
Alman Ramirez has a proposed ordinance for amendment
of the municipal code section 17 dash six dash 0 4 0 3 F
by prohibiting permits for intensive manufacturing
and plan manufacturing district numbers eight
and 11, which is referred
to the Committee on zoning landmarks and building standards.
Alman Lopez and Alderman Silverstein have proposed
resolution to call on Hamas leaders to recognize
that Geneva Convention Article three and immediately
and unconditionally released all living
and deceased persons held hostage following the October 7th
attack on Israel, which is referred
to the Committee on Health and Human Relations.
Two committees have been called the Committee on
Health and the Committee on Rules.
The matter is referred to the
Committee on Committees and Rules.
Alderman
Almond Lopez has a proposed ordinance
to congratulate the Taiwanese president and pre
and Vice President-elect on their election victory,
which is referred to the Committee on Economic Capital
and Technology Development.
Almond Moore has a proposed order
for the mayor to remove his decision
regarding the sound thinking shot spotter, which is referred
to the Committee on Police and
Fire alman.
OSHA has the proposed ordinance
for an honorary street designation as honorary Thomas
Tom Papa Hops Hopkins Way, which is referred
to the Committee on Transportation and Public Way.
Almond Tobar has proposed ordinance for amendment
of municipal code section four dash 60 dash 0 23
to disallow additional package goods licenses on portions
of West 63rd Street, which is referred
to the Committee on License and Consumer
Protection on Lopez.
Has a proposed ordinance for a vacation in the public way
of the alley bounded by South Union Avenue,
west 21st Street, south Ruble Street
and South Canal Port, which is referred
to Committee on Transportation and Public Way.
Alman Burnett has a proposed ordinance for amendment
of municipal code section 17 dash six dash 4 0 3 F
by requiring special use approval for sports
and recreation permits in specified use categories,
which is referred to committee on
zoning landmarks and building standards.
Alman Irvin has a proposed ordinance for amendment
of Ms KO chapter seven dash 28
by adding a new section seven dash 28 dash 4 45 establishing
reward program for information leading to conviction
or finding of liability for illegal dumping,
which is referred to the committee on the
budget and government operations.
Alman Tero has proposed orders for the issuance of permits
for signed sign boards at 57 13 West Chicago Avenue,
which are referred to the Committee on zoning
landmarks and building standards.
Alman Wapac has proposed order for the issuance of permits
for signed sign boards at 1916 North Elston Avenue,
which is referred to the Committee on zoning
landmarks and building standards.
Alman Rodriguez Alman Rodriguez Sanchez has a proposed order
for the issuance of permits for signed sign boards at 37 37
West Lawrence Avenue, which is referred
to committee in zoning landmarks and billing standards.
Um, Viegas has proposed ordinance
for an honorary street designation
as honorary coach Larry Lawrence, the way which is referred
to the Committee on Transportation and Public Way.
Alman Mitts has a proposed ordinance for amendment
of municipal code section four dash 60 dash 23
to disallow additional packaged goods licenses on portion
of West North Avenue, which is referred
to the Committee on License and Consumer Protection.
Alman Nugent has a proposed ordinance for amendment
of municipal code section four dash 60 dash 22
to allow additional alcoholic liquor licenses on portion
of North Elston Avenue, which is referred
to the Committee on License and Consumer Protection.
Alman Lawson has proposed orders for amendment
of municipal code section four dash 60 dash 0 22
to allow additional alcoholic liquor licenses on portion
of West Belmont Avenue, which is referred
to Committee on License and Consumer Protection.
Alman Silverstein has proposed ordinance for amendment
of municipal code section four dash 60 dash 0 23
to allow additional package goods licenses on a portion
of West Tui Avenue, which is referred
to the Committee on License and Consumer Protection.
Alman Riley has proposed ordinance for amendment
of municipal code section three dash 33 dash zero 30
regarding tax imposed on real property
tax imposed on real property for transfer under $1 million,
which is referred to the Committee on finance.
O O'Reilly also has a proposed order for amendment of
municipal code section nine dash 1 0 8 dash 80
regarding smart street pilot program expiration date,
which is referred to the Committee on
Pedestrian and Traffic Safety.
Your Honor, that concludes the presentation
of al thematic introduction.
Thank you very much for the approval of the general
for the approval of the journals. Alderman Mitchell,
Mr. President. I'm not aware
of any corrections
to the journal from January 24th or January 31st meetings
and moved that they have be approved
Hearing no objections.
So ordered for unfinished business. Alderman Mitchell.
I'm aware of one piece of unfinished business.
It was filed by Alderman Yancy
and calls for a vote
of substitute ordinance 2 0 2 4 dash
0 0 7 3 3 2 concerning the adoption
of arbitration option in certain police disciplinary cases,
which was deferred and published on January 31st, 2024.
Thank you very much. Chair recognizes Alder Yancy.
Thank you Mr. President.
Uh, I'd like to defer to Chairman Rodriguez on this matter.
Very well. The chair recognizes Alder Rodriguez.
Thank you Alderman Yancy and, uh, presidents. Uh, Johnson.
Uh, as we all know now, uh, this, excuse me,
this is an ordinance implementing an arbitration option
for Chicago Police Department disciplinary actions in excess
of 365 days
and also separations under the pertinent
collective bargaining agreement.
This arbitration option will fail if it is rejected
by three fifths of the city council.
I will urge my colleagues to vote no on this matter today
before we take the vote.
I'd like to speak briefly on this item
and I request the right to close Mr. President.
Very well. As I noted previously,
the city's chief labor negotiator has stated
that this award, which gives officers a choice
between arbitration
and the police board, is not justified
by the record of the party's history.
It is likely to frustrate the city's efforts
to bring about fundamental
and necessary reforms in the police department.
It will sap public confidence in the disciplinary process
applicable to police officers
and it will ultimately work to the detriments
of our officers covered by their CBA At the bottom
is inconsistent
and at the bottom this is inconsistent with the interest
and the welfare of the public as required
by the Illinois Public Labors Relations Act.
In addition, if this item goes into effect,
it will mean the police department will be subjected
to back paid to officers
for the time they were out on leave,
awaiting a disciplinary decision regardless
of the end results of that disciplinary action.
Furthermore, in this supplemental war,
the arbitrator accuses members of this body
of violating our oath of office merely
because we disagreed with his decision.
Members of this body are privileged
and obligated to express our views
and the concerns of the residents of the city of Chicago.
We are accused of violating our oath simply
because those views differ from the arbitrators.
Our vote does not affirm his opinion
under the pertinent CBA.
This item will fail if it is affirmatively rejected
by three fifths of the city council.
I therefore, once again urge my colleagues
to vote no on the matter. Thank you Mr. President.
Thank you very much. The chair
recognizes alderman David Moore.
Thank you, uh, Mr. President.
Um, I appreciate um, alderman Rodriguez remarks
and thank you so much for that.
Um, I just wanna stand up
and say, um, as we deal with these situations, um,
it's very important that, um,
we stay focused on what's doing right
for the city of Chicago.
Um, after this shot spotter situation,
I got calls from people and saying, you voted for this.
You're still with the mayor on this.
You need to change your vote, uh, and stand with us
because, um, he's not standing with you.
I don't play politics. I do what's right by the community
and that's why I'm still stand in support of
and voting no on, um, this ordinance.
But I want us to always make sure we do what's right,
not what's poli politically convenient expedient
or who's dropping money in campaign CERs.
Let's do what's right for the community.
And that's why I'm standing
and standing with, um, the administration on this ordinance.
Thank you so much.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Alder Tabba,
Mr. President.
Nine months ago, we all stood on stage
and swore a oath before our friends,
family, and supporters.
In that oath, we swore to protect the constitutions
of the United States and the state of Illinois.
We have all heard the debate on this issue,
but nothing gets around the fact.
This fact that the right to arbitration is as clear as day
and it is guaranteed by the state constitution
via the Workers' rights amendment.
Every single argument used to oppose arbitration
is based on falsehoods and political theater.
To call them arguments is giving them too much credit.
Read the police board transcripts
and you will see that they are no more transparent
than arbitration.
Read the police general orders
and you will see their use
of force policy is more restrictive than the general public.
The same opponents who wanna use tax dollars
to gamble a losing hand in court are the same
that are always pushing to settle misconduct cases
and then explain about all the wasted tax dollars.
Some of my colleagues have even been moaned the ruling
stating that they felt it was undemocratic
to not agree with this body.
I wanna address that democracies are empowered by the people
to create laws not break them.
And today we are not voting to create, we are voting
to either acknowledge or betray the law
and the rights it protects.
I wanna make this very clear
that it was the democratic process at work when the state
drafted the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act
40 years ago.
It's illegal, illegal for us to break it today,
and that's the difference.
And it's all smoke and mirrors and emotional slogans to hide
and confuse the fact that the law is the law
and it is clear what it says.
Arbitration shall prevail.
And to my colleagues
who have a deep anger toward the police, all I can say
to you that your vote
to deny arbitration is cutting off your nose
to spite your face.
You are not maintaining a clean
political record with your vote.
You are violating the law, your oath
and your responsibility to taxpayers.
You are starting a process that will end
with millions in settlement cash going into the pockets
of police officers, even those who should be fired.
Nobody in this chamber can claim ignorance to the fact
that a vote against the right
to arbitration is a vote against workers' rights.
It's a cold, hard fact
that a vote against arbitration is a violation of our oaths
of office by knowingly breaking the state constitution.
If you are comfortable with that vote, so be it.
But you cannot just shrug your shoulders.
When asked to justify the wasting
of millions in tax dollars on litigation
and settlements for the willful
and wanted violation of the state constitution.
This vote is not about the police.
It's about oath and how much they are worth to you.
No excuses, no pain, no spin.
Just facts and your vote will tell. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other alders that wish to speak
to this before the chair recognizes Alderman Napolitano?
Thank you, Mr. President.
Um, the last five years, the last six years,
we've noticed a movement, an anti-police movement seen.
We've seen it throughout the city
and unfortunately we've seen it here in city council.
It started four years ago,
or I'm sorry, started six years ago,
but was really pushed about four years ago when they wanted
to get rid of shot spotter
and steal that, steal that that contract
and put it towards different pet projects.
And now we're seeing it as another tool
that we're losing throughout the city
that hurts the entire city.
What you're also being told in here today is that
when you vote today that this is a,
a vote on a binding agreement to the CBA
and it'll be enacted and it'll be in effect
and that it all goes away.
That's a lie. Like my colleagues say, said, arbitration
will make the ruling in the end.
This goes to the courts
and that will make the ruling in the
end and the city will lose.
And once again, we will pay for all of you
that have come in this office or in this body over
and over again and said that you're making the best decision
for the entire city of Chicago, not just for the point
that's going on at in the moment
and how to save the city some money
or to put your money where your mouth is.
This is that moment. 'cause this is gonna
cost the city a lot.
And you're willing to take that risk.
You're willing to take that risk for political purposes
and for agenda purposes.
That is what's been going on in here for years.
Now, this isn't a movement for what's right or what's wrong.
This is a movement against the police
and it has been that way for years.
If you want accountability,
how come there isn't this frustration for accountability
in neighborhoods that are seeing death,
death tolls rise every single day.
That percent that that,
that issue is only put on the police.
When you have an issue in your neighborhood,
you don't call a plumber if you have
a shooting, you're calling the police.
Someone had brought up a a an incident that happened
before that went to the courts
and was settled on on Officer Realo.
Of course the whole story is not told
because it never is of what happened on that day.
And that officer went into a situation where him
and his partner were attacked with.
No, that's, that's, that's what, that's what happened
is they were attacked with a baseball bat
and the situation rose where, where lethal force was used
and what had happened with an innocent life
that was taken in that moment wasn't
what Officer RMA wanted, wasn't what his partner wanted,
but that was the story that was told.
And the best thing to do or the best way
that we thought we'd get through it, just fire 'em
All I constantly hearing here is police are racist,
police are racist, they're anti-black, they're anti, uh,
anti-Hispanic anti whatever.
That is the most absolute nonsense thing I've ever heard in
my entire life because I was on the
other side of that radio.
Please, when that call comes out,
not one single time does just
A second call Alman Alderman.
Does anybody know Al on
The other side? Alman Alderman.
Alderman. I'm not
Gonna stop Talking just just for a second here.
So, 'cause that's, that's where this goes all the time.
When that call comes out
and you hear it on the radio,
you do not know who's on the other end of that radar.
You just go and do your job.
You don't know who's, you don't know who's asking for help.
You don't know who's on the other end.
It's us against the police.
It's not us against the police.
It's the f*****g criminal against us. Yeah.
Hold on a second. Thank you Alderman.
Just for a second, please listen, I understand these are
hard conversations for Chicago.
Thank you Alderman for being patient.
Okay, Sergeant at arms please restore order there.
Respectfully, sir, I'm gonna ask that you hold your comments
please and allow for the alderman
to finish this presentation if you can,
if you cont because that's his right.
If you continue, I'm gonna have to ask you to leave
Ottman Napolitano if you wish to proceed.
So what I'm trying to answer for,
or what I'm trying to speak for up here is when
that comment's made,
and that's the reason why that this movement is going on
and vote no against this and,
and let's hurt the police as much as possible.
Let's steal where we can from budget wise.
Let's hurt 'em in the shot spotter.
Let's take away from their, their budget
for the, you know, for the year.
I've been on the other side of that radio
and never once do they tell me
or told any of the other officers that have been here, such
as one of my colleagues who is on the other side
and who is asking for your help.
Who's being shot at, who's being stabbed,
who's being beat within an inch of their life.
All they say is go there and help them.
What circumstances transpire after that?
I'm a, I'm positive 5000% is never what
that officer wanted when they got there.
They didn't go there with hate or malice in their heart.
They winter to do what their job is.
Does it always work out?
In our case, the vast,
the highest percentages, it does work out.
The smallest percentage is it goes the wrong way
and police officers should be held
accountable in those situations.
But we should not be lambasting the whole
department because of that.
If you wanted transparency, you create,
you created a tr a police board.
Where's the transparency with this board?
Where's the transparency for the years
that this board's been enacted?
We should not be making decisions down here right now
and talking to some of my colleagues.
I'm voting no because I I want transparency when you know in
this, and even an arbitrator has voted
that this is showing transparency.
And even you, some
of you wanna say that you're union's strong.
This is how this is, this is what the unions are given, uh,
on their ability to, to to vote for a,
a, a possible contract.
'cause we can't strike anymore. The alternative is going
to be eventually that the police are going to strike.
They might not strike with pickets,
they might not be out there marching
and they might not be allowed to.
But you're gonna see a different type of strike
and you could say so be it,
but you're still not gonna call the plumber
to come help you when you're, when you're,
when you're in in trouble.
You need to remove the political agenda
from this vote today.
You need to, you need to be removed
What letter somebody gave you today to read.
You need to start voting on behalf of what is right,
what is contractual, what has been voted on by an arbitrator
that city picked, the city picked.
And you need to vote on behalf of
how this is gonna affect the city
of Chicago in the long run when it goes
to court and you lose.
And we have egg on our face because of it.
Thank you Mr. President. Thank
You. The chair
recognizes Alderman,
chair recognizes Alderman Yancy.
Thank you Mr. President.
Uh, I wanna start by telling the story.
In 2011, I was a union organizer knocking doors
with some union members on the west side near a high school.
When we arrived at the school as it was letting out,
we were approached by three high school age boys
who were heading home at the end of their school day.
From behind our group, we heard a voice coming from a
loudspeaker attached to a marked police car.
An officer was singing a song
that sounded familiar but out place.
So it took a minute to name the tune.
Uh, I'm not really a singer,
but indulge me for a moment Here.
Song goes like this. Here they come
walking down the street,
they get the funniest looks from everyone named me.
Hey, hey, we're the monkeys.
So these union members that were with me on
that day were part of the great migration fleeing from the
Jim Crow Laws of the South.
And these young people who probably never even saw the show
called The Monkeys or heard the theme song
before they knew
what this officer was saying to and about about them.
I bet that officer has forgotten all about that day.
But three generations, three generations
of black people witnessed this offensive
and disrespectful moment.
And I doubt any of us have forgotten about it
because I sure haven't.
I bring this up because this fight today is about
how we hold the police accountable.
That officer may still be on the force,
probably mentor dozens of officers since that day.
Maybe he's a district commander
or trains the cadets at the academy,
or maybe he's one of the hundreds of officers
who have been accused of misconduct over the last decade.
Our fight for public safety for a public safety system
that is transparent and keeps all of us safe has been a long
and difficult fight.
One that's bolstered by the police accountability task force
created by former Mayor Rom Emanuel
and led by former Mayor Lori Lightfoot.
This push for accountability
and transparency is also supported
by a federal consent decree.
The only way we can create a 21st century public safety
system is through an open process.
Our current system of dealing with officers who are accused
of misconduct, especially those
who have committed the most egregious offenses against this
city, not just against black people or Latinos,
but against this city isn't perfect,
but it's moving towards the desired outcomes.
Currently, officers facing suspensions of a year or more
or termination currently face the police board.
This push to move hearings
to arbitration is a step backwards
and is a direct response to the reform efforts won
and championed by community residents.
I'll add that the messaging
around arbitration being illegal,
uh, I have a problem with that.
'cause slavery was legal once.
Plessy versus Ferguson said that black people
with three fifths of a person,
I don't know if you know this, but the
law doesn't always get it right.
It's our jobs as lawmakers to get it right.
So for these reasons, I'm voting no
against the arbitrator's decision.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Alder Vazquez.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Um, I appreciate that we're having the conversation here.
Um, I'd like to start, uh,
in conversation on things we agree on.
We all agree that we want our constituents
and all of us wanna be able
to get home safe when we get home from work.
We want our kids to be able to get to school safely.
Um, these are priorities when we talk public safety.
That's number one for all of us.
Um, I I say that
because I, I don't accept some of the framing
as the conversation's already started here.
This is not about being anti-police.
When you wanna see accountability,
this is about being anti-people
who shouldn't be policed in the first place.
It is about a small margin of officers
who would currently be officers that are up
for either a year long suspension or outright dismissal.
I would argue that is not the majority of police officers.
Every single one of us works with our commanders.
We talk to our officers on the ground.
We know they do some of the hardest work in city government.
They walk into situations none of us would wanna walk into.
The reason why I say that is when we're talking about
arbitration, we're not talking about them at all.
Actually, when we're talking about arbitration,
we are talking about people
who should not be officers in the first place.
And I wish that officers fought as hard for this arbitration
or FOP fought is hard for this, uh, ar
or fought it hard to get rid of bad officers
as they fight this hard for this arbitration piece.
We would be in much more agreement if we heard that. Yeah.
Um, I'll tell you how I know. I'll tell you.
I know I'm about to be 45 years old.
Address, address me ultimately. Yes. Sorry. Thank you Mayor.
Thank you. I'm about to be 45 years old.
I've been born and raised and grown up in the city.
I have never heard an officer call out another officer
for things they shouldn't be doing.
In my whole time as a Chicagoan, I've never heard
that officer shouldn't be an officer.
That officer should be fired.
I heard a whole lot of defense for people
who shouldn't be officers,
but I've never heard someone say, you know what?
That person right there embarrasses our whole police force.
They make it more dangerous for all the good officers
and that person should not be on the force.
I've never heard that publicly anywhere at all.
And so I, that is why I don't accept the premise
when people wanna talk about, Hey, this is about oaths.
Sure. It's also about oath keepers and proud boys
and people who also are defended all the time
and no one calls them out for not having,
they shouldn't be officers.
In fact, the only time we found out about officers
who were oath keepers was
because they admitted to it in arbitration enclosed doors
and then didn't suffer any consequences for admitting it.
That is why we found that out,
because it happened behind closed doors,
not on the police board, not publicly.
And that officer was not held to account.
I know that 'cause it happened in 40th ward.
It didn't occur. There was no accountability there.
When we have people talking about, well,
you're gonna spend a whole lot of money on these cases,
you're gonna spend a whole lot of money in lawsuits.
Everyone's a conservative fiscal hawk when it
comes to spending on that.
I don't hear the same energy when we spend over a hundred
million dollars every year on police misconduct settlements.
I don't hear that energy about
how much dollars we keep spending there
and how we need to have accountability, right?
So we're not keeping, we're not continuing
to spend the tax dollars that our taxpayers pay.
They don't bring that up. And
that's a whole lot more money than we're talking about this
case here, right?
So don't so spare me this fiscal hawk conversation if you're
not willing to have it when we're spending a whole lot more
money for misconduct.
And again, this is a small margin of officers
who shouldn't be officers,
not the majority who we all support.
You do the work to keep people safe.
'cause safety's number one.
So the fact that you're going that hard for a small margin
that shouldn't be officers is actually more problematic.
Because if we had a conversation about supporting the good
ones and about public arbitration
or an actual police board, that
that isn't being gutted right now as we speak,
we might have a lot more to agree on.
That would lead to a safer city.
But we're not here having that conversation, right?
When we wanna talk about accountability, safety,
transparency is a part of that conversation.
You don't get that when you only have these
conversations behind closed doors.
Lastly, I'll say this
because people want to make it a labor conversation.
That's absolutely fair. I agree.
Labor unions have the right to arbitration.
But I'll tell you this, a plumber's never broken on a
door to get into somebody's house.
A pipe fitter's never arrested anybody.
An electrical worker never shot somebody.
No one's ever died because of a carpenter, right?
So when we talk about the difference in the role,
there should be an understanding at the state level
that there's different understandings.
It's absolutely right.
Officers don't have the right to strike.
And that is in, in that regard of the conversation
and unfortunate reality,
because these are nuanced conversations.
But when we talk about the other side of it, they be right,
virtue of their role are able to do things,
other unions can't.
They should be held to a different standard
with more accountability because of it.
So when we're voting for no to arbitration here, it's not
'cause people hate the police, it's not
because people want anything to be less safe.
It's because it requires nuance to get it right,
to have accountability and to be transparent.
Because if you have a transparent process,
then when officers, when they make the right calls in
situations that aren't so clear cut can also make
that case publicly so we can understand
why they made that call.
Doing it all behind closed doors to absolve somebody
of any level of accountability
is not the right way to do it.
It's not public, it's not fiduciary responsible.
So that's why I'm voting no on the arbitration.
Thank you person.
Right? Thank you very much.
Chair recognizes Alder Fuentes.
Sergeant at arms, could you please recognize the individuals
that need extra attention, please.
Let's make sure that we keep just a second alder,
but respectfully as now for the fourth time,
let you all maintain some decorum.
Please. I do not want to have to clear.
The public chambers chair
recognizes Alder Fuentes.
Thank you Mr. President.
And I wanna thank my colleagues for allowing us
to have a diplomatic debate.
Look, we could have different political views
and make different decisions and cast our votes differently.
That doesn't mean that we have to be divisive.
Today we're talking about a process that should be public
because the Chicago Police Department
officers are public servants.
The way we are public servants, they have the responsibility
of caring and protecting people and
therefore there is a public right
and need to make sure they are held
accountable in the public eye.
I wanna talk about just a short story.
In the month of October in 2018, I was the dean, Dean
of students at a high school called Dr.
Pedros Puerto Rican High School.
That same month we were watching the verdict
of Van D**e on the Laquan McDonald murder.
And I turned on my cell phone in the middle of the hallway
to watch that verdict.
And a bunch of young men in their classrooms
heard the sound coming outta my cell
phone and wanted to watch.
Many of them walked out of classrooms without permission.
Here I am as the dean of students struggling.
Should I tell these young men to go back to class
to do they have the right to watch this verdict?
And so I sat on the floor with my cell phone
and every young person came outta that classroom to watch
that verdict with me.
Young black men who have been expelled, pushed,
or kicked outta CPS schools are watching a verdict
of a young man that attended an alternative school just like
they do, several of them crying when
that verdict was reached.
Now that verdict was only reached
because of a police board,
because of a police board that found
that there were officers who exaggerated on the threat
that Laquan posed to them that day.
There was a police board that did thorough investigation
and made sure that those findings were public,
that a life of a young black man like Laquan McDonald
would be a story that is told
and not one that's held up kept secret behind closed doors.
This process is for the most egregious
and harmful behaviors of the Chicago Police Department.
99%
of the police officers in this room wouldn't even be
impacted by a public process that is facilitated
by the Chicago Police Board.
We are talking about a very small percentage of individuals
that make decisions that are expensive at best,
fatal at worst, expensive at best,
fatal at worst, on the dime of the city of Chicago.
For the record, I don't hate police officers.
I despise a system that has allowed
for individuals in our city to be unsafe today.
We have the opportunity to right that wrong, to change
that system, to ensure
that we are holding police officers accountable at the
highest regard because the citizens
of Chicago deserve that much.
We could talk about, we could talk about the safety
in our communities
and addressing violence in our communities
and holding police accountable.
We have gotten into the bad habits to think
that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
I could be a older person
that is addressing the very needs in my community
like I do every day.
I show up every day and I could come to council today
and vote no on arbitration.
You see, we can do both. We can do both.
Look, you wanna talk about politics.
I ran for this seat, born and raised in Humble Park.
I was 15 and 16 years old and I made a lot of mistakes.
I got into fist fights, stole something to survive.
And you know what the FOP did?
They printed a mailer with my face.
They darkened my skin, changed the color of my eyes,
and put me behind bar cells to convince the residents
of my ward that I was not qualified for the job.
That me, the older person of the 26th Ward,
was not qualified for the job.
You wanna talk about politics?
The FOP has shown us the work they're willing to do. Today.
I will show my constituents the work I am willing to do,
and that is transparency, accountability,
and the safety of my residents.
I will show up every day for them.
And today my no vote is doing the same. Thank you, Mr.
President.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Alderman Irvin.
Thank you, Mr. Mr. President.
Um, before we had this conversation, um,
about the decision on arbitration, um, that,
uh, Mr.
Ben, uh, put upon us here, um, what I see today is
what I saw before is essentially a false choice of saying
that if you don't do this, then you are against that.
Um, most people know
that I wouldn't be here today, uh, if it weren't
for the 30 some odd years
that my father worked in the Chicago Police Department.
It doesn't mean that if we take a position to support
the evolution of policing,
that we are anti-police.
We talk about oaths,
we talk about the Constitution.
We are representatives here of the people
that have sent us here.
It's very clear that the people that have sent us here
are at issue with the process
and the procedure that does not have the same level as
what we've seen in the past.
Now granted, as Alderman Yancy pointed out earlier,
and I said before, uh, we don't make any adjustments.
The Constitution is a living, breathing document
that is subject to change and interpretation.
Again, no change in the law.
I'm down in Mississippi picking cottons and change.
Still no change in the law.
Some of you in here wouldn't have a right to vote.
The majority of us in here would not have a right to vote.
So again, we can't be stuck and so rigid
because the document is not a rigid document.
It is subject to change. It is subject to being interpreted.
And it's clear that our citizens have said to us
that they wanna see a high level of accountability
because of the challenges of the past.
And again, doesn't mean that we are
anti of the, of the police.
As Alderman Napolitano stated, yes, we will dial 9 1 1
and expect the proper service to be rendered to all of us
as citizens of this city.
Doesn't mean that we are anti
because of the decision that is made today.
I respect the FOPI respect, uh, president Ka Zara.
We just happen to have a disagreement.
He's doing what he's supposed to do.
He's supposed to advocate for his members to get the most
that they can get for the least.
It's, it's, that's, that's the
nature of the, of the business.
That's the nature of the game.
But at the same time, we have a responsibility to advocate
for those who sent us here.
And those who sent me here say, Hey, we want,
we wanna see the accountability.
We wanna see a different level,
a difference in what's going on and not walk backwards
or go behind the closed doors.
And again, he's right.
There's no way in hell
that Edward Ben should have been the one making this
decision because again, I it is very clear of what his, his,
his views had been.
And I, that's one thing that he and I do agree on.
Um, I've had experience with Ben in my previous life.
And again, even though that's the way the system played out,
uh, we have an opportunity
and we have a right to represent our constituents.
And it's very clear from the conversations I've had
with mine where they stand on this particular issue.
So while we are all in some level of disagreement, I think
that we will find a way to find a solution that works.
And that's why we have courses, why we have a legislature.
But today is a decision on behalf of the residents
of the 28th Ward, is to not
to support the arbitrator's
decision. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you. Seeing no other hands,
the chair recognizes Alderman.
Nick Sdo.
Thank you Mr. President. I'm sorry.
I thought there was a bunch more people going.
So, um, first I wanna start by saying I'm not naive enough
to think that what I say
or what anybody else here said are gonna sway anybody.
There's no doubt in my mind you have the 30 votes on this,
but I'm still gonna have my say so
and I respect people for what they said.
I don't agree with 'em. Uh,
basically from the public speaker to some of my colleagues,
we heard some really, really bizaro stuff.
Um, but you have a right to say whatever you want.
So, um, that doesn't mean it's the truth or not.
Uh, just wanna make sure everybody knows the arbitrator.
We're gonna talk about this particular case.
Ben, he was decided on the FOP, didn't pick him
and say he's gonna be the arbitrator.
We the city everybody. And the FOP decided on him.
Okay, there's, you cut him, you got a group, you cut some
who he was the, he was the last guy left standing.
That's the way it usually works with arbitrators.
So just wanna let everybody know about that.
That's how the arbitrator works.
I, I know a lot of stuff's gonna
be redundant, what you guys heard.
Um, so I I I scratched some stuff, so I'm just,
just wanna have my say in the past
or the last time, which I thought was really unconscionable.
We had the police board president
and the president of CC BSA, I call it the CC BSA came
and spoke against arbitration.
How wrong is that? You're the police board president
and you're speaking against arbitration.
I i, that, that to me is totally unacceptable.
Totally unacceptably.
Have somebody in that position
to be speaking against arbitration.
You wanna talk about deliberating
behind closed bar closed doors?
That is the police board that does that.
Everybody, if anything,
we should be voting out the police board.
They're the ones that deliberate behind closed doors.
Then they come out with their decision. That's how it works.
Once again, the city's chief negotiator, I don't have
to say his name, we all know who he was.
He mentioned what kind of a terrible idea it was.
This would be a tough, a steep hill to climb a whatever,
how tough it would be to win this.
So I'm just reminding everybody of that.
And once again, I know we heard some talk about fiscal hawks
and some people try to do their best and some don't.
But we do have a finance fan,
financial obligation to the city people.
Uh, this could, could, this could cost us big time.
I'm not exactly sure what, I'm not sure how much we'll have
to go through court with this, but once
again, it's gonna cost us.
I just don't know how much. It also pains me
that we have some really smart people in here.
I'm not one of 'em, I'll tell you that.
But we have some really smart people on both
sides of the fence over here.
Both sides of the fence.
We have three lawyers in this group too.
And two of you lawyers are voting against this,
which I really don't understand.
I I really don't. It's just pains me
that two lawyers are gonna be or knows for this.
So that's, that's just really,
really tough for me to understand.
Mr. President, if you and me can't agree on something
and we agree to go to arbitrator to make a decision
that's pretty much binding, we say, okay, we can't agree.
We're gonna let the arbitrator decide for us.
So, um, simple as that.
Everybody, many of you said you don't ha hate the police,
but boy, you sure could.
You're sure could fool me. Let me tell you.
So I think the hatred for the police, the hatred
for the police in this council is, is outta control
and it's just spiraling outta control
and it's just getting worse and worse.
So just wanted to say that.
Also, once again, the whole labor thing, you know, we claim
to be pro-labor.
You know, I don't know how you could say you're a pro-labor
person, but except for the one union that carries guns,
because they carry guns and not a, not a wrench or a hammer
or something like that, they shouldn't
be able to go to an arbitrator.
So with that, I just wanna wrap up with something. Mr.
President has nothing to do with this,
but it'd be my one chance to say this and in public
and nothing to do with this arbitration thing,
I just wanna say, and it's one thing we all
could agree on, that's for sure.
But we all want safety for our communities, that's for sure.
So why the hell are we getting rid of shot spotter
and SROs in schools?
Terrible idea. So I just wanna wrap with that.
Let's keep shots spotter, let's keep the SROs.
Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to speak.
Thank you everybody for what you had to say.
And uh, we know what the vote's gonna be,
but let's get it done and over with.
Thank you. Alderman, you are staying
right the way you were wrapping up.
I thought you were gonna say goodnight Chicago.
All right, uh,
the chair recognizes Alderman Ray Lopez.
Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon.
Members of the city council.
You know, I think to answer my colleague from the
38th wards question why we're doing this
Politics and agendas bring us
to where we're at before the soul
of Chicago was announced before bringing in the light,
before moving Chicago forward a hundred years ago,
there was a saying, Chicago first, Chicago,
last Chicago.
Always what it meant was that
what should guide us in everything we do is this city.
What's in the best interest of everyone
that calls Chicago home?
That leading just for the base governing,
just for those who put us in office.
And being the chief executive of only
whatever gives us 26 votes was not
what this city's was known for.
We saw the last administration say white blanketly,
I'm only interested in getting to 26, which means
overwhelmingly that they were
willing to discount everyone else's concerns just
to get to the finish line.
Oftentimes getting to the finish line, expose some of the
most unfortunate hypocrisies in government in this building
and in this room, we've heard
many arguments for
and against why we should start separating contracts
and cherry picking the parts we like in this body
and going against what our arbitrator
and our employees have negotiated.
Because apparently we know better here than the people
we hire to do this.
We are willing to set forward down this path, even though
regardless of views on the FOP pipe,
fitters, teamsters, amalgamated, transit Union,
electrical workers, operating engineers, firefighters,
plumbers and Lieutenants Association
of all stood in agreement and saying, this is not the way.
But what do they know? They just work here.
What do they know? They just live here.
And what do they know? We only ratify their contracts in a
very unified manner, which if we're going
to start talking about how we discipline
them, then they'll be next.
Because then all of their disciplinary things
should be made public too.
There are ways that we can have a discussion about moving
forward, and there are ways
that we can actually discuss about increasing
pub true public engagement.
We created a whole new system that allows for the public
to participate for the public to engage not just
with the police, not just with the city,
but by creating district counselors in a whole commission.
And I feel more than entitled to critique that
because I voted for it in direct opposition
to the fops request.
But I can also tell you that what I've seen since
is absolutely disgusting
because of the fact that you have seen this process of
participation go from being a means to engage
and communicate and connect to being
the political pawn of not just police defenders,
but abolitionists people who genuinely believe
that there's no reason to have police at all.
People who would think
that we live in some fairytale universe
where criminals gladly hand over their guns or knives
or tools of mayhem when they're caught, that they don't run,
that they don't hide in the shadows.
I, I don't know what part of Chicago that is,
but I know it's not anywhere where any of us live.
We talk about this public process
and why people with so much authority and influence
and power over us should be held to a standard.
And I think that we have seen a willingness to move
in that direction by all parties.
We just refuse to take people up on that offer for the sake
of maintaining the narrative,
of maintaining the political posturing for instilling
that propaganda that nobody wants
to work together when we know that has not been the case.
And we're also very selective, Mr.
President, on when we're willing to tell those with
so much power over our lives that we want to be a part
of their disciplinary process.
Because I have still yet to hear,
since we first had this discussion in December,
one person in this room take up the cause
of the 446 individuals
with sexual abuse claims against CTU members and CPS.
Not one resolution, not one call for public arbitration
because they, by the way, to remind all of you
can go directly to arbitration first.
Nobody knows, nobody here cares.
And yet 446 individuals in 2023 alone,
1800 cases in the last few years.
And yet even some of the most basic of reforms
that were learned from what we saw
with the Catholic church have been ignored by that body.
A one strike in your out policy.
Nope, not for our kids removal from the school
until investigation is over.
Not gonna have it a public
and easily accessible website of all offenders.
That's crazy talk in this city.
The hypocrisy of what we're discussing today, Mr.
President, the sheer, outrageous, nonsensical discussion
that we only want hypocrisy against one of those individual
work groups that we claim have so much power while ignoring
what they'd be willing to destroy in our own families.
Shame on you, shame on all of you who refuse
to have that conversation.
There are things that we can do better.
Always there are things that we should live up to.
Absolutely. But we are failing
because every catch phrase that we throw out there
is just designed to be the next banner
for someone's reelection for someone's next ad.
What we have forgotten in this room, in this building
is that what should motivate all of us is the city
of Chicago doing what is best for all of Chicago,
is what we were sent here to do,
representing our communities,
but coming together for those difficult decis decisions
and conversations that we have to have, not only here
but in our communities where we can explain the difference
between a poor 13-year-old being shot
and a gang recruit being chased.
Because those are two wildly different scenarios.
And when we are unwilling to stand
before our own constituents
and say sometimes there's only one outcome,
it is true and we have to be leaders enough to say that.
But we are choosing now to hide behind the politics.
We are choosing to pick in a society
that's already struggling, who we are putting our faith in.
And I think as we're thinking about this
and thinking about what we've heard over the last week,
and as my colleague said, our colleague said,
the march towards removing technology from
CPD didn't start the other day.
And no matter what happens Friday, it will not end.
'cause there's still plenty of technology
that everyone finds racist.
We've seen where even this trend has continued outside
of our own city, where the extreme
criminal enabling dogma says that something as innocuous
as a ring talent, a ring doorbell, is now
wrong to protect yourself
and memorandums
of understanding are being canceled all across this country
now because God forbid, use ring to catch criminal.
What we are seeing, ladies
and gentlemen, is that we are choosing a side.
We're choosing a side that we're putting our faith in.
We're choosing a side that we think
is gonna do right by the neighborhood.
And I guarantee you every one of 'em is in here.
Every person that's listed in this book, in all
of your neighborhoods, some of you may know,
are anxious by what you're doing, ecstatic
that you're willing to cut them by the knees
and let them flounder to not hold them accountable so
that they can run their course, live their life,
and continue
to propagate the generational violence in our city,
in our neighborhoods unchecked.
That's the side you've chosen.
That's the side that you are standing with when you continue
to allow every avenue
aimed at helping communities fall to the wayside.
Remember that as you vote today, remember how you'll explain
that to your constituents when there's not no one showing up
to a, because nobody called.
Yes, we'd love 9 1 1 calls to be answered.
But we also know no one an no one makes those calls anymore.
Know what you're, know what you're doing and prepare for it
accordingly, because I guarantee you,
your residents will be prepared as well.
Thank you Mr. President.
Thank you very much. The chair recognizes Alderman Conway.
Thank you Mr. President.
We have, I know a lot
of folks don't think we have great police officers in this
city, and I had the pleasure of working with hundreds
of them as an assistant state's attorney here
and folks that we count on every day to keep us safe and
and enforce our laws
and the trust between the police
and the community is paramount.
Now, I mentioned I worked with hundreds
of great police officer officers, but I also charged, tried
and convicted three of them folks that had jeopardized
that, that sacred trust.
And I will say I had many police officers come up to me
after doing that saying, bill, thank you for doing that.
They were making us all look bad.
And it is important that we maintain that trust.
And because of that, it's important that we have
transparency and allegations of serious police misconduct.
If it's a closed door hearing
and a police officer gets a light sentence,
people are gonna think the fix is in.
If they all get punished too strictly,
the police themselves won't trust the process.
And that's, that's why I'm voting, voting no here.
I have read the arbitrator's decision.
I hope that you all have as well.
Um, and I'll be frank, this is an area where maybe the law
and public policy are, are incongruous
and it's clearly an area that should have been contracted.
But going forward, regardless of how you vote today,
I, I would encourage us all to, to work
with our legislators in, in Springfield
and work with, with the FOP so that, so that we can make,
uh, adjustments here so that public policy
and the law are aligned. Thank you Mr. President.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Thank you.
The chair recognizes Alderman Hopkins.
Thank you Mr. President.
We've heard some discussion today about the difference
between plumbers and electricians and police officers.
Um, there was one key difference
that was left out in that discussion.
Plumbers and electricians don't have
to wear bulletproof vests to work.
Plumbers and electricians have the right to see
a potentially dangerous situation
and say, I'm not gonna go in there.
I'm going home. I'm going home to my family
before I'll go in that building.
Plumbers and electricians don't wake up every day
with the knowledge that their job, their duties
potentially require them to engage in a dangerous physical
confrontation with a violent person
where lives can be lost.
Police officers wake up every day with that knowledge.
It's part of the oath they took to serve and protect.
And sometimes those dangerous confrontations end badly.
Sometimes they end with loss of life,
sometimes innocent life.
And it's in those situations that an analysis
of the facts of what happened.
It's not always clear and it needs to be determined
and it needs to be done fairly.
And decisions need to be made in light of those facts.
And those decisions need to be made fairly.
And that is the definition of arbitration.
That's what an arbitrator's job is to do, is
to determine the facts and apply them fairly.
I support our police and I support arbitration for them
as every other organized union
workforce enjoys in this state.
Thank you Mr. President.
Thank you. Thank you very
much for the close.
I've given my word to allow the alderman
to have the final word before we vote.
The chair recognizes Alderman Rodriguez.
Thank you Mr. Presidents.
I, uh, I appreciate my colleagues today for the, um,
for the words and for the passion.
And uh, we do have a great city
and I do believe that our efforts to transform
and make our public service more
transparent, our very valuable.
I appreciate Alderman Yancy for your leadership on this.
And your words today have moved me as they think.
I think they have moved others.
And I'd like to now renew my motion for a roll call vote
on the ordinance that would provide
for a closed room arbitration option
for certain CPD disciplinary actions.
And I urge my colleagues to join me in voting. No.
Thank you very much, alderman Rodriguez.
And to be clear, a no vote is a vote to reject the ordinance
that includes the arbitration provision of the contract
to establish a closed room arbitration option for certain
CPD disciplinary actions.
A yes vote is a vote to accept the arbitration award.
In this instance, a three fifth vote is required
to reject the
matter clerk.
Thank you Madam Clerk, please provide the Evo option so
that our elders can cast their vote.
The voting is now open.
Please mark yourself, mark your vote.
Do you have any issues? Please raise your hand.
Okay, I will now call on those
who have not marked their votes.
Alder person Robinson
Alman Robinson is a no.
Alderman Robinson is a no. Alderwoman Harris.
No Alderwoman Harris is a no. Alderman Mosley.
No Alderman.
Mosley is a no Alderwoman Scott
Alderwoman Scott is a no Alderwoman.
Scott is a no alder person.
Rodriguez Sanchez, no alder person.
Rodriguez Sanchez is a no.
Alderman Spto,
Yes, Alderman Spto is a yes.
Alderwoman hadn't, no Alderwoman hadn't is a no
Voting is now closed.
There are 32 Nays. 18 yays. This motion fails.
Uh, alderman Rodriguez for the motion to reconsider, I, uh,
Move to reconsider This vote.
Mr. President. All those in favor of the reconsidering
of this vote signify by saying aye.
All those opposed say no. Uh, the motion fails.
Um, the chair recognizes Alderman Mitchell.
Are there any other further items
Mr. President? I am not
aware of any further items
or of unfinished business.
Very well. Thank you very much for miscellaneous business.
The chair recognizes Alderman Mitchell
Except for the ordinance setting
the date and time of the next meeting.
I'm not aware of any miscellaneous business.
Very well. For the date
and time for the next meeting,
chair recognizes Altman Mitchell.
I've handed up to the, uh, clerks
in ordinance setting the date and time of the next meeting.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk, please read the ordinance
Ere Dame by the City Council of the City
of Chicago, section one.
The next regular meeting of the city council of the City
of Chicago shall be held on Wednesday, February 21st, 2024,
beginning at 10:00 AM in the council chamber on the second
floor of City Hall 1 21 North LaSalle
Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Section two. This ordinance shall take effect
and be enforced from and after its passage,
The chair recognizes.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Alderman Mitchell,
Vice President. I move passage
in the omnibus hearing.
No objection. So ordered.
Um, alderman Mitchell for the omnibus.
Now I move that matters in the omnibus for this meeting.
And for the January 31st, 2024 meeting,
be passed by voice vote.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed say no.
This motion passes Ottoman Mitchell
for the adjournment. There
Being no further business
before this body. I move that we adjourn
Hearing. No, just
one second please.
Very good. We are good. That was a false alarm.
Um, there's a motion to adjourn.
I'm gonna accept that hearing. No objections. So ordered.
This meeting is adjourned.