* CBS Chicago…
The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday is set to hear legal arguments in a years-long case over whether Chicago police officers accused of serious misconduct can have their disciplinary hearings held behind closed doors. […]
The Fraternal Order of Police pushed for the option of closed-door hearings during contract negotiations in 2023. Arbitrator Edwin Benn ruled at the time that officers facing a suspension of at least a year or termination have the right to have their cases decided by an arbitrator.
In December 2023, the City Council voted 33-16 to reject Benn’s ruling. At the time, Ald. Michael Rodriguez (22nd) said moving misconduct cases against police officers behind closed doors “would take away the public’s confidence in the disciplinary process.” […]
In March 2024, a judge ruled that officers facing dismissal or suspensions of more than a year can have their disciplinary cases decided in arbitration, rather than by the Chicago Police Board, but those hearings must be open to the public.
Click here to watch today’s arguments.
* The Chicago Tribune…
Matt Pierce, the FOP attorney who delivered Thursday’s argument, contended that CPD officers, as public employees in a collective bargaining unit, are entitled to have the most serious discipline cases heard and decided by a third-party arbitrator. Those hearings are inherently private, and there is no existing law that would force them to be open to the public. […]
“If this court looks to the past practices of a single municipality … to set the policies for the entire state, then you are allowing one employer, effectively, to dictate public policy for every worker in the state,” Pierce said. “The public policy of the state of Illinois, it can not be city-specific, it can not be employer-specific, it can not be union-specific.” […]
City attorneys argued that the city’s longstanding practice of adjudicating those cases by the Chicago Police Board should remain in place. To allow those proceedings to go to arbitration would violate the public’s first amendment right to access and would run counter to the goals of the ongoing federal consent decree that was spurred by the 2014 murder of Laquan McDonald and the ensuing fallout. […]
After about an hour, the seven justices took the case under advisement. A ruling from the court could be delivered before the end of the year.
* More…
* WTTW | Fate of Chicago Police Reform Push at Stake Ahead of Illinois Supreme Court Arguments: Attorney General: A ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court siding with the city’s largest police union — which would allow an arbitrator to determine behind closed doors whether officers accused of the most egregious misconduct should be terminated — would result in a “loss of public trust in CPD,” [Attorney General Kwame Raoul] wrote in a friend of the court brief filed June 2. […] “Moving hearings in serious police disciplinary matters outside of public view would undermine the consent decree,” Raoul wrote. “It is the attorney general’s goal to ensure — consistent with the consent decree — that CPD acts in as transparent and accountable a manner as is practicable. The arbitration award in this case, if affirmed, would represent a profound step backward in that mission. It would decrease transparency in the most serious disciplinary cases — those most likely to attract the public’s interest and to shape its perception of CPD. Moving those proceedings behind closed doors would undermine the public’s faith in the disciplinary process and in CPD generally.”
