If new contracts have not been negotiated by the time you enter office, what changes would you demand in a new FOP contract in order to advance the police reform process? Do you support the 14 recommendations promoted by the Coalition for Police Contracts Accountability?  


DOROTHY BROWN:

Mayoral Questionnaire

My position on each of the recommendations is indicated below

  • Eliminate the requirement of a sworn affidavit for investigating civilian complaints of misconduct. Yes, I favor elimination of the requirement.  It is burdensome and intimidating for civilians.
  • Allow for the filing and investigation of anonymous complaints.  Yes, I favor anonymous complaints. In my current role as Clerk of the Circuit Court, I accept and investigate all complaints, including anonymous complaints.
  • Prevent the disclosure of a complainant’s name prior to the interrogation of an accused officer.  No, I oppose this measure.  An officer should be afforded the same rights as any accused person, which is to know who the accuser is.  I would however, withhold information concerning the accusers address and other contact informaiton.
  • Remove the ban on offering rewards to officers that cooperate or provide information on ongoing investigations. No, I oppose lifting the ban.  Instead, I would provide continuous ethics training for officers on their duty to report wrongdoing by fellow officers to their superiors.
  • Eliminate the 24 hour delay on officer statements in shooting cases and create a clearly outlined process to receive statements from all officers involved in a timely manner.  Yes, I favor elimination of the 24 hour delay.
  • Eliminate officer’s right to review and amend statements previously made to investigators. No, I oppose elimination. During an investigation into police misconduct, an officer’s may testify multiple times, based on the stage of an investigation.  In the first stage, a trained investigator will look at an officer’s initial testimony, plus other sources of information, such as body camera footage, witness statements, and forensic data to develop a preliminary picture of an incident.  In the second stage, the investigator may need to speak to a police officer again to develop a clearer, fuller understanding of an incident.  It is not impossible that an officer may amend his or her statement, based on the questions posed by the investigator in the second stage; and once he or she views the video, because the video may refresh the officer’s recollections.  The officer’s initial and revised statements should be maintained and preserved by the investigator and used to arrive at a judgment about the facts of the case and an officer’s culpability.  All statements should be maintained and officers disciplined for statements that are found to be deliberate untrue statements. Like any employee or citizen, police officers have due process rights.  When officers provide testimony, they should have the right to counsel in meetings with Management.  In turn, Management should keep an accurate and complete record of an officer’s testimony every time the officer makes a statement.  
  • Allow past disciplinary records to be used in investigating and resolving present complaints. No, I oppose this measure.  The facts of each case should be investigated and established independently of any previous case.  However, when an officer is disciplined, the discipline should be progressive based upon prior the past discipline record.
  • Eliminate the provision requiring the destruction of police misconduct records.  Yes, I would demand this change in cases of egregious misconduct. I believe in a system of progressive discipline for employees, whether they are sworn officers or civilians.  Typically, in a progressive discipline system, there are time limits for considering past misconduct when determining the level of discipline, up to and including termination.  No time limits, however, should be imposed on keeping records of egregious misconduct. I would however, permit a time limit on the maintenance of misconduct of a non-egregious nature.
  • Eliminate the need for the Superintendent’s authorization to investigate complaints that are five years old or older. Yes, I agree with eliminating this requirement.  Complaints should be investigated regardless of how old they are, unless the officer is retired and is of no further harm to the public. Otherwise, in order to ensure that officers properly perform, investigations should be permitted to go forward regardless of how old, and the Superintendent should not have to give permission for them to go forward.
  • Remove constraints on how interrogators can ask questions.  Yes, but only if the accused officer is guaranteed legal or union representation at an interrogation.
  • Specify that information provided to officers prior to interrogations should be a general recitation of allegations. Yes, all officers should, at a minimum be given a general recitation of the allegations her or she is facing.
  • Allow for the disclosure of the identities of officers who are the subject of civilian complaints. No, I oppose this measure because officers could become the target of retaliation, and there are certain personnel laws surrounding these matters.  Instead, I would continue the practice of removing officers from active patrol and give them administrative assignments pending completion of an investigation.  However, the point in which the situation becomes a criminal case is when the officers name will become public.
  • Require officers to disclose secondary employment and any other pertinent information that may cause a conflict of interest in performing their duties as a sworn officer. Yes, I favor such disclosure.
  • Reduce years of seniority for officers who have been repeatedly recommended for suspension because of findings of complaints filed against them. No, I oppose this measure because this probably infringes upon pension laws.  Years of seniority are used to determine promotional opportunities, pay rates and pension credits for officers and civilians.  I believe that suspensions without pay, termination in cases of egregious misconduct, and referral to the State’s Attorney for possible criminal prosecution are sufficient responses.

GERY CHICO:

Mayoral Questionnaire

While many steps have been taken by the city itself, the FOP CBA is long overdue for revision. Too often it stipulates abusive officers have time to “get their stories straight” and otherwise evade proper oversight and discipline. Due process for an officer cannot and should not override due process for the citizens they protect.


BILL DALEY:

DID NOT RESPOND.


AMARA ENYIA:

Mayoral Questionnaire

I would demand that all 14 recommendations be instituted.


BOB FIORETTI:

DID NOT RESPOND.


LA SHAWN FORD:

Mayoral Questionnaire
This set of recommendations is an excellent strategy to help bring about greater accountability and transparency. The devil is sometimes in the details. Some of these recommendations are written in wide open ways. For instance, “Remove constraints on how interrogators can ask questions.” I am assuming this is in the context of interrogation of a police officer after a complaint. More details and context would be helpful. As a starting points, I am in complete support of the recommendations, and would love to work more with the ACLU on these issues.

JERRY JOYCE:

DID NOT RESPOND.


JOHN KOZLAR:

Mayoral Questionnaire

I do not support all 14 recommendations, but do feel a conversation should be had between the CPD and CPCA to ensure a relationship that is strong. We can come to a comprehensive contract to address communities and CPD concerns. Again, we have to work together and have open communication and reasoning, from all sides.


LORI LIGHTFOOT:

Mayoral Questionnaire
I support the recommendations made by the Police Accountability Task Force, which I chaired, as well as the 14 recommendations promoted by the Coalition for Police Contracts Accountability.

GARRY McCARTHY:

Mayoral Questionnaire

As the former Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department I found it hard to be accountable for the actions of our officers, but with little to no authority to discipline officers. As mayor I will demand that a new FOP contract respects the superintendent’s authority to discipline.  That move alone would go a long way to getting the mayor’s office out of the habit of micro-managing the department. As for the second question, I do not support all 14 of the recommendations promoted by the Coalition for Police Contracts Accountability.


SUSANA MENDOZA:

Mayoral Questionnaire

I would begin by demanding a complete revamp of police training, starting with the philosophy behind police training. Rather than simply being a process recruits undergo at the beginning of their service, training should continue throughout every officer’s career -- pre-service at the academy, in-service with veteran personnel on a regular basis, and in the field where commanders should use everyday examples on the street to reinforce previous training.  Training should also include de-escalation and crisis intervention training. CPD’s Field Training Program must also be reformed so that officers with long disciplinary records are not placed in charge of training other officers. I would then support a balanced approach to reforming police governance, that allows for community input without removing the mayor’s accountability for the actions of the police department. While I would not support all of the 14 recommendations, I would be supportive of some of the Coalition’s reforms, including not allowing police officers to amend their statements after watching videos and ending the requirement to destroy police misconduct records. 


TONI PRECKWINKLE:

Mayoral Questionnaire
My highest priorities in a new FOP contract would be eliminating the requirement for affidavits for civilian complaints of misconduct, reducing the amount of time officers are allowed before being questioned in police shooting cases, and allowing an officer's past disciplinary record to be used in investigating or considering current complaints. Civilians should not have to fear retribution from police or even perjury charges for making accusations of misconduct. Officers should not have a 24 hour period to develop a narrative in police shooting cases. And an officer's history must be considered in evaluating existing complaints; patterns of misconduct cannot be tolerated. In general I support the recommendations of CPCA and any reforms that increase accountability and public safety. 

NEAL SALES-GRIFFIN:

DID NOT RESPOND.


PAUL VALLAS:

Mayoral Questionnaire

I will do what I have always done, negotiate a contract that is fair and promotes accountability and transparency. I will certainly consider the recommendations that have been made in my negotiations. 


WILLIE WILSON:

DID NOT RESPOND.


 

Stay informed

ACLU of Illinois is part of a network of affiliates

Learn more about ACLU National