CHICAGO (CN) — The Chicago City Council on Wednesday approved a hefty increase in police officers' salary but voted down an overhaul of the current disciplinary process for cops after critics said it would have given them too much leeway for misconduct.
Chicago police officers will see a 2.5% increase to their planned raises (from 2.5% to 5%) in 2024 and 2025 thanks to the approved ordinance. It also extends the city's collective bargaining agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police until 2027 and grants cops a signing bonus.
The pay-increase portion of the agreement was resoundingly approved by the council Wednesday, after previously being approved by the city's committee on workforce development on Dec. 7.
The second portion of the agreement did not receive such overwhelming approval. It would have changed the disciplinary process for police misconduct, sending the most serious police misconduct cases to arbitration.
The current process for misconduct allegations is instead overseen by Chicago's civilian police board, which determines whether the misconduct warrants a yearlong suspension or termination.
Last week, the committee on workforce development recommended that the council vote against the proposal.
The change in the disciplinary process was born out of an October ruling from independent Illinois labor arbitrator Edwin Benn. In the ruling, he argued that unionized police officers have a right to arbitration under the 1984 Illinois Public Labor Relation Act.
Rather than reducing police-misconduct hearings to "shady and secretive dealmaking in smoke-filled rooms," Benn argued such arbitration protections would help reenforce the rule of law. Still, some rejected Benn's decision, citing transparency and accountability concerns with the Chicago Police Department — particularly because under this proposal, misconduct decisions would happen behind closed doors.
That was the argument of most city councilmembers who spoke out against the ordinance during Wednesday's council meeting.
Representing Chicago's 25th Ward, Alderperson Byron Sigcho-Lopez said approving the changes to the police department's misconduct processes would move the city backward on the route of accountability.
"This will erode what little trust people have," he said. "Addressing misconduct in the public eye is the only way to address misconduct."
Alderperson Jason Ervin of the 28th Ward likewise noted that while the law might call for arbitration, the law doesn't always get it right. He noted that slavery was enshrined in U.S. law for decades.
Some city council members agreed with Benn's characterization of the flaws with the current misconduct process.
Alderperson Anthony Napolitano of the 41st ward said approving arbitration for police is a matter of protecting their rights as workers.
"If you're a fan of labor, this is labor at its finest," he said, voicing support for the ordinance.
Alderperson Silvana Tabares, one of the police union's staunchest supporters, echoed Napolitano's sentiments. She also noted that not approving the ordinance could open the city up to a slew of legal battles that its attorneys are not prepared for.
"No officer should be above the law," Tabares, representing the 23rd Ward, said. "But neither should they be below it."
Alderperson Nicole Lee of the 11th Ward called this ordinance one of the most difficult pieces of legislation she's had to vote on. She highlighted how her ward relies on police officers, and how the city needs to support them.
"I do not want there to be a lack of transparency because we need that trust," she said. "But trust is built one-on-one."
"We are a labor city," Lee continued. "The right to arbitration isn't in question." Still, she added that she doesn't believe that approving the arbitration ordinance would build trust with police.
Instead, Lee argued the proper solution to this labor law discrepancy is to modify the underlying state law. Lee added that she wants to work with her colleagues in Springfield to fix this discrepancy and encouraged her former councilmembers to do the same.
"The law is not a set-it-and-forget-it," Lee said. "It's not a George Foreman grill."
Follow @RosenCaitlyn
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Sidebar: Real lawsuits of ‘Real Housewives’ May 7, 2024 -
Arguments begin in North Carolina voter ID trial May 6, 2024
