Lawyers for the city and its largest police union faced off Thursday morning before the Illinois Supreme Court, arguing over the handling of disciplinary hearings for officers accused of egregious misconduct.
The arguments marked the latest chapter of a yearslong legal battle that snaked its way from the union bargaining table to City Council and now all levels of state court, halting Chicago’s police oversight system in the process.
Last year, a panel of appellate judges ruled officers could have disciplinary cases heard by an arbitrator, instead of the Chicago Police Board. But the appeals court also ruled that hearings must remain open to the public, prompting the police union’s appeal to the state Supreme Court.
In Springfield Thursday, Matt Pierce, a lawyer for the Fraternal Order of Police, said there’s no statute or public policy requiring labor proceedings be open to the public, and that those hearings are “inherently private”
“The city is effectively taking this very broad, almost aspirational policy behind statutes … and suggesting that those very broad blanket statements of transparency and accountability require certain hearings to be held in public,” Pierce said.
One Supreme Court justice asked Pierce whether the federal consent decree mandating sweeping Chicago police reforms is policy, as argued by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul in a brief to the court.
“It certainly may be the case that consent decree incorporates and references existing public policy … but it does not serve as a basis to create public policy,” Pierce responded. “If a document like a consent decree can establish the public policy for the entire state of Illinois that means two parties can set policies that are binding on an entire state.”
Another justice questioned whether ruling on this disagreement between the city and its largest police union would have effects on other jurisdictions that may already have private arbitration.
“This is a public policy that could apply anywhere,” said Aya Barnea, a city lawyer. “But whether it applies … depends on context.”
“Chicago’s facts matter – the fact that we’ve done it this way for 60 years, the fact that in Chicago it is just a reality that there is a deep distrust among many members of the community of the police department,” Barnea added.
Community members want to know if the office they’re calling to their home is “a person of integrity,” Barnea said. “It’s important that the public have confidence in the police department and having these hearings be public is a key piece of building that public confidence,” she said.
Union president John Catanzara said the decision before the justices is “pretty clear.”
“If you strictly are there to interpret the law as written … there is really no decision other than enforcing the arbitration award as written,” Catanzara told the Sun-Times after court.
He said the issue of other jurisdictions has always been a hurdle the city “could never clear.”
“This never had the ability to be segregated to just Chicago because of Illinois labor laws,” Catanzara said. “They wanted it to be just Chicago but that’s not the reality.”
The court is also primed to rule on whether officers who face firing must still be paid while their cases are pending. The appellate court sided with the union in finding those officers should remain on the city payroll.
Barnea argued for the state Supreme Court to overturn that portion of the appellate court ruling, claiming it was “arbitrary and capricious.”
“If the award stands, the city will be forced to pay officers that the superintendent does not believe should perform any police duties, and it places unfair financial burdens on taxpayers,” Barnea added.
The state Supreme Court typically issues opinions a few months after oral arguments, according to a spokeswoman for the court.
Regardless of the outcome, the police board is urging officers not to seek arbitration and proceed with their cases before the board.
Even after a ruling is released, the city and police union will still have to work to establish an arbitration process,contributing to further delays.
The board, on the other hand, is “ready and able to hear disciplinary cases,” according to Kyle Cooper, the police board president.
“This delay serves no one,” Cooper said last month. “Officers should not have to spend years with serious charges hanging over them. Alleged victims should not have to wait years for resolution.”
So far, only four of the 31 officers currently facing charges have elected to have their cases heard by the police board. The other 27 cases remain in limbo as officers await the state Supreme Court’s ruling.