The Chicago Police Board voted Tuesday to retain jurisdiction over nearly two dozen disciplinary cases that the Fraternal Order of Police sought to move to arbitration following a nonbonding decision that would allow cops to keep serious misconduct proceedings out of public view.
In a 10-page ruling, the police board said it doesn’t currently have the authority to transfer the 22 cases because the decision by independent arbitrator Edwin Benn hasn’t been ratified by City Council. The board also rejected the FOP’s stopgap request to stay the cases.
John Catanzara, the fiery union chief, has argued that other public workers are already afforded the option of going to an arbitrator, and police are being held to another standard. After learning of the police board ruling, Catanzara insisted “there is absolutely nothing that is going to prevent this from taking place and becoming a reality.”
“They’re going to end up making officers very wealthy because we’re going to encourage these officers and maybe even assist them in suing the city, the police board and everybody,” Catanzara said. “Because this is just ridiculous.”
Benn ruled in June that officers facing dismissal or suspensions over a year could opt to move their proceedings to arbitration instead of going before the board. The move is an outgrowth of lengthy labor negotiations between the city and the FOP, which is still operating under a contract that expired in mid-2017.
The decision has faced sharp criticism from progressive alderpersons, the president of the city’s civilian-led police oversight panel and dozens of police district council members, who wrote an open letter urging City Council to vote it down last week.
“Allowing the most severe cases of misconduct to be handled behind closed doors threatens to undermine the very fabric of accountability and transparency that our communities rely upon,” Alexander Perez, Wentworth District council member, said in a news release. “We must safeguard the public’s trust in the integrity of law enforcement processes, especially at this crucial time.”
The police board ruling serves as a short-term victory for those officials and police reform advocates, although it’s unclear when City Council will begin weighing in on Benn’s decision.
The FOP filed its motion to move the cases on Aug. 11, framing it as a “combined grievance” on behalf of the 22 cops while arguing that the police board had “lost jurisdiction” based on Benn’s decision. The supplemental request to stay the proceedings was made to avoid potential legal fees that could be racked up during subsequent arbitration cases.
Interim Police Supt. Fred Waller argued on Sept. 1 that the FOP wasn’t a party to the cases, adding that Benn’s decision hadn’t been ratified and would be subject to legal challenges. He insisted that process could take years and any delay would impact the cases brought by him and other superintendents.
The board similarly found that the FOP’s motion was improperly filed, although the ruling acknowledged that some officers had adopted it as their own and effectively set aside the issue in Tuesday’s ruling.
Instead, the board focused on its inability to hand off the cases, citing the municipal code and the FOP’s latest collective bargaining agreement. The board also rejected the effort to stay the cases by pointing to the “uncertainty as to whether and when” Benn’s decision would take effect.
Police Board President Ghian Foreman and six other members voted in favor of the ruling. Two others didn’t vote.
Catanzara said the board has “made this beyond personal and ridiculous.”
“They’ve never had much intent on giving any officers a fair shake,” he added.
