Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
Starting with the mayor and the police superintendent, public officials are compelled to respond to outbreaks of violence swiftly and decisively and—this is very important—publicly, so that everyone in town knows they have ordered more cops to be more aggressive on more patrols.
The previous couple of superintendents embraced this idea, which meant that rank-and-file cops were told to go get the bad guys. Now those superintendents have been sent out to pasture and the city is paying millions of dollars a month to settle lawsuits alleging police misconduct. Through April, the city had agreed to pay $53 million in settlements this year, most of them involving the police department. That’s more than the full-year totals for 2007, 2006, or 2005.
On Tuesday the City Council’s finance and police & fire committees held a joint meeting to hear the chief administrator of the Independent Police Review Authority testify about “the fate of all officers involved in settlement cases of police brutality,” as the resolution calling for the meeting put it.
Turns out, nothing is happening to these officers, at least not in a systematic way. “We do not currently look at patterns outside a specific investigation,” said Ilana Rosenzweig, chief administrator of the IPRA, which examines police shootings and allegations of misconduct.
Rosenzweig added that the police department is “looking into” a system for tracking them. In the meantime, though, her agency had investigated 23 police shootings of civilians and looked into 2,367 separate complaints about officer conduct in the first three months of the year. It deemed 590 of these complaints worthy of additional investigation*, and so far 13 have been “sustained,” or upheld. Punishments ranged from short suspensions to firings.
But this hearing was requested by maverick alderman Toni Preckwinkle, of the Fourth Ward, and most of the others present didn’t seem interested in police accountability—they wanted to know what sort of operation Rosenzweig thought she was running. Finance committee chairman Ed Burke, a former cop, asked how many of her 44 investigators have gone through police academy training (most, and the rest are supposed to by the end of the year), how many were previously on the force themselves (one), what hours of the day they work (usually normal business hours, though someone’s always on call), how they get to the site of police shootings (by driving IPRA cars), and how, if they don’t use their police radios, they communicate with officers (by cell phone).
“I understand there may be a few bad apples in the bushel,” 47th Ward alderman Gene Schulter told Rosenzweig, “but there are gangbangers and drug dealers in the neighborhoods who learn how to file complaints against officers.” Rosenzweig said she hadn’t come across any such complaints yet.
Alderman George Cardenas of the 12th Ward wanted to get right to the point. “Is there a book that defines ‘police brutality’?” he asked. “Are there guidelines for this?”
“The question we try to answer is whether the force used is within the guidelines for a Chicago police officer as defined by the superintendent,” Rosenzwig told him.
“So kicking a man down when he’s handcuffed—what would that look like?” Cardenas wondered.
“It depends,” Rosenzweig said. “You can kick him if he’s assaultive.”
“And what statistics do you have about officers getting hurt on the job?”
“The police department would have to provide that.”
Cardenas pondered this for a moment, then let it be known that he thought Rosenzweig needed to proceed with caution. “Because I think communities want the police to be their enforcers.”
Willie Cochran, a former cop who’s now alderman of the 20th Ward, had a suggestion. “I’m wondering if we could get a flowchart for everybody that shows the rules and regulations of the department,” he said.
Rosenzweig didn’t object.
*UPDATE: I received a call from a spokesman for the IPRA who pointed out that, under city law [PDF], it's the authority's job to "receive and register" all complaints against police officers, but it can only investigate those that involve allegations of domestic violence, excessive force, coercion, and verbal abuse. So in the first three months of this year, the IPRA received 2,367 total complaints against officers and determined that 590 fell under its purview. The others were all forwarded to the police department's Internal Affairs Division.
The ordinance creating the IPRA was passed last November by a 49-0 vote.
Join the community
Chicago Heights, IL 1 min ago
The games people play. When has this rubber stamped city council ever defied Daley when he really wants something? Daley or the Aldermen really want to regulate expediters. The Expediters are an important link between politicans and anyone seeking to make a payoff. How would Politicans, and City Officials get their swag on without their bagman...... excuse me I meant Expediter. Some Building Inspectors retired wealthy ,by using this system. Take the former now deceased Building Inspector Don Gaynor . Gaynor and his son started Burnham consultants,and turn it into the largest permit Expediting company in the Chicago area. He proved carrying plans and blueprints around is like carrying gold. Why not investigate the former head of the police internal affairs unit? She was involved in a coverup of police corruption. Daley is a fascist. The police need good leadership that Daley is unable to provide. Maybe, me Ron Huberman will be the next police superintendent
If this article is meant as sarcastic satire, it may be both way too subtle for most and ignorant in it's lack of respect, coming so soon after the laying to rest of Officer Richard Francis.
One might expect the subtlety, but the ignorance, well, you should be better than this. Much better.
If you'd written about the shameful patronage that has infected the CPD, and the shameless manner in which this city's midget mayor has pilfered the CPD's budgeted funds, (resulting in far, far fewer than the often quoted 13,500 sworn peace officers actually being on active duty, let alone on patrol on any given watch and in any given district), and the pathetic lack of support, in a myriad of ways, that the everyday patrol officer gets from this department, you might have a shot at actually being a journalist.
The title to this article, while appearing to be glib and smarmy, actually raises a few substantive questions:
"Who watches the watchers of the watchers?"
Let us, for the moment, adopt the following definitions:
Law Enforcement Officers can be defined as those employed to enforce the law(s), said law(s) being the rules made by those elected/reelected to Legislative office(s), be they city, county, state or federal, and, further, said law(s) being either rules that require or rules that prohibit.
The 'watchers', within the context of this title, would then be those who monitor those who enforce the law(s).
The 'watchers' OF the 'watchers' would then be, in the context of this title, those who monitor the monitors of those who enforce the law(s).
Which brings us to the question posed: 'Who' are 'those who monitor the monitors of those who enforce the law(s)?
Your article seems to suggest that the makers of law(s), in this case, supposedly our elected city council members, are the 'Who' of the question.
Are you trying to imply that, were this to be the case, it would be like putting the fox in charge of the hen house?
And where do the 'duties', if you will, of the journalists, come into play?
And the 'duties' of the citizens?
And the 'duties' of those who make the law(s)?
And the 'duties' of those who break the law(s)?
Including those who make the law(s) specifically to engage in activities that most honest citizens would naturally think are against the law(s), but, in reality, have been made 'lawful', if only in the sense of their conforming to the letter of the law(s) made, and not to the spirit of our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the commonest sense of right and wrong?
How about a lot less glib and smarmy bullshit and a lot more straight up honesty?
Do you think you could manage that sometime?
Thank you, July 9th - 12:48 a.m.
You should be writing for the Reader, especially on this subject, instead of Mick Dumke.
and the commenters here are watching the watcher of the watchers of the watchers of the watchers
What would likely happen, if, as you propose, 50 wards were to be 'merged' into 5?
1. Who would determine how these 'merged' wards would be 'merged'?
2. What criteria would be used to determine and define the boundaries of these 5 wards?
3. Would the populations of these 5 'merged' wards be approximately equal?
4. Would the demographics of these 5 'merged' wards be various or homogeneous? And based on what? Race? Ethnicity? Religion? Social and Economic status? Property values? Population density? Property use categorization? Political affiliation? ?????
5. Would the 'merging' of 50 wards, (being, in theory, if not in practice, 50 Representative Legislative Districts), into 5 result in there now being 5 'mini-mayors', or 'junior mayors', or 'assistant kingpins', etc.?
6. How would this be accomplished? And who would decide who the 5 newly crowned mini-mayors would be?
7. With a much larger number of citizens being, supposedly, represented by these now 5 mini mayors, what influence would these citizens have over the actions, or inactions, of their now 5, instead of 50, elected representatives?
8. Would these 5 still be Legislators, or would the reality be that they'd become de facto Executives dictators, no different than the mayor is now?
9. Are you familiar with the phrase 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'?
The gems just keep coming from:
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/
"Whether you agree with me or not, these are my views. Weis was hired by Daley and knew his background.
Every command change probably came from city hall.
Daley screwed up and has but himself to blame.
You can make anyone a top boss anywhere, even if they have no clue what the business does.
What you need is a competent staff to guide you with the best decisions to run that company, even if it's the police department. The problem is all the command staff that had any knowledge was busted or launched.
The fault does not lie with the Superintendent. He was hired to root out corruption. Unfortunately the Superintendent was never a street cop and does not have the background to run the department effectively. I'm not saying he is not trying, but someone with actual street experience in a city this large would have done better.
The mayor is the one to blame.
He hired Weis to root out corruption.
Superintendent Weis may be qualified for that but not everyday problems of policing and planning.
When he came in he sought the resignations of top brass that were highly qualified in handling day to day police activities. He replaced almost every district Commander with people that for the most part didn't have the background for command experience.
He replaced major command staff with people who were less qualified than those replaced.
The department is dangerously short manpower and constantly borrowing police from other districts when a district has major incidents tying up the cars from the district involved. We have units that instead of patrolling just some areas and not handling calls when they should be assigned to patrol to answer the calls in all districts.
The CAPS program is a useless waste of manpower in the districts. The 5-15 police officers assigned to the CAPS program in districts and at headquarters should be on returned to patrol and CAPS should be disbanded. All it is there for is show. It does nothing to reduce crime.
The fact the mayor brought in someone who took a police officer who was disciplined years ago for an incident, then had federal charges brought against him effected every police officer. The police now are in fear of doing proactive police work, which results in complaints, even though they are unsubstantiated.
Now the feeling is even though you get a complaint and you are found not at fault, what is there to stop it being re-opened in the future and you are found in violation even though the complaint was unfounded.
I know we have had a rash of corruption and major violation with certain police officers, but that doesn't mean you go after every police officer in the department.
99 percent of police are honest and believe in the job they do.
We needed a Superintendent that knew the streets and still fight corruption in the department where it is necessary, but not blanket the whole department.
We needed a Superintendent that knew the supervisors and their backgrounds personally. When you make major command changes without knowing the person's background, you are asking for problems. That and the fact you pushed out command staff that had the knowledge to guide the department and advise the Superintendent correctly because of their vast knowledge hurt the department even further.
The mayor may fault the Superintendent, but the fault lies in the fact that the problem started when a Superintendent was hired who did not have the knowledge of the workings of the police and the background of being a police officer on the street.
I doubt if the input for all the command changes and the loss of highly qualified high ranking supervisors was just the choice of the superintendent and not with the help of the mayor.
7/11/2008 02:03:00 PM"
"magic number
July 11th - 9:41 a.m.
five may not be the magic number,but New York and LA get by with fewer council Representatives."
It depends upon how you define 'getting by with'.
LA and New York are not examples of cities that work, unless you embrace the definition of a working city to be one like LA or New York.
This is not the place or vehicle for a treatise on what defines a working city, especially a large working city, but consider this:
The root cause of our problems lie in the dishonesty of our elected/reelected government officials.
And who elects/reelects these dishonest citizens?
The majority of citizens?
No, because the majority of citizens who meet the qualifications to vote are not even registered to vote.
A conservative estimate of this number approaches or exceeds 50% of those qualified, qualified being defined as:
1. A citizen of the U. S. of A.
2. 18 years of age or older
3. A resident of a given electoral area relevant to a given elected office (Legislative, Judicial and/or Executive & City, County, Township, District, State or Federal)
The remaining less than 50% of the population who are registered can be divided into 2 distinct groups:
1. Those that benefit from, and thus support, the incumbent office holders
and
2. Those from whom a majority of the above benefits are derived, (through taxes, fees, fines, etc.) and who don't substantially benefit from said incumbent office holders
Add the large group that are not registered and you end up with the following percentages:
50% of all citizens who don't vote
50% of all citizens who do
Of the roughly 50%, at most, who do vote, 50% of those rarely show up to vote on election day.
Thus, roughly 25% of the total number of citizens who could vote are deciding, by voting, who our elected officials are.
Since, at most, a candidate needs 50.1% of the total votes cast for a given elected office, it can be seen that, at most, all a candidate needs, be he/she an incumbent, seeking reelection, or a challenger, seeking election, is for approximately 12.51% of the total number of citizens who are qualified to vote to vote for them.
In round figures, that's about 1 out of every 8 citizens needed, primarily by the incumbents, to register to vote, show up to cast their votes and vote for the incumbents.
Take a guess at who those 1 out of 8 citizens are.
And think about what the 7 out of 8 citizens are not doing. (not registering, not voting or splitting the votes they do cast amongst multiple challengers, many of whom, when necessary, are shill candidates put on the ballot for just that purpose)
You'd think that the many who foot the bills that benefit the few would be motivated to figure this out and do something about it, namely:
REGISTER TO VOTE
VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
You'd think......
Clout Monkeys.
Because:
Someone has to eat the politicians' shit and like it.