If you've been following fights over police reform in Chicago, then you know that today is a big day. Mayor Lightfoot's watered down amendment for creating a database of police misconduct is on the agenda.

The meeting stream is up and visible here: livestream.com/accounts/28669…

The agenda, in all its single-item glory is here: assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2078…

If you haven't been following this or need a refresher on which part of the reform/defund Chicago police fight this is, @BlockClubCHI can catch you up here: blockclubchicago.org/2021/05/24/pol…

We just got the "ladies and gentlemen, we'll begin the meeting in about three minutes," notice on the stream. That's almost enough time to go steep something strong to fortify you. Today I've put milk in earl gray because I expect that kind of meeting.

Chairman Waugespack is calling the meeting to order at 1:09 and reading the notice that the meeting will be held by virtual conference, and we are moving on to the quorum role call.

Chairman Waguespack has noted that there are no public comments for this and informing the committee that they need to send a new version of the amendment because previous versions had a formatting error.

Ald. Hairston has asked whether they're taking a vote today and is objecting to receiving information less than 24 hours "or even up to an hour ago" is not acceptable for a vote, especially since this has been discussed since the mid-2000s.

"I hope that we would be more considerate towards our members who work very hard. Give us an opportunity to read through and digest before a vote is taken on it." -Ald Hairston

There is definitely confusion about what version is up for discussion or what, exactly they should have received at this point.

Ald Sadlowski Garza also expressing a desire to have time to consider things.

Ald Sposato, "I want it noted that on the 24th of May, Ald Sposato and Leslie Hairston agree on something."

Ald Hairston, "I think we might have once before."

Everyone, open the stream for this one if you can.

Quick explanation of upcoming jargon: COPA = Civilian Office of Police Accountability. This is the group that reviews complaints about police misconduct and makes disciplinary recommendations. Quick read to catch up on the current state: blockclubchicago.org/2021/05/05/hea…

Motion to accept substitute amendment (yesterday's) just passed.

Chairman Waugespack is giving an overview of the contents of the amendment.

Ald Beale is questioning how ordinance will work given that the body who'd implement it does not support the new version of the amendment (as of May 19) bc it's smaller in scope and scale than they want.

Ald Rodney is clarifying that the current version of the amendment encompasses the disciplinary process beyond the Superintendent's recommendation. If the officer aggreives that rec, the outcome could change and that wouldn't have been included.

Subpart B has new provision, offices of COPA, it's predecessor (IPRA) and BIA and it's predecessor are included in this ordinance, as well as any changes to these offices.

Summary of Ald Rodney's comments on subpart B is that they've clarified which offices are included in ordinance, and what the contents of the reports need to be. This would go back to 2000.

Subpart C specifies that the ordinance is for on duty conduct and protects the privacy of the officer for any off duty incidents like domestic violence, child abuse, or substance abuse.

Subpart E was edited to capture applicable years for database. Initially it went back to 1994 and current version only goes back to 2000. Says this made available relevant information for active officers since many officers don't remain active past 20 years.

Subsection F clarifies that information reported by FOIA will be provided to the database. The IG would have no later than 30 days after the documents are produced by FOIA to publish the docs in the public database.

Subsection G says they'd be required to provide on a semiannual basis a public report to the mayor's office and the public that would assess cooperation of the law department, their progress at publishing information. This largely tracks what was in original ordinance.

For context, the Invisible Institute has a citizen-driven database of misconduct complaints against CPD. invisible.institute/police-data

Changes to subsequent subsections are mostly admin cleanup needed based on changes from prior subsections.

Moving on to questions/comments from the aldermen.

Ald Reboyras: Asks for the process today for requesting information on an officer and how that process will change going forward.

Rodney: She's used to FOIA requests about specific officers or a group of officers and CPDs FOIA department in conjunction with the law department would review the request. That's one way citizens can get the info.

Reboyras: Will the police department be relinquishing that authority?

Rodney: No, if the CPD has the data & receives a FOIA request they'd still have to address that. The investigative report underlying a CR file is much more voluminous than what's in the summaries for database

Reboyras: "It sounds like we're adding a step but not adding a step." Wants to know whether this data would be available to the public.

Chair Waugespack clarifies that raw data would not be available without a FOIA & the FOIA response would be redacted as allowed by state law.

Waugespack reminds that the consent decree requires that CPD make reports to the public. Also mentions that the Offices of the Inspector General (OIG or IG in shorthand) wanted more of those documents in the original ordinance and that was what's been scaled back in this one.

Moving on to Ald Beale's comments/questions.

"The public is asking for more information and now we're withholding information." Cites that OIG, both newspapers, and community advocates saying "this isn't worth the paper it's printed on."

Beale asks why, if going back to before 2000 is too cumbersome, we don't just say we prioritize 2000 forward and then go back when we get caught up.

Chair Taliaferro: "I can't answer the question specifically." And reiterates that 2000 forward includes most active officers. Says citizens can still FOIA anything from before. 2000-2005 is all paper cases which are harder to publish than after files went electronic.

Taliaferro: Questions how you pick a date for how far back to go. Why not 81? If 81, why not the sixties?

Beale is not backing down. Wants to know why when we're hiring personnel and have the budget anyway, we can't plan to go back further as we catch up. "The community discriminated against." Points out that sometimes people don't want to submit a FOIA.

Jeff Levine from the law department says, "You make a good point. It really is an exercise in line drawing." Says 2000 is a workable balance that captures relevancy without consuming excess resources. Suggests that there could be future amendments to go back if database is useful

Beale: Why not add another whereas clause that says we'll go back and satisfy the OIG and others who are unhappy?

Levine: That's like taking two steps instead of taking one step and evaluating before doing another. "The amount of data the ordinance allows for really is quite robust and I don't think the criticisms as to the meaningfulness of the data that I saw in the press was accurate."

Beale: Wants to add a friendly amendment to add that whereas clause.

Chair Taliafero: Today is just for discussion.

Beale: It was said that if it was the will of the committee that we vote, we would.

Levine: Says we can't add that kind of amendment without more consideration.

Beale: "The same consideration that we just got this amendment eight minutes after the meeting started."

Beale's attempt to add an amendment is completely shutdown by chairs.

Ald Sandlowski Garza: "If OIG is not on board and they're the ones who have to implement this thing and we do that then shame on us." She's a no vote.

Ald Martin: Noting that 40% of complaints get closed because complainant doesn't sign an affidavit, similar rates under previous oversight office. Cites data that complaints are improperly closed in a systematic way.

Asks that if they don't vote today, they add back in the provision to include complaints that don't have a final status.

Chair Waugespack answering another question about OIG's presence at the meeting. Says the OIG did not want to send a written report (about their opposition to new version) to the mayor's office and that's "just ridiculous."

Says there were opeds and comments before he could make changes. "Going nuclear on an ordinance like this without understanding the position of the law department...I really did have a frustrating experience." Says this comes down to a difference between the CR vs log numbers.

Chair Taliaferro re OIG's press release: "It was unfairly written."

"Every investigation of which the mayor was part of as an administrator would be part of this database."

Says current ord includes cases with four different statuses for findings, not just sustained cases.

Chair Taliaferro is giving a lengthy explanation of the difference between log numbers and CR numbers.

Gist is, any time somebody makes any level of complaint, a log number is created. It converts to an investigation and gets a CR number *if* complainant signs an affidavit or the override process is used. Claims this protects officers from spurious or false complaints.

Ald Thompson: Was OIG even invited?

Chair Waugespack: Did not reach out again with password to meeting, he was adamant he wouldn't support the amendment.

Thompson: It would be nice to hear from them here and not just a press release.

I would like to pause to summarize here that *several* aldermen have asked about the OIG's presence here and been answered with variations on "they won't support this." This is the first time we've heard they didn't actually get the information needed to attend and speak.

Questions have moved on to examining the budget needed for this project. $786,000 was just the initial request, total budget is closer to $1.9 million, nobody has looked into the cost to maintain this and video cam footage. Need to look into budget for that.

Ald Thompson: Is this something that the Law Department, or is somebody else taking the lead to pressure test the budget and make an informed decision.

Waugespack: Per COPA, the OIG did that.

Thompson: That's COPA. Is somebody from Budget or AIS?

Waugespack: Not yet.

Thompson: Do we think that would reduce our FOIA requests and there would be some savings by publishing this and having a portal people would go through? Or will this just lead to more FOIA?

Levine (from law dep): This substitution does represent a significant enhancement in outward facing information and transparency. There's debate in the law department about whether this solves the problem of reducing FOIA requests. There's a decent argument that it would not

Ald Smith: ? on section B, does the form referenced already exist, or is this calling for the database creators to create the form?

Answered that it's a current document.

Smith: Why is this written in a way that it's require to have all these fields? If something is missing, a field isn't filled in, it still gets posted, right?

Levine: Yes.

Smith: Then why is it written this way and these fields are all called out?

Levine: I believe it's intended to capture in a belt and suspenders fashion that it's referring to a particular class of document and this is the substantive information that needs to be in that document.

Smith: Are cases ever closed simply because of lack of finding? Is there a fifth category here? From something lapsing, or nothing ever happening. Now talking about section A.

Levine: I can't say with certainty but if an affidavit is not received within a particular time period then the matter is closed. If it is received, then it proceeds to one of the conclusions in subsection A.

Smith is pressing, citing 311 complaints that get closed for no clear reason after hanging out for a long time. Wants to know if this is a thing that ever happens because if so it needs to be included.

Waguespack: It's his belief that the list in subsection A includes everything but the log numbers that were being excluded.

Smith: She thinks this is all just a misunderstanding & would hope people would show up so we can keep talking because that's how city council tries to work. Wants to dial down the rhetoric on either side because she thinks they're including all outcomes of disciplinary hearings

Smith: Subsection F why is it written on a prospective basis instead of saying that everything that's ever been FOIA'd has to go in?

Rodney: It goes to burdensomeness of the task. Including all past FOIA requests is a lot. "Again, investigative files are not just paper."

Smith: Let me gently suggest that you consider amending that. Cites other databases that civilians have created a database with everything they've FOIA'd and expects they'd help the city database get going by turning over what they have. Might be a way to make the 1st push faster

Ald Burke: Is there a provision for extending funding if it exceeds the amount in the ordinance?

Waguespack: OIG portion was reviewed by COPA. That's what they came up with, $700,000 in the first year. Law department added an amount to cover redaction and FOIA costs, no appropriation for it.

Burke: Is there sufficient funds in the budgets for these departments as they stand, or is more going to be required? And if more, where is the amendment for the appropriation?

Waugespack: CPD has FOIA department that had an increase to their budget. Law department he doesn't know. No appropriation because they haven't passed the ordinance.

Burke: "I'm getting to the point where I don't believe anything these departments say." Is citing reporting that CPD has a secret fund that's been funding off books programs.

He's referring to this story: chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2021…

Burke: I don't think this proposal is ready to go and if you do put it to a vote, show me as voting no.

Ald Cardenas: Thinks Council must wait and balance needs of OIG and needs of citizens and others. Says we have to decide whether we pass this thing because we're going into June and July, no session in August, then budget time in September so this will get pushed to next year.

Vice Chair Hairston: Those are very interesting comments coming from a Council that has not been able to pass Civilian oversight. "We had something that most people agreed upon in April." Now this version is watered down and we're supposed to pass it?

"I'm asking my colleagues to please grow a pair."

Nobody on this council has fought for reform and transparency harder than I. I respect Chair Waguespack but this is not what we want.

Ald King: There's plenty of reason to hold this, including misperceptions about what it is. Waguespack and Hairston both have credibility, but we're still grappling with that this is and we just got it. Still has question on the CRs and what it means, and would like clarification

"Are there any types of CRs that would not make it in this particular ordinance?"

Chair Taliaferro: All investigations have to have a finding, there are four findings, the ones listed in the ordinance.

Says the other thing there is are log numbers when people make an allegation, and explains log numbers and affidavits again.

King: What about DOJs assertion that 40% of complaints were not investigated due to lack of affidavit? Does that concern you? Should we be looking into those? Is that something we should consider?

Taliaferro: It's always concerned me. I investigated cases that had no affidavit. I investigated cases when there was no affidavit requirement and when there was. And what we saw was a decrease in the number of allegations when the requirement for affidavit was made.

There is a bill on the governor's desk that would remove the affidavit requirement from process.

Is now saying that since there's no investigation process for alders, so he could call the OIG five times to make complaints then run against King saying she's under 5 investigations

King says that if they move forward to a vote today she's a no. They have to get this right and shouldn't pass it just to do something. Thanks Ald Hairston for bringing up civilian oversight.

Ald Cardenas: Then what would it take to be ready, because we keep going in circles?

Waguespack: That's the million dollar question, because the OIG has made it clear than anything less than what they want won't be enough despite the challenges brought up by legal. So they have to go back and grind it out.

Motion to adjourn, passes. As of 3:08pm we are adjourned, and that concludes my coverage of today's Chicago City Council Joint Committee: Finance; Public Safety. For more meeting coverage, check out documenters.org.