Chicago inches one step closer toward fair policing with a new agreement that allows community groups to provide input and feedback on the implementation of a consent decree to improve the city’s police department.
Jeremy Gorner of The Chicago Tribune writes:
Black Lives Matter and a coalition of other community groups have won a seat at the table as the city of Chicago and the state attorney general's office hash out a consent decree that would guide reforms to the troubled Chicago Police Department.
The agreement comes on the heels of three lawsuits filed last year against the city, urging Mayor Rahm Emanuel to allow a federal judge to oversee an overhaul of the Police Department in the wake of a U.S. Department of Justice report that found the department was deficient in training and supervision and prone to excessive force, especially against minorities.
This is a wise and fair move. After all, it is community groups that most often take the lead in advocating for police accountability and reform. Likewise, it was these very same community groups that sued the police department last year for reasons like excessive force, other kinds of abuses and for officer’s inability to properly work with individuals with disabilities. By allowing these groups input and a place at the table, they become part of the reform oversight process and, hopefully, it will allow for transparency as the police work with the Justice Department to make changes. It even provides organizations the opportunity to add their input as to what they believe should go in the consent decree in the first place. They have 60 days to do so. And in exchange for this arrangement, the organizations have agreed to put their lawsuits on hold—though they can refile if the consent decree isn’t filed in federal court by September 1.
Under the agreement, the community groups can provide input as the city and the attorney general’s office continue to negotiate the terms of the consent decree. And once the decree is in place, they can object if it is inadequate or push for enforcement if the Police Department fails to follow through on its commitments.
Following the appointment of an independent monitor overseen by a federal judge, the community groups have been promised quarterly meetings with the monitor — outside the presence of city and state officials — to discuss the city’s compliance with the consent decree, according to the agreement.
While this is a good thing for the public, it seems that not everyone is on board. Police union leaders believe that officers are unfairly scapegoated for misconduct and have expressed concern for what this agreement means for their contracts in the future.
As The Tribune states:
“The city of Chicago should be careful where they go with a consent decree,” said Kevin Graham, president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police. “Without the support of the rank and file Chicago Police Officers, their move today will go nowhere. Anyone who thinks it will is sadly mistaken. As I have said before, we will never give up our collective bargaining rights.”
Unions play an important role in protecting workers and ensuring fair pay and safe working conditions. So there is a reason why Graham cautions the city of moving forward without officer support. But this should not be seen as a zero-sum game with police on one side and public interest on the other. Police misconduct is a serious problem. From recent reporting, we know that there is a culture of police perjury in some departments which results in unconstitutional searches, seizures and innocent people going to jail. And even though many departments have done the work to reduce officer misconduct, there is still a culture of abuse and lying that needs to be rooted out in order to truly keep members of the public safe.
It’s critically important that this consent decree moves forward quickly and efficiently and that all parties remain accountable. Last year, the current head of the Justice Department, Jeff Sessions, indicated that he isn’t a fan of consent decrees—stating that they can lower police officer morale. Given all that we know about Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, it’s guaranteed that he cares more about ramping up enforcement efforts in our nation’s cities to harm and jail people of color than he does about anyone’s civil rights. So it’s unlikely that the Justice Department will spend a lot of time enforcing this decree. That’s why it’s a good thing that community groups will have the opportunity to work with the state attorney general and an independent monitor.
It is not a perfect fix and it’s unlikely to remedy all the issues brought up in the three lawsuits against the Chicago Police Department in the last year. And it’s a start. And if it doesn’t work, the organizations may be able to take up more litigation to move it along. At the end of the day, there is a long road ahead. But steps like these, which involve the voices of the community working in partnership with the police for accountability and reform, are usually the right ones. The question is whether or not the police, city and state government are willing to do what it takes to bring about change.