The Chicago Police Department still is a long way from gaining the trust of many Chicagoans.
So it would be a mistake for the City Council to accept a ruling by an arbitrator that would allow police officers to dodge the Chicago Police Board for the most serious disciplinary cases, by moving them to arbitration.
We’re talking about officers facing firings or suspensions longer than a year whose cases would be decided behind closed doors, out of public view.
It would render moot the police board’s job to decide disciplinary cases when it matters most.
We agree with Ald. Julia Ramirez (12th), who told reporters recently: “Let’s not take steps back. But let’s keep working together to make sure that cops are held accountable.”
For good reason, Ramirez is urging her colleagues to reject independent arbitrator Edwin Benn’s ruling. Accepting it would set back the progress made in building trust between police and the broader Chicago community.
“Arbitration likely won’t be axed anytime soon, but it’s time the city at least explore possible alternatives that won’t leave some Chicagoans wondering if officers are ever held fully responsible for their misconduct,” as we wrote in June. That sentiment applies here.
Former Chicago Police officer and current Ald. Chris Taliaferro (29th) said in early August, when news broke of Benn’s ruling, that an independent arbitrator would be “more independent than someone that’s appointed by the mayor, as the police board is.” He has a point.
But Taliaferro added, “That gives an officer some options. But, at the same time, it does seriously undercut the authority of the board and the reason why this board sits in that place.”
For Benn’s ruling to be binding, the City Council must approve it. Instead, they should vote it down, which would force Benn to make revisions. He could start with a suggestion made by City Hall Inspector General Deborah Witzburg to Sun-Times reporters Fran Spielman and Tom Schuba last month.
“If some of those cases are to be resolved by arbitration instead of the police board, then we must improve the transparence of the arbitration system,” Witzburg said. “We cannot have those cases resolved in a windowless room.”
“Windowless” rooms tell the public that nothing will change. Chicago has had enough of that.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.
Send letters to letters@suntimes.com.
