CONCERNS WITH COPA

Ordinance falsely states that PATF obtained input from all parts of the City despite the fact
that many neighborhoods were not involved in the process.

How truly independent is COPA from the City/how much different is it from IPRA? How
is the Chief Administrator going to be selected in the future (2-78-115). FOP has raised
concerns with Sharon Fairleys ability to be fair, impartial and independent (FOP recently
sent letter to Mayor seeking her termination).

Places absolute prohibition on any sworn member of CPD from serving as Chief Administrator without regard to actual length of service with CPD, how long since individual has been
a sworn member, and/or other credentials (2-78-115).

Appears to have inherent conflicts if attorneys from the Law Division will be giving advice
to COPA while at the same time providing representation to Police Officers and CPD (2-78120-U).

Definition of Excessive Force fails to include the reasonable belief of the Police Officer
despite that factor being recognized by the USDOJ and courts (2-78-100).

Applies a lower preponderance of the evidence standard for determining whether

allegations are well founded; however with allegations that involve moral turpitude it is
generally accepted that the clear and convincing standard should be used to determine such
misconduct (2-78-105).

Ongoing problem with COPAs investigations into all incidents of police involved
shootings/deaths which require the appointment of a certified Lead Homicide Investigator
(2-78-120-C, D, E). The Illinois Police and Community Relations Improvement Act, 50
ILCS 727/1-1, et seq. requires every law enforcement agency, as of January 1, 2016, to have
a written policy regarding the investigation of officer-involved deaths[,] including the
requirement that investigations of officer-involved deaths be conducted by at least two
investigators with the lead investigator certified as a Lead Homicide Investigator. 50 ILCS
727/1-10(b). A Lead Investigator is a person certified by the Illinois Law Enforcement
Training Standards Board as a Lead Homicide Investigator, or similar training approved by
the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board or the Department of State Police,
or similar training provided at an Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board
certified school. The City currently is in violation of the State law and will be if COPA
continues to use the same investigators who are not certified to conduct these investigations [PERHAPS INFORM THE ALDERMAN THAT THE FOP IS LOOKING INTO
BRINGING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITYEVEN IF WE DO NOT OR CANNOT]

Concerns with expanding COPAs authorityespecially with investigating allegations of

improper search and seizures of either individuals or property (2-78-120-F). Such authority
currently resides with IAD and should remain with that agency.

Problems with COPAs Chief Administrator having ability to review complaint history of
an Officer going back indefinitely and contrary to terms of FOPs CBA (2-78-120-K).

COPAs Chief Administrator should not have the discretion to reopen any closed
investigationsChief Administrator should not have the authority to review and reassess prior
Officers investigations which have been closed and/or determined to be unfounded or those
subject of a lawsuit against CPD, City, and Officers (2-78-120-H, W).

Law Department can settle case over the objection of Police Officer, therefore such lawsuit
settlement should not be basis for re-opening of prior investigation.

COPA does not define the term pattern and practices of misconduct as part of the authority
granted (2-78-120-N).

Giving COPAs Chief Administrator the ability to directly impact the disciplinary process
on Officers, is contrary to the just cause standard set forth in parties CBA (2-78-120-L).

COPAs Chief Administrator should not have the authority to get involved in the City and
FOPs CBA, especially to suggest any revisions (2-78-120-M).

Ordinance lacks a specific guarantee that all the terms of FOPs CBA (as well as all other
Contracts) will supercede if conflict exists with language contained in COPA.

Mediation process gives unfettered right to COPAs Chief Administrator to promulgate rules
(in perpetuity, without input from FOP or other stakeholders) and to allow the complainant
to participate in the actual mediation (2-78-120-J). Further, Chief Administrator has too
much involvement over the actual discipline to be imposed on Police Officers.

Ongoing concerns that COPA can investigate allegations from a complainant without a
sworn affidavit (2-78-120-T)submitting complaints via internet, telephone or at
community meetings does not vet the complaint sufficiently. Complainants should be
required to identify him/herself and sign a sworn affidavit (as is required presently). Indeed,
current Police Board President Lightfoot, while head of the predecessor agency of OPS,
insisted on such a prerequisite, properly acknowledging the harm that would result if
complainants were allowed to make anonymous complaints.

What is COPAs budget (not articulated)?

What are the number and qualifications of staff (not articulated)?
How can COPA timely investigate all these complaints?

Making the cooperation into these investigations a condition of employment (2-78-140)

adds a new term to the FOPs CBA.

The time limits and procedures set forth in Section 2-78-130 removes considerable power
from the Superintendent.

Section 2-78-130(a)(iii) does not allow Chief Administrator and Superintendent to reach
agreement on penalty less than initial recommendation of Chief Administrator.

Section 2-78-130(a)(iii) provides no guidance on how Police Board will designate single
member to resolve impasse between Chief Administrator and Superintendent.

Investigations can go on indefinitely. After an initial period of 6 months after a complaint

is initiated, COPAs Chief Administrator need make only one request and keep the
investigation ongoing in perpetuity, adversely impacting an Officers ability for promotions
and even retirement (2-78-135).

No definition of a Final Report or a time limit on posting a Final Report requirement exists
(2-78-145).

Although Section 2-78-160 sets forth in great detail what happens if a CPD member
obstructs or interferes with a COPA investigation, it contains no ramifications if the agency
determines that a Complainant or witness does not cooperate or provides a false statement.

I:\FOP\COPA\CONCERNS WITH COPA. 09.02.16.paf.wpd