Only in Chicago could the police be ghosted by their own staffing analysis. That is what one assumes happened when the second largest police department in the country cannot find a staffing analysis used as the basis for Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s decision to hire 1,000 additional officers to the Department.
On September 22, 2016 Mayor Rahm Emanuel gave his Public Safety speech at Malcolm X College. During this speech he talked about the need to hire an additional 1,000 officers to the Chicago Police Department (CPD).
Within days, CJP filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain that analysis. The CPD never responded to that request. We were unaware that the analysis had ghosted the Department.
This denial is count 3 of 10 in our ongoing FOIA lawsuit that has now stretched on for more than two years with no end in sight.
The CPD has told three whopper size lies with the help of their lawyers from the Department of Law over the last two years.
The CPD turned over to CJP the following documents and told us this was the analysis we were seeking.
A general order from 2013 that was rescinded in November 2016.
What seems to be a PowerPoint slides made in to a PDF dates 5/18/18 titled “District Law Enforcement Proposed Staffing Model”
A single page document dated 5/16/18 titled “Chicago Police Department Bureau of Patrol Districts – Sectors – Beats”
A screen capture from CPD’s CLEAR database dated 5/24/18 that we believe is a digital version of what is called an A & A sheet or Attendance and Assignment sheet.
A sheet dated 5/25/18 titled “Chicago Police Department Bureau of Patrol Area Saturation Teams”
An Bureau of Patrol Special Order dated 11/19/2014.
A Bureau of Patrol Special Order dated 12/07/17.
None of the seven documents they turned over given just the dates the documents were created could possibly be the analysis we are seeking. The CPD was lying when they said that what they turned over was the analysis we are seeking. The CPD was hoping CJP wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between what we were seeking and what they turned over.
After we made it clear to the CPD and the court that what they turned over to us was not in fact the analysis we were seeking, the CPD came up a novel response. The analysis was in fact embedded within a report we were seeking to access on the CPD’s training program, which the CPD is saying we cannot access through FOIA because it is part of attorney work product. We will go into why we disagree with our ability to access that report in another post.
CJP moved to have the judge review this report in her chambers and determine if we could access the report and whether or not the analysis was actually within the report.
The judge did review the report and determined that we are not able to access the report (we disagree – stay tuned for our formal response). The judge also stated that the analysis we are seeking is not in the report like the CPD and the Law department said it was. Oops!
Looks like they lied again!
This latest ruling came down right as the Circuit Courts were shutting down. Despite the judge writing her ruling as if she agreed with CJP’s position that the CPD had not provided us the analysis we were looking for, she granted the CPD’s summary judgment motion that their search to date was sufficient.
We disagreed with this ruling and filed a motion to reconsider, hoping the judge would review the record and correct what we believe to be an obvious mistake. In the back and forth of motions the CPD did a remarkable thing. They detailed their search, which included looking in a filing cabinet in the Human Resources Office and the Superintendent’s Office. They also said that someone within the Department searched a single electronic database.
The 2nd largest police department in the country cannot find an analysis they did, which they told policymakers supported the expenditure of well over a billion dollars. When forced to tell the Court about the search they did, it included searching two filing cabinets and one of the many electronic databases the CPD maintains. Truly horrifying.
They also skipped reaching out to the Bureau of Organizational Development’s Research and Development Division, which produced many of the documents they turned over to us as part of lie #1. I am sure it was just an accident that they skipped over the single division within the CPD that could actually produce the analysis we are seeking.
Our motion to reconsider is pending. If we win, the CPD will be forced to either admit there is no such analysis or put forth lie #4.
You can read our motion to reconsider, the CPD’s reply, and our reply to their reply below.
It should be noted for all those keeping score at home that two of the lies put forth by the CPD occurred during Mayor Lightfoot’s tenure. CJP has always believed that the corruption within city departments will not be affected by who is on the 5th floor. So far, the CPD has proven CJP correct.
As for our ongoing litigation with the CPD among other counts, we are still fighting for access to Superintendent Eddie Johnson’s emails on the hiring of those 1,000 officers. The CPD just doesn’t want to give them up. We believe it is because we would find out this decision was actually made for political reasons by Mayor Emanuel and not the CPD. This would explain why the CPD cannot produce the analysis.
We are also fighting for emails from the Mayor’s Office regarding the 1,000 officer hire through FOIA.
We will be posting updates to all of this as they come.
Here is a video ad we are running on social media to push the CPD to admit they never did the analysis they told the City Council they did.