Allowing anonymous misconduct complaints against Chicago police sergeants, lieutenants and captains, even without a signed sworn affidavit from the complainant, and without requiring those complaints to accuse officers of criminal conduct, doesn’t violate state discipline or labor laws, a state appeals panel has ruled.
After reaching an impasse during collective bargaining agreement negotiations in April 2019 amid contract talks that started in 2016, three divisions of the Policemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois police union sued the city: Sergeants’ Unit 156A, Lieutenants’ Unit 156B and Captains’ Unit 156C.
According to court records, the police unions invoked the contractual interest arbitration process, which moved the issue to a Dispute Resolution Board. That body issued an arbitration award ruing the city could in fact use an anonymous complaint affidavit override procedure in internal investigations and also that the officers weren’t relieved from participating in a wellness program.
The unions then turned to Cook County Circuit Court, where in May 2022 Judge Thaddeus Wilson denied the unions’ motion for summary judgment and granted it to the city. That prompted a challenge to the Illinois First District Appellate Court. Justice Bertina Lampkin wrote the panel’s opinion, issued May 4; Justices Thomas Hoffman and LeRoy Martin concurred. The order was issued under Supreme Court Rule 23, which may restrict its use as precedent.
According to Lampkin, the unions’ appeal sought a ruling the Dispute Resolution Board exceeded its authority because the issue of anonymous complaints should’ve been subject only to bargaining. The unions also contended the city’s affidavit proposal contravened state law and said the Board should’ve used its authority to remove the officers from the wellness plan.
In rehashing procedural history, the panel clarified anonymous complaints against the involved union members have been allowed, but only when the complainant is alleging a criminal offense or residency and medical roll violations. The city’s proposed change was allowing Complaint Register investigations to proceed on other kinds of anonymous complaints, as well.
“The Board chair cited the recommendations of the mayor’s police accountability task force,” Lampkin wrote, “which stated that more cities were recognizing that the cost of forbidding anonymous complaints greatly exceeded the benefits, and ‘accepting anonymous complaints allows a police department to use an additional set of data as a management tool for proactively addressing performance problems.’ ”
The panel noted the Dispute Resolution Board also cited a 2017 U.S. Department of Justice Report, which noted “it was an anonymous tip that led to the video release of the Laquan McDonald shooting” and also a 2015 consent decree between the city and police department to “undertake best efforts to ensure that all complaints, including anonymous complaints, can be the subject of a misconduct investigation.”
Whether the anonymous complaint override proposal could only be addressed through bargaining is a determination for the Illinois Labor Relations Board, the panel said. The unions did file an unfair labor practice charge in December 2020, but in November 2021 that board said it wouldn’t resolve the charge until the lawsuit reached a resolution. Lampkin explained the labor board’s abeyance order only noted a court would determine whether the dispute board exceeded its authority.
Turning then to the alleged violation of the Illinois Disciplinary Act, the panel said the dispute board’s award adopted an affidavit override process in accordance with legal requirements.
“The provisions do not require that the affidavit supporting a complaint against a sworn peace officer must be signed by the known complainant,” Lampkin wrote. “Furthermore, this court will not read into these provisions a requirement that the sworn affidavits supporting an investigation into police misconduct need to be affidavits from the named complainant. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it adopted defendant’s proposal to permit investigations into officer misconduct to proceed without an affidavit from either a known or an anonymous complainant when a statutorily designated agency official provides an affidavit that states he or she has reviewed objective verifiable evidence compiled in a preliminary investigation, specifies the evidence that has been reviewed, and, affirms based upon that evidence that continued investigation is necessary.”
The panel said the involvement of a designated investigating official, under oath and reliant on “specified and objective verifiable evidence,” negates the unions’ argument “the Board’s award results in anonymous complainants harming peace officers’ careers and tarnishing their reputations without facing any consequences.”
Regarding the Labor Management Cooperation Committee wellness program, which imposed a monthly $50 penalty for nonparticipating officers, the panel noted that committee wasn’t a party to union contracts and the unions failed to show the dispute board had the power to direct the committee to officers’ participation.