THAT ROBERT RIALMO BE FIRED BY C.O.P.A.

AND KILLED THAT DAY WAS BETTIE JONES.

THE DOWNSTAIRS NEIGHBOR WHO OPENED THE DOOR FOR POLICE.

JOHNSON SAID THAT SHOOTING WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE LeGRIER WAS WIELDING A BASEBALL BAT.

>> CPD WE DON'T INVESTIGATE OUR OWN SHOOTING INCIDENTS.

WE DON'T.

THAT IS UP TO AN INDEPENDENT CIVILIAN ENTITY.

AT THE END OF THE DAY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A POLICE OFFICER IS FIRED.

THE POLICE BOARD.

AND WE HAVE THE POLICE BOARD AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE ARE SOON TO GET A FEDERAL MONITOR.

I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF PROCESSES AND INDEPENDENT VICES IN PLACE TO INSURE THAT WE DO THE RIGHT THING.

I SAY FROM DAY ONE THAT I WELCOME OUTSIDE ENTITIES LOOKING AT WHAT CPD DOES.

THAT THE IS WHAT MAKES US BETTER.

>> BOTH EDDIE JOHNSON AND MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL HAVE BEEN DEPOTSED IN A CIVIL LAWSUIT SURROUNDING THIS CASE BY THE FAMILIES OF THE TWO WHO DIED.

SO WHAT'S THE PROCESS REALLY?

WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN JOHNSON AND C.O.P.A.?

HERE WITH AN EXPLANATION OF PROCESS IS THE FORMER CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CIVILIAN OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY NOT C.O.P.A., WHICH -- >> C.O.P.A., TOO.

>> SHARON FAIRLEY JOINS US WELCOME BACK TO "CHICAGO TONIGHT."

YOU WERE AT C.O.P.A.

BRIEFLY AND RESIGNED.

>> RIGHT.

>> I KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T COMMENT ON THE SPECIFICS OF THIS CASE BECAUSE YOU CAME IN TO THE THIS AS THE HEAD OF I.P.R.A.

HELP US UNDERSTAND C.O.P.A.

REPLACED I.P.R.A.

IN ORDER TO BRING TRANSPARENCY AND A NEW FOUND SENSE OF TRUST BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND POLICE.

>> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

THE NEW AGENCY WAS DESIGNED TO BRING INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE IN THE ROE SES IN A WAY THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD FEEL CONFIDENT.

I BELIEVE THEY HAVE COME A LONG WAY.

>> AND AS THE HEAD OF I.P.R.A., AND BRIEFLY AS THE HEAD OF C.O.P.A.

AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY TASK FORCE YOU HELPED FORM WHAT BECAME THIS NEW AGENCY, CORRECT?

>> YES, SO I WASN'T ON THE TASK FORCE BUT I WAS THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF I.P.R.A.

AND THEN C.O.P.A.

AND C.O.P.A.

WAS ACTUALLY FORMED A YEAR BEFORE IT LAUNCHED.

IT CAME INTO EXISTENCE AFTER THE ORDINANCE.

IT EXISTED WHILE IT WAS BEING BUILT WHILE WE WERE BUILDING IT UP.

YES I HAD AN IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY AND GRATEFUL FOR THE ROLE IT WAS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THE VISION FOR THE NEW AGENCY AND DESIGN WHAT I THINK IS GOING TO BE A BEST IN CLASS CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT AGENCY FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

>> BUT YOU CAN'T BLAME THE PUBLIC FOR GETTING CONFUSED AT THIS MOMENT, RIGHT, BECAUSE ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU HAVE C.O.P.A., THIS NEW MODERNIZED, NEWLY ENVISIONED AGENCY, COMING SQUARELY AGAINST THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY SAY FIRE THIS OFFICER.

HE SAYS THE SHOOTINGS WERE TRAGIC BUT JUSTIFIED.

SO WHAT HAPPENS?

>> SO, I THINK THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE FACING RIGHT NOW, CAROL, IS THE FACT THAT PRIOR TO C.O.P.A.

WHEN I.P.R.A.

WAS IN EXISTENCE IT FOUND SO FEW CASES WHICH THE OFFICER HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG 2 OUT OF 300-SOME INCIDENTS THAT WE DID NOT SEE THE CONFLICTS ARRISING IN THE DECISIONS THAT I.P.R.A.

MADE.

NOW WITH C.O.P.A.

HAVING TAKEN AN INDEPENDENT VIEW AND I BELIEVE A BETTER HIGHER QUALITY AND MORE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS TO REACHING THEIR DETERMINATIONS, WE ARE GOING TO SEE MORE BUTTING HEADS BETWEEN C.O.P.A.

AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND IT IS NOT THAT SURPRISING IN GENERAL, CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT AGENCIES ARE ALWAYS PLAGUED WITH OFFICERS NOT FEELING COMFORTABLE THAT CIVILIANS CAN JUDGE THEIR CONDUCT.

SO THAT IS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE.

THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE SEEING PLAYED OUT RIGHT NOW HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE LITERALLY SINCE I.P.R.A.

WAS FORMED.

THIS PROCESS THAT IS BEING FOLLOWED NOW IS NOT NEW.

IT IS JUST THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN IT PLAYED OUT IN THE CONTEXT OF ONE OF THESE CONTROVERSIAL SHOOTING INCIDENTS.

>> SO I THINK SUPERINTENDENT JOHNSON AND HAVING READ HIS 11-PAGE LETTER DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT C.O.P.A.

REALLY HAD A VERY GOOD VISION OR A CLEAR INVESTIGATION AND DID NOT RESOLVE SOME OF THE ISSUES HE FEELS HE RESOLVED.

NOW YOU HAVE THE TWO THINGS NOW WHAT?

>> NOW WHAT HAPPENS IS THERE IS A SPECIFIC TIME-FRAME DURING WHICH SUPERINTENDENT JOHNSON AND THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF C.O.P.A.

WILL NEED TO CONFER AND SEE IF THEY CAN RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES JUST AMONGST THEMSELVES.

AND IF THAT HAPPENS THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT IS.

IF THEY CAN'T THEN THE MATTER IS REFERRED TO A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE CHICAGO POLICE BOARD AND THAT MEMBER WILL BE CHOSEN FROM AMONG THE RANKS OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THAT POLICE BOARD.

THEN THAT PERSON WILL BE HANDED ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE.

AND THEY WILL BE ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY BELIEVE THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT'S VIEW OF THE CASE IS MORE -- THIS IS THE WORDS OF THE POLICE BOARD -- IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE RELATIVE TO THE C.O.P.A.

DECISION.

>> WAIT A MINUTE... A RANDOM PROCESS LIKE HOW DOES THAT WORK?

THEY PICK A NUMBER OUT OF A HAT?

>> THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK THE POLICE BOARD HOW THEY DO THE RANDOM SELECTION BUT IT IS TO BE A SINGLE PERSON RANDOMLY SELECTED FROM HER MEMBERSHIP, YES.

>> BECAUSE THE POLICE BOARD HAS DIVERSE MEMBERS ON IT IT COULD GO EITHER WAY.

LET'S SAY THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL OUT OF A POLICE BOARD OF HOW MANY?

>> 9.

>> 9.

ONE PERSON OUT OF NINE SAID EDDIE JOHNSON IS RIGHT OR C.O.P.A.

IS RIGHT.

ONE IS NOT GOING TO BE HAPPY.

THEN WHAT HAPPENS?

>> SO WHAT HAPPENS IS IF THE SINGLE MEMBER OF THE POLICE BOARD DECIDES THE SUPERINTENDENT JOHNSON IS RIGHT AND THE OFFICER DID NOTHING WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED THEN THE CASE WILL END THERE.

IF THE PERSON AGREES WITH THE C.O.P.A., THEN THE CASE WILL GO FORWARD TO ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE FULL POLICE BOARD ALL EIGHT MEMBER ALSO HEAR THE CASE BECAUSE THE ONE PERSON WHO DECIDES WILL HAVE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES.

>> AND THAT IS A TRIAL?

>> IT IS VERY MUCH LIKE A TRIAL, YES.

WHAT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IS DIFFERENT UNDER C.O.P.A.

VERSUS I.P.R.A., UNDER I.P.R.A.

THIS REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN BY A THREE-MEMBER PANEL OF THE POLICE BOARD RATHER THAN A SINGLE PERSON WHICH IN MY VIEW WAS A BETTER WAY TO HANDLE THESE DECISIONS RATHER THAN LEAVING EVERYTHING UP TO ONE PERSON PARTICULARLY WHEN -- >> WHY DID THAT CHANGE?

>> THIS IS AN INENIGMA.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND I DON'T KNOW.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THIS WAS A CHANGE THAT THE POLICE BOARD REQUESTED BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGES THEY FACED WHEN THREE PEOPLE HAD TO RECUSE THEMSELVES AND THEY HAD FEWER PEOPLE TO DECIDE THE FINAL CASE.

IN MY VIEW, THAT IS NOT NECESSARY.

SO I STILL BELIEVE THAT THE IT SHOULD BE A THREE-PERSON PANEL.

>> AS SUPERINTENDENT JOHNSON ELUDED THERE ARE ALL THESE OTHER PLACES.

INTERNAL AFFAIRS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE STATE'S ATTORNEY, THE U.S.

ATTORNEY, MAYBE WE WILL HAVE A FEDERAL MONITOR, SO HAVE WE DONE ANYTHING IN REAL FURTHERANCE OF ENGENDERING PUBLIC TRUST VIS-A-VIS THE COMMUNITY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?

>> WE ARE STILL SEEING WE HAVE A WAYS TO GO AND I BELIEVE IN BUILDING OUT C.O.P.A.

THAT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REBUILD TRUST IN THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE MADE HEADWAY AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS GONE DOWN THE PATH WITH SOME REFORM BUT WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO, CAROL THERE IS STILL A LOT OF DISTRUST.

>> THERE'S MEANWHILE THE LAWSUITS FILED BY THE BETTIE JONES FAMILY AND QUINTONIO LeGRIER'S FAMILY AND IN THAT LAWSUIT, THE MAYOR HAS BEEN DEPOSED AND THE SUPERINTENDENT HAS BEEN DEPOSED.

SEPARATE PROCESS.

BUT THE CITY ARGUED THAT SUPERINTENDENT JOHNSON'S LETTER SHOULD BE SEALED.

IN THE FURTHERANCE OF TRANSPARENCY WAS THAT A GOOD DECISION?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I LEARNED AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF I.P.R.A.

AND C.O.P.A.

IS TRANSPARENCY IS PARAMOUNT WHEN YOU HAVE A PROCESS LIKE THIS IN A CASE OF SUCH TREMENDOUS PUBLIC INTEREST THAT WE NEED THE WHOLE SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING AT EVERY STAGE.

OTHERWISE WHEN YOU GET TO THE END PEOPLE WILL QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LIGHT SHED ON IT.

>> THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE POLICE UNION WOULD SAY DUE PROCESS IS THE ENDS UP BEING THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB OF THAT TOO TRANSPARENT AND TOO FAST AND TOO MUCH IS LET OUT BEFORE DECISIONS ARE MADE.

>> I'M NOT SURE THAT I AGREE WITH THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT DUE PROCESS HAS TO SUFFER BY TRANSPARENCY.

WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY IN A LOT OF ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT.

AND WE HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL FOUNDATION OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM WHICH SAYS THE OFFICER IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY THAT REMAINS PARAMOUNT IN OUR PROCESS EVEN THOUGH IT IS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

>> WE ARE LOOKING AT A LONG HOT SUMMER WITH LAQUAN McDONALD CASE IN WHICH OFFICER VAN DYKE IS BEING TRIED, PROBABLY THE SUMMER.

THIS STILL HANGS FIRE.

THERE IS A MAYORAL RACE.

THIS IS A TIME WHEN THERE STILL MAY BE PROFOUND COMMUNITY GRIEVANCES THAT ARE UNANSWERED.

>> IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE ON THESE ISSUES AND ALSO HAVE THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE SYSTEM IS ABOUT.

BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL A NUMBER IN MY VIEW THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM WHERE THINGS CAN GO OFF THE RAILS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS WE MOVE TOWARDS REFORMING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

>> LAST TIME YOU WERE IN THE STUDIO, IT WAS FOR A FORUM OF EIGHT ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATES THAT WAS A RACE THAT YOU FOUGHT HARD BUT LOST.

>> YES.

>> AND NOW, SPEAKING OF A MAYOR'S RACE, THERE ARE SOME WHO THINK YOU MIGHT BE CONSIDERING A RUN FOR MAYOR.

WOULD THAT BE THE CASE?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I CAN TELL YOU -- >> INEQUIVOCALLY.

NO, NO.

NO?

>> I SAID ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL I LOVE BEING A LAWYER.

THAT IS WHAT I LIKE TO DO.

IT IS A GREAT JOB AND I HAVE UTMOST RESPECT FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD SIGN UP FOR THAT BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD DO.

>> WHAT DID YOU LEARN OUT OF THAT RACE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL?

>> I LEARNED A LOT OF RESPECT FOR GETTING OUT AND TALKING TO VOTERS ABOUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

AND IT WAS A PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN THE DISCOURSE THAT WE DID IN THE CAMPAIGN AND THROUGHOUT THE RACE.

AND I WAS JUST REALLY PROUD OF THE IDEA OF PUTTING THE IMPORTANCE OF INDEPENDENCE ON THE MAP FOR THE ROLE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> WOULD YOU EVER RUN FOR ANYTHING AGAIN?

>> I WILL NEVER SAY NEVER.

>> BECAUSE YOU LEARNED THAT IN POLITICS, TOO.

>> WE'LL SEE.

RIGHT NOW I HAVE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS GOING ON THAT I'M EXCITED ABOUT.

SO WE'LL SEE MAYBE SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

>> SHARON FAIRLEY THANK YOU FOR