>> CHICAGO POLICE SUPERINTENDENT HAS RECOMMENDED A COPY FIRED FOR SERIOUS ACCUSED MISCONDUCT LIKE AN UNJUSTIFIED SHOOTING.

THE CASE GOES TO THE CHICAGO POLICE BOARD.

THAT BOARD CARRIES OUT A TRIAL LIKE PROCESS FULLY IN VIEW OF THE PUBLIC.

BUT RECENTLY A JUDGE RULED CHICAGO POLICE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THOSE CASES HEARD BY AN INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR.

INSTEAD BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE HAS REJECTED THAT PROVISION OF A NEW POLICE CONTRACT.

AS A MAJORITY OF ALL, THE PEOPLE SAY IT'S A MAJOR STEP BACKWARD IN POLICE REFORM.

BUT CHICAGO'S POLICE UNION FOUGHT FOR THE NEW RULING AND SAYS IT'S ONLY FAIR.

AND JOINING US ARE JOHN CATANZARA PRESIDENT OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE AND ANTHONY DRIVER.

PRESIDENT OF THE COMMUNITY COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

WELCOME BOTH OF TO CHICAGO TONIGHT HERE TOGETHER, MISTER KAN'S ERA FOR 60 YEARS, THE CHICAGO POLICE BOARD A BOARD APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR HAD THE FINAL SAY ON WHETHER OR NOT COPS ARE FIRED FOR THESE SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS.

YOU FIGHT TO GET THIS JUDGE'S RULING THAT THESE CASES COULD BE INSTEAD HEARD BY AN INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR.

HOW COME?

>> WELL, LET ME JUST CLARIFY.

THIS WASN'T MUCH OF A FIGHT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

THE PROVISION STATED ALWAYS IT WAS BY AGREEMENT.

THE ILLINOIS, YOU KNOW, STATUTE IS VERY CLEAR THAT ARBITRATION IS BASICALLY REMEDY FOR ALL OF THIS UNLESS IT'S BY AGREEMENT.

SO FOR DECADES THAT'S BEEN BY AGREEMENT THAT THE POLICE BOARD WITH DETERMINATION CASES.

THE UNION ALWAYS HAD THE ABILITY TO OPT OUT OF THAT AGREEMENT.

IT WASN'T LIKE WE FOUGHT FOR WE JUST SAID WE'RE DONE.

WE'RE WE'RE EXERCISING AN OPTION CLASS.

AND AGAIN, IT'S BEEN REPEATED EXAMPLES WHERE THE POLICE BOARD HAS NOT EXACTLY BEEN FAIR, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE LIQUID MCDONALD MURDER AS A JUDGE.

AND WHEN BEN, THAT AGREED TO ARBITRATION THE ARBITRATOR.

>> I'M ANTHONY DRIVER.

WHAT WOULD THE IMPACT BE ON POLICE AND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY?

IF IT WENT THIS ROUTE?

YEAH, I THINK THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE A DECISION THAT WILL SET US BACK DECADES.

THIS WOULD DRIVE THIS PROCESS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

RECENTLY, WE STARTED POLICE BOARD, WHICH IS NOW, BY THE WAY, NOT A POINT.

ONLY BY THE MAYOR ARE COMMISSION, WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE, ACTUALLY HAVE TO APPOINT ANYBODY WHO THEN IS CONFIRMED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS DONE YEARS PAST.

BUT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO RETURN DECISIONS.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ATTEND MEETINGS.

YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT RECORDINGS TO PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW WHEN YOU GO TO FOR THE POLICE BOARD OF AGO, THE FOREIGN ARBITRATOR, IT GOES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS ISSUE THAT AFFECTS LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF POLICE FORCE.

ONLY THE MOST EGREGIOUS OF OFFENSE.

JUST GO BEFORE THE POLICE BECAUSE YOU CLARIFY SOME OF THE LESS SERIOUS OFFENSES CAN BE SENT TO AN ARBITRATOR LIKE THIS.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CONTENTION THAT OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEES HAVE THIS RIGHT THERE FOR THIS RIGHT OUR PRODUCTION.

THAT ONE THAT'S NOT TEST.

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT CPS SCPS A NEUTRAL PARTY ARBITRATOR MAKES A DECISION TO GO TO FOR CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD.

BUT WHEN YOU'RE IN A PROFESSION THAT HAS TO BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD WHERE YOU CAN TAKE SOMEONE'S LIFE OR LIBERTY WHERE YOU CAN BE A LAWYER WHO'S GOVERNED BY A ARE D C A A DOCTOR WHO'S GOVERNED BY THE STATE MEDICAL BOARD.

YOU THE BAR HAS TO BE HIGHER.

YOU HAVE TO BE PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE.

>> WHAT ABOUT MISTER KAN'S THERE.

I MEAN, YOU ARE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE THE POWER TO KILL SHOULD SHOULD BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD FOR MISCONDUCT OR CRIMINAL CHARGES.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCIPLINE PROCESS.

NUMBER THE STATUTE IS CLEAR IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY CARVE OUT FOR ANY SPECIFIC UNION EXCEPT FOR THE FACT OF INTEREST ARBITRATION.

>> BASICALLY BEING THE TRADEOFF FOR THE NO STRIKE ABILITY IF THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT GIVING US THE ABILITY TO STRIKE LET'S HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

IF THEY WANT TO PUT IT ON PAR WITH EVERYBODY ELSE.

BUT THAT'S NOT IT.

WE WERE AFFORDED THE ABILITY TO GO TO ARBITRATION IN LIEU OF STRIKING PERIOD.

FULL STOP.

>> AND THIS IS THAT THIS IS PART OF THE PROVISION THAT CITY COUNCIL SHOT DOWN AS PART OF THE NEW UNION AGREEMENT.

I CANCER.

YOU YOURSELF HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A MISCONDUCT YOU RESIGN BEFORE YOU THOUGHT YOU MIGHT BE YOU THINK THIS PRESIDENT WAS VERY YOU?

THAT ABSOLUTELY WAS NOT.

WHICH IS WHY RESIGNED.

THERE WAS MOTION AFTER MOTION.

THAT WAS DENIED BY THE HEARING.

OFFICER LITERALLY.

AND IT'S A ROUTINE WE TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.

LET'S TALK ABOUT KIND OF TRANSPARENCY WITH THE POLICE SPORT JUST TODAY, THE POLICE BOARD HEARING.

I JUST GOT A CALL FROM OUR ATTORNEY EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON AT THE POLICE BOARD HEARING A STATUS HEARING, A VERY BASICALLY FAMOUS CASE.

THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WHAT THE FOR WAS GOING TO BE AS FAR AS A PUBLIC ACCESS.

OUR ATTORNEY SAID FINE IF IT'S GOING TO BE PUBLIC ACCESS, THE NOT LET'S HAVE A LINK SO PEOPLE CAN LISTEN.

LET'S HAVE A VIDEO BASICALLY ABILITY FOR ANYBODY ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY TO WATCH.

WAS CRICKETS IN THE ROOM.

THE POLICE BOARD DOESN'T DO THAT.

YOU HAVE THESE IN PERSON ANYMORE.

EVERYTHING IS BY ZOOM WITH JUST THE ATTORNEYS PRIMARILY.

WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR GENERAL COUNSEL FILE A LETTER TO THE POLICE BOARD TO HAVE OUR FIRST VICE PRESIDENT ALLOWED ACCESS TO THE LINK TO ONE OF THE HEARINGS FOR OUR OFFICERS THAT WE REPRESENT.

SO THIS TRANSPARENCY ARGUMENT, THE POLICE FORCE, A FIELD THAT THERE'S BEEN IMPEDIMENTS HERE.

IF YOU'RE ON THE POLICE SIDE, WHAT ABOUT THAT AS THE POLICE BOARD PROCESS BEEN FAIR TO ALL PARTIES?

BUT THE CITY THE COMMISSION THAT I'M THE THESE ARE GOVERNED BY OPEN MEETINGS.

ACT MANDATORY THAT THOSE ALL >> A PUBLIC, THE MINUTES ARE RECORDED.

YOU VIEW THEM VIA LIVESTREAM.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PUBLIC COMMENT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PUBLIC BODY IN THE STATE.

GOVERNOR BUDDY OPEN MEETINGS ACT ARE JUST ABSOLUTELY TRANSPARENT.

ALL RIGHT.

INDEPENDENT ARBITRATORS SAID JOHN RECORDING AN IG REPORT.

THEY SIDE WITH POLICE 78% OF THE TIME AGAIN ON THESE LOWER-LEVEL MISCONDUCT CASES THAT THEY ALREADY HERE.

SO IS THE POINT HERE THAT YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET A MUCH MORE FAVORABLE OUTCOME WITH THIS PROCESS?

FAIR IS NOT FAVORABLE.

FAIR IS RIGHT.

>> WE WELL TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, UP TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND ALL OF THAT STUFF.

BUT WHEN YOU TAKE THE EMOTION OUT OF IT AND A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE ON THE POLICE BOARD AND THEY JUST NAME SOMEBODY I MIND YOU WHO TALK ABOUT BIAS.

THIS PERSON SAID ON THE PAROLE BOARD HE HAD NOT ONCE BUT TWICE VOTED TO PAROLE.

A COP KILLER.

NOW THAT'S A GUIDE US NOW HERE IN DISCIPLINE CASES AT THE POLICE BOARD FOR OUR MEMBERS.

IT'S EGREGIOUS.

SO AGAIN, ARBITRATORS HEAR THE FACTS.

THEY TAKE THE EMOTION AND THE PUBLIC SENTIMENT OUT OF IT AND THEY SIMPLY GO WITH WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG PERIOD BY THE PAIR ARBITRATORS ARE NOT PUBLICLY HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

FACT, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE RESIDE IN THE CITY CHICAGO RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S ONLY 5 ARBITRATION HEARING THESE CASES, 4 OF THEM ARE WHITE MALES.

IT'S NOT A VERY DIVERSE GROUP.

THEY'RE NOT PUBLICLY HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

YOU CAN'T GO BACK AND LOOK AT THEIR VOTING RECORD.

THE DISPLAY RECORD.

YOU HAVE NO ACCESS TO ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

>> TALK ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY.

TALK ABOUT FAIRNESS.

THIS IS ONE PERSON HERE IN THE MOST EGREGIOUS CASES THAT ARE BROUGHT THAT THIS BOARD IS PERSON AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO LIVE IN A STATE TITLE BECAUSE OF THE COMPLICATED NATURE OF THIS PROVISION.

IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A THREE-FIFTHS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL EITHER WAY.

I MEAN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE VOTES ON COUNCIL, YOU'RE GOING TO COURT RIGHT?

>> WELL, I'VE GOT HIS BACK UP ABOUT THE THE PART WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT THESE ARBITRATORS NOT BEING FAIR OR NOT BEING DIVERSE.

WHATEVER THE CASE QUESTION MAY BE, THERE'S A PROVISION IN COOK COUNTY FOR JUDGES WHO BASICALLY DON'T DO THEIR JOB.

THEY GET BASICALLY RECALLED EVERY 2 YEARS WHEN THEIR NAMES ON THE BALLOT.

THE SAME THING IS PRETTY MUCH FOR THESE ARBITRATORS EVERY YEAR.

THESE TRIGGERS BY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND THE FOP.

THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO STRIKE AN ARBITRATOR THEY THINK IS NOT BEING FAIR TO THE PROCESS.

THAT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN.

ALL RIGHT.

SO SO THERE'S THIS ABOUT PERCENT, THE GREATER THE ARCHERS ARE.

SO ANTHONY DRIVER.

>> WHAT IS THERE SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE HERE WHERE MAYBE THIS DOES GO TO ARBITRATION SAID THE POLICE BOARD, BUT MAYBE IT'S DONE IN A MORE TRANSPARENT PUBLIC MAYOR.

I HOPE WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING FOR IS A VALUE SYSTEM SHOULD MENTION THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS IN CITY COUNCIL.

I MEAN, THE ARBITRATOR RULED FOR THIS PROVISION.

SO FOP IS GOING TO GO TO COURT AND THEY'LL BE SOME KIND OF LEGAL BATTLE.

SO WHAT WOULD A COMPROMISE LOOK LIKE?

A COMPROMISE?

AND MY OPINION WOULD BE SOMETHING ALLOWS TRANSPARENCY TO BE INJECTED INTO PROCESS TO ALLOW ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE PUBLIC TO BE INJECTED INTO PROCESS.

>> WE LIVE IN A CITY AS A VERY BAD HISTORY WHEN IT COMES TO POLICING THESE THESE FOLKS GO OUT THERE, PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE INTO A VERY IMPORTANT JOB.

BUT I HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR HIM.

THAT'S REALLY MEAN THAT.

BUT THERE ALSO IS A LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE THAT HAS TO BE HERE, TOO.

AND THAT'S WE'RE FIGHTING FOR JACK AND SAY IT DOES GO THIS ROUTE.

WOULD YOU SUPPORT SOME KIND OF PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT THE PUBLIC COULD HAVE ACCESS TO A AS THESE CASES GET EDUCATED BY AN ARBITRATOR.

YOU KNOW, THE SAD REALITY IS THE MAYOR PUT HIS THUMB ON THE SCALE HERE.

>> I WAS INITIALLY SUPPOSED TO GIVE TESTIMONY IN THE WITNESS BOX ON THURSDAY SO I CAN GIVE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE, YOU KNOW, EXAMPLE, OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN ARBITRATION, MEDIATION.

THAT WAS THE NIGHT LITERALLY THAT MORNING.

IT CHANGED IF I WAS ALLOWED TO SPEAK, YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD MANY EXAMPLES ON HOW WE PROPOSED.

AND AGAIN, WE HAVE THE HIGH GROUND HERE.

WE HAVE THE STATUE ON OUR SIDE.

WE KNOW YOU'RE PROPOSING SOME KIND OF NUMBER MIGHT WHETHER HAD TO COULD BE A PUBLIC PRESS, CORRECT?

WE NEVER HAD TO GIVE AN INCH, BUT WE OFFERED IT ANYWAY.

AND THE CITY BASICALLY REJECTED IT BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR PROPOSAL OR NOTHING AT ALL AT THAT POINT.

VERY QUICKLY, WHAT YOU THINK'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON WEDNESDAY AGAIN, CONSULATE.

THEY CAN REJECT THIS PROVISION.

THE NEED TO WITH THE 3 FENCE VOTE OF 31 WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT HARD FOR THOSE VOTES AND WE WON'T.

WE WON'T STOP THERE.

BUT BASED ON WHAT JOHN IS SAYING, THERE'S THERE'S SOME DAYLIGHT HERE.

SO I'M ACTUALLY HOPING TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM ABOUT HOW WE CAN.

>> FIXED A SO MAYBE A LOT COULD CHANGE BY WEDNESDAY.

I HOPE SO.

ALRIGHT HAPPENED.

HOPE SO.

JOHN AND THERE'S HELP EVERYWHERE.

JACK AND THEIR ANTHONY DRIVER, THANKS FROM