Committee on Finance

You can watch the live stream at this address
https://livestream.com/accounts/28669066/events/8800236

Here is the agenda for today’s meeting:
https://chicago.documenters.org/documents/agenda-66671/

At 10:05PM, Chair Scott Waguespack calls the meeting to order.

Quorum is met with 20 members present.

George Blakemoore speaks on the Chicago Police Department’s harrassment of Anjanette Young. He says that the treatment of black people on behalf of the CPD needs to be reckocked with.

Motion to approve the first item which is to approve the Rule 45 of the previous meeting.

The second item is a proposed ordinance concerning the authority to amend the 35th and Halsted tax increment financing (TIF) redevelopment plan, project and ordinance for conformity and compliance with Illinois state law setting 35-year limit on retirement of obligations.

Speaking on this is Tim Jeffries from the department of planning and development, if approved the revised end date would be in 2033. Ald. Thompson says that this amendment would allow the use of TIFF money for schools and parks and asks for committee support.

Ald. Austen moves to approve the motion. It passes.

Item 3, a communication recommending the approval of the designation of the 2022 Municipal Depositories for the City of Chicago, will be moved to a January meeting.

Reshima Soni of City Comptroller’s Office speaks on item 4, a communication recommending an independent auditor and a consortium of minority- and women-owned accounting firms to perform the audit for the City of Chicago fiscal year ending December 31, 2021.

She is asking for the approval of Deloitte as the independent auditor for the financial statements. Ald. Austen comments that Soni has done a great job on researching auditors, but asks about which firms are black owned.

Soni responds that of the 8 firms, there are two that are recognized with black representation.

Ald. Ervin asks about the bids from other firms. Soni says that since some are already doing internal work, the cannot do auditing, and others refrained from bidding because of business practices.

Ald. Erwin asks about liability for mistakes. Soni says that Deloitte would be the main overarching firm in the process, but the firm that signs the letter would be held accountable.

A new audit director is creating fresh prospective according to Soni. The motion is moved and passes.

From the Department of Law, A communication transmitting reports of cases in which judgments or settlements were entered into for the month of November 2021, which will be place on file with the clerk.

Item 6, 7 and 8 were added to the Omnibus.

The supplemental addendum includes 4 items. Lawrence Scott vs. Chicago with a settlement of 625,000. Jeff Levine speaks on this, on April 29, 2014 at 10:30PM two officers approached a residence, and a group of individuals ran off.

The plaintiff took a bag of pot and threw it and tried to climb a fence according to police reports. CPD says the plaintiff fell backward, and made five closed fist hand strikes. The plaintiff asserts he was unable to climb and turned with raised hands.

The plaintiff says he was hit several times with the butt of the officer’s gun, admits that he was not cooperating but that’s where the consistency stops. The plaintiff required nine stitches, says that PTSD and speech deficits and that these injuries is permanent.

The report from the medical examiner says that the lacerations seems to be made with a blunt object. COPA says that the officer used excessive force, recommended a 15 day suspension and is currently in the appeal process.

The initial demand was 10 million and has lowered to $625,000.

Ald. Nick Sposato asks about body cams. Levine says that there were no cams. This took place in 2014, before body cams were required.

Ald. Napolitano and Ald. Quinn are recorded as a No, Ald. Reilly, Curtis and Burke also recorded as a No.

Ald. Cardenas motions to approve, the item carries.

Frederick Bell vs City of Chicago with a settlement $330,000. This is an excessive force case, on
Sept. 24, 2014 officers were responding to a call about a White Hummer driving recklessly.

The plaintiff, now 62, then 55, was a retired executive for Unilover Foods. According to the officers, once the keys were removed, the plaintiff was asked to stand against the car but resisted. The officer performed an emergency take down, the plaintiff landed on their stomach.

Due to erratic behavior, the officers performed knee strikes, the plaintiff also had difficulty entering the car and forcibly pushed him in. The plaintiff claims that he was pulled by the neck and since the officers could not arrest him easily due to his size started assaulting.

The passenger in the plaintiff’s car corroborates this story. The hospitalization shows that it is possible that the plaintiff experienced a stroke, which was confirmed by tests at UIC hospital. Based on the medical evidence, the plaintiff had experienced a stroke on the road.

This explains why the plaintiff was not cooperative. The plaintiff claims it was the head trauma experienced by the hits from officers that caused the stroke.

Ald. Sposato asks for clarification about the failure to produce identification and why the passenger didn’t intervene. Levine cannot speak on the first issue, but in regards to the second Levine passes to Victoria Benson.

Benson says that the passenger did not have indication that a medical emergency was happening.

Vice Chair Leslie Hairston asks about the amount for the hospital bills. Benson says that medical bills totaled $130,463. There is no record of any ongoing injury.

An investigation was made and the conclusion was that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the officer. Ald. Harris makes a motion to approve. The motion carries.

Item 3, Pedro Rios vs City of Chicago with a settlement of 1.2 million dollars. This an event from 2014, the fatal killing of Pedro Rios who was 14 at the time. July 4, 2014, 9:00pm.

The youth was walking in Portage Park, had a blood alcohool level of .72 and had run away two weeks ago. His father says he was hanging with La Raza gang members. As Rios tried to cross the street, he passed a cop car.

The officers say that they say a gun and began to approach and Rios began to run. The officers say that the youth pulled a gun on the officers, and which point the officer began to shoot. After another chase, the youth and officer collided and the youth was shot.

The plaintiff asserts that the youth, who was already dead was hit with malice. The investigation from COPA concluded that the shooting was justified but that the kick after was excessive force and recommended a 30 day suspension which was approved.

The initial demand was 4 million dollars.

Ald. Raymond Lopez asks about why Levine provided gang affiliation since this is the first he heard of it. Levine says he must have done this before, but wanted to give the full context.

Ald. Lopez says that either we do this for all plaintiffs or none at all. He also says that gang affiliation and that the youth chose this life and endangered the public, he should not receive any money and encourages other members to vote no.

Jeff Levine says that even though COPA finds the shooting justified, it is not binding in a jury. Ald. Thompson asks about punitive damages to which Levine says that it’s possible since this is a federal case. Since a youth was on the ground dying, punitive damages are possible.

Ald. Thompson asks about the cost of trial. Levine estimates that trial would cost an additional $80,000.

Ald. George Cardenas says that it is easy to settle because of costs, but wonders if the council is missing the mark for having no accountability.

Levine says that suing the parents of a dead 14 year old would backfire with public sentiment.

Ald. Sposato asks whether the shooting occurred near his family. The shooting happened in a different ward according to Victoria Benson.

Ald. Edward Burke asks about whether fires were shot by the deceased. Levine says no shots were fired. Burke says he would not vote yes on any million dollar settlement.

Ald. Ervin says that 1.2 million dollars is high, but that the council needs to understand the liability of the police department and needs to focus on the mismanagement of that department. Voting no on politics isn’t making progress.

A roll call vote is taking place.

Read more on the case here
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2021/12/10/22828215/settlement-chicago-police-pedro-rios-jr-fatality

The motion passes with 22 ayes and nine nays.

Anjanette Young vs City of Chicago for 2.9 Million dollars, Celia Meza speaks on the execution of a search warrant based on incorrect information. Young at the point of entry was in a state of undress, 13 officers were present, 12 of which were male.

In the plaintiffs case, the officers failed to knock and announce, which did not allow her to dress. They pulled guns on her and refused to hear her protests that they were in the wrong home. The ordeal lasted forty minutes.

The city’s position if this went to trial would be that the officers were executing a valid search warrant, that Young was undressed for 15 minutes before a jacket was put on her, and seconds before a blanket was given.

This settlement is to mitigate potential risks and acknowledge the mishandling of the search warrant. In Sept, 2021 the city filed a motion to dismiss and five of six counts were dismissed.

The distinction is willful and wanton conduct, the plaitent must allege that a standard duty of care was breached and therefore the injury was caused to the plaintiff. It is unlikely that this will be dismissed, and would go to trial.

In COPA’s investigation, their findings against five of the officers, which included many complaints, would lower the chance of the city winning the case.

In a previous instance of a bad search warrant in which a three year old had a gun pointed at them, a 2.4 million dollar settlement was reached in 2014.

If this went to trial, there is a possibility that a million could be offered for each of the officers present, and that that the jury would consider every second that Young was undressed too long according to Meza.

Ald. Burke asks corporation council if the city retained outside council on this matter. Meza says that outside council, Eileen Letz from Zubler and Lawler. Bill to date was $46,000, and to represent individual officer Brian Gaynor it is $25,000.

Ald. Sposato states that Sergeant Wilensky was apologizing profusely and offered his own cell phone, and wonders if it would be taken into account. Meza says that would be left to the jury, thats the risk that we face if we move forward.

Ald. Lopez says that this settlement is not enough. To be at less than 3 million dollars, while its good for taxpayers, it is not fair to Young. Unfortunately, I am not the one negotiating, but if both sides are agreement I will have to approve.

Meza clarifies that there was not a zero dollar offering when this case was filed in 2021.

Ald. Lopez asks if you believe she deserves more why wont we give her more. Meza says she only said that there was never a zero dollar offering, not that she deserves more.

Ald. Napolitano asks what was the warrant written for to which Meza responds for an individual firearm for a male suspect. Ald. Napolitano asks about the training for an all clear moving forward.

Meza says that the city’s position is that since it was a high risk warrant, the time of the warrant to be completed was justified, but the duration of when Young was undressed is the issue.

Ald. Waguespack asks about the cost of 12 depositions. There are 12 main officers, there would need to be representation for each officer and could be exponentially higher than the settlement costs.

Ald. Reilly moves to approve the motion. The motion carries.

A motion is moved to adjourn. The time is 12:01 pm. This concludes my reporting.