Daily Herald opinion: Policing the Metra police: Public deserves a better accounting than the limited release of findings from $1.57 million probe
Metra officials readily acknowledge that the suburban rail agency “had an obligation to thoroughly evaluate … allegations” coming forth about behaviors taking place within its police department and they deserve credit for that.
As for what they found and another obligation they accepted — “to take appropriate action” — the verdict is not encouraging.
Last March, Metra authorized spending up to $3 million for law firm McGuireWoods to investigate allegations that included corruption, racism and gender bias, favoritism and sexual acts involving supervisors and employees.
The probe took eight months and cost $1.57 million, reporter Marni Pyke found through a Freedom of Information Act request. Metra separately provided two anonymous letters with apparently troubling findings about activities that went on inside the department.
We say “apparently,” because Metra won’t release the specifics of the investigators’ findings. The anonymous letters included general descriptions of some 30 examples of questionable activities, but on the FOIA, Metra redacted information about much of the work the lawyers performed, saying it involves information covered by lawyer-client privilege.
“Unfortunately, Metra is not able to provide a copy of the work done by McGuireWoods, because it contains privileged communications and attorney work product,” spokesman Michael GillisGillis told Pyke for a story we carried on Monday.
If true, the generalities are certainly alarming. Officers sleeping with each other during work hours, Hispanics being profiled for arrests and traffic stops, inconsistent discipline between officers of different races, favorable treatment for an officer who was in a sexual relationship with a senior officer. The list goes on — again, presumably.
How can the public really know what was going on — or the degree to which it was or wasn’t — based on just the agency’s and the attorneys’ assertion to, essentially, “just trust us”? And how can we know that the Metra board will take appropriate or effective action without knowing what specifically board members are trying to stop?
The situation is made all the more frustrating because the investigation and the complaints that spawned it involve a department chief brought in 10 years ago to clean up management following an investigation that chastised the department for poorly trained police, excessive overtime and more.
That chief, Joseph Perez, instituted various changes before retiring last November, but he clearly left much to be desired and much work to be done. It’s only natural to wonder what the Metra board will expect of Perez’ replacement and how it will measure the new chief’s performance.
Similarly, the apparent shortcomings of Metra’s handling of its police department lead to obvious questions about its control over other areas of its operations.
Providing a few broad examples of alarming behaviors is a start, but it’s hardly a demonstration that Metra has a strong handle on the management of its police department or an effective plan of action for monitoring it. To have confidence in the agency, the public deserves a much more transparent response than it has gotten so far.