City OKs security measures for summits

• Reprints

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel

Updated: February 21, 2012 8:32AM

Chicago City Council members passed with little discussion Wednesday two security ordinances that Mayor Rahm Emanuel had pushed as necessary for the city to be ready for the G-8 and NATO summits in May, but many questions remained about how the measures would be implemented.

With a couple of dozen protesters in the hall shouting “Let us in!” and a handful of others in the packed council chambers shouting “We vote no!” before police escorted them out, the aldermen noted that the ordinances they approved, as had been expected, did not include many of the provisions Emanuel originally proposed that had upset protest groups in the first place.

The biggest change was the mayor’s decision a day earlier to drop his call to increase the fines for resisting arrest. Furthermore, the aldermen said that by the time they voted, Emanuel agreed to back off other provisions he’d sought, including a call to shorten parades by 15 minutes and require protest groups to provide marshals for every 100 participants.

Emanuel said he wasn’t sure what effect dropping those provisions would have but was satisfied that the council’s votes effectively balanced his desire to protect both the city and the rights of protesters.

“People’s First Amendment rights will be protected (and) the law will be enforced,” he said after the council’s votes. “I do not believe these are in conflict.”

City Council members had been inundated with calls and emails in recent weeks from residents worried that the ordinances would hinder their free speech rights. One of the few aldermen to vote against the two ordinances, Robert Fioretti, said he remained concerned that they raise more questions than they answer, starting with a provision that allows the police superintendent to deputize out-of-state law enforcement officers.

While Superintendent Garry McCarthy said he doesn’t anticipate using out-of-state officers during the two summits and did not plan to use them on the front lines if they were called, Fioretti said there is nothing in that ordinance requiring McCarthy to explain to the City Council why he’s calling the officers, how many he’s calling to Chicago or limits how they can be deployed.

In a city with history that includes the 1968 Democratic National Convention, when police openly clashed with demonstrators, and an Iraq war protest in 2003, when hundreds were arrested and a judge criticized the police department’s handling of the protests, Fioretti said the council should have more information about what the police department might do.

“We’ve seen in the past this is the city of Chicago,” he said. “We know how it operates and if we’re going to be prepared for this kind of demonstration then let’s be prepared to have everybody understand what the boundaries are in terms of what needs to be done here.”

Another alderman, though, said it was impossible to anticipate how much help police would need because the department’s estimate of 2,000 to 10,000 protesters might be low.

“I think the city, because of its history, I think you will find a lot of people will come back and see history repeat itself,” said Alderman Patrick O’Connor, who voted in favor of the ordinances.

Emanuel said changing the ordinances was actually the result of discussions that began after a recent appellate court ruling over the arrests during the 2003 demonstration. While much of the attention has been on how the measures might affect the summits this spring, Emanuel said the fact is the ordinances hadn’t been changed in years and needed to be updated.

Protesters and other critics remain concerned about a provision in one ordinance authorizing the police superintendent “to enter into agreements with public or private entities concerning placement, installation, maintenance or use of video, audio, telecommunications or other similar equipment.”

The ACLU, which has criticized the city’s massive surveillance system in the past, complained that giving the city what amounts to a “blank check” to expand the system is dangerous.

“Without adequate regulation, there is the potential that Chicago will once again, as it did during the days of the infamous Red Squad ( an intelligence unit the department was forced to disband in 1981) compile dossiers on the lawful First Amendment activities of law-abiding citizens,” Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, said in a statement.

People also raised concerns about a provision giving Emanuel the authority to purchase goods and services for the NATO and G-8 summits without council approval. Emanuel said he would not speculate on the kinds of things he might need to buy, but that he’d be cautious in spending the city’s money.