151
 1                 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
 2                          EASTERN DIVISION
 3   ERNEST T. BROWN, et al.,           )
                                        )
 4                  Plaintiffs,         )
                                        )  No. 95 C 1890
 5             v.                       )  Chicago, Illinois
                                        )  November 19, 1997
 6   CITY OF CHICAGO,                   )  10:00 a.m.
                                        )
 7                  Defendant.          )
 8                              VOLUME 2
 9                 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - TRIAL
10              BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. GETTLEMAN
11   APPEARANCES:
12   For the Plaintiffs:      KENNETH N. FLAXMAN, P.C.
                              122 South Michigan Avenue
13                            Chicago, Illinois  60603-6107
                              BY:  MR. KENNETH N. FLAXMAN
14
                              FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD
15                            122 South Michigan Avenue
                              Chicago, Illinois 60603
16                            BY:   MR. CRAIG FUTTERMAN
17
     For the Defendant:       MAYER, BROWN & PLATT
18                            190 South LaSalle Street
                              Chicago, Illinois  60603
19                            BY:  MR. JAMES HOLZHAUER
                                   MR. JEFFREY S. PIELL
20                                 MS. ANGELA K. DORN
                                   MR. ANDREW NICELY
21
22   Official Court Reporter:      JENNIFER S. COSTALES, CSR, RMR
                                   219 South Dearborn Street
23                                 Room 1744-A
                                   Chicago, Illinois  60604
24                                 (312) 427-5351
25
 
                                                               152
                          Thompson - direct
 1        (Proceedings heard in open court.)
 2             THE CLERK:  95 C 1890, Ernest T. Brown versus City
 3   of Chicago, on trial.
 4             THE COURT:  Ms. Thompson, would you please resume
 5   the stand.   You are still under oath.
 6             Counsel?
 7     DIANE THOMPSON, PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS, PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN
 8                         DIRECT EXAMINATION
 9                               RESUMED
10   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
11   Q.   Yesterday, Sergeant Thompson, I believe you were talking
12   about your career with the Chicago Police Department, and we
13   were going through the history of your career, and we had
14   gotten to about 1988, I believe.
15   A.   Yes, sir.
16   Q.   And you'd just described your experience as an
17   administrative assistant for two commanding officers.
18   A.   That's correct.
19   Q.   So now we're in 1988, and can you tell me what was your
20   next position in the department?
21   A.   I took an exam, was promoted to the rank of sergeant
22   December 1st, 1988.
23   Q.   Where were you first assigned?
24   A.   I was assigned to the youth division.
25   Q.   What were your responsibilities as a sergeant in the
 
                                                               153
                          Thompson - direct
 1   youth division?
 2   A.   My responsibilities included the supervision of
 3   investigating officers that did follow-up investigations
 4   relevant to child abuse, neglect, dependency, curfews,
 5   missings.  I also had the opportunity to work as a watch
 6   commander in that capacity.  That meant supervising the other
 7   staffs who were also sergeants.
 8   Q.   Is a watch commander a position that's normally held by a
 9   lieutenant?
10   A.   Not in the youth division.  Patrol, yes.  In the youth
11   division it's not.
12   Q.   Are there similarities between what a watch commander
13   does in the youth division and what a watch commander does in
14   a district?
15   A.   To some extent, yes, there are some similarities.
16   Q.   How are they different?
17   A.   They're different in that the watch commander in patrol
18   is responsible for the desk responsibilities in regards to
19   prisoners, in regards to the lockup.  In the youth division,
20   the watch commander does not have the same responsibilities.
21   I'm sorry.
22   Q.   Go ahead.
23   A.   They are similar in that when an arrest is made the watch
24   commander in the youth division has to review the arrest
25   report, make certain that the charges are appropriate for the
 
                                                               154
                          Thompson - direct
 1   crime that's been committed.
 2             Watch commander in the youth division is responsible
 3   also for reviewing the case report to make sure all the
 4   elements are there.  The watch commander in the youth division
 5   is also responsible for the staffing in regards to deportment
 6   of officers for investigation purposes, similar to that in
 7   patrol.
 8   Q.   Are there any other significant differences between a
 9   watch commander in youth and watch commander in patrol?
10   A.   Significant, no, sir.
11   Q.   How long were you in that position?
12   A.   Until 1989.
13   Q.   And where were you assigned in '89?
14   A.   I was detailed to the 6th District in patrol.
15   Q.   And what -- in patrol what was your assignment?  I'm
16   sorry, in the 6th District.
17   A.   I was field supervising sergeant in the 6th District.
18   Q.   What does a field supervising sergeant do?
19   A.   A field supervising sergeant has really four
20   responsibilities:  one is personnel management, another is
21   administration, another is patrol activity, and another one is
22   discipline, I believe.  That's four.
23   Q.   And as the field supervising sergeant were you the
24   supervisor in the field?
25   A.   Yes, that's correct.
 
                                                               155
                          Thompson - direct
 1   Q.   And then throughout the 6th District?
 2   A.   The 6th District.
 3   Q.   How long were you detailed in that position?
 4   A.   I was detailed there for a year.
 5   Q.   So that takes us to somewhere in '90?
 6   A.   That's correct.
 7   Q.   And what's your next assignment?
 8   A.   In '90 I was -- the detail was cancelled and I was
 9   returned to the youth division Area 1.  That's the south side
10   area.
11   Q.   Were you also -- did you also have time when you were
12   assigned back to Area 1, the south side, to work as a watch
13   commander?
14   A.   Yes, I was watch commander, and also in the capacity of
15   an area commanding officer.  That spot in the youth division
16   is held by a lieutenant.
17   Q.   How long were you in Area 1 in those positions?
18   A.   In Area 1, in 1980 -- 1990, either one or two years.
19   Q.   What did you do when you left Area 1?
20   A.   I had several assignments.  They varied, because there
21   was a new commander in the youth division, so they varied.  I
22   was considered to be a troubleshooter in the division.  If
23   there was a problem in school patrol with staffing, whatever
24   the problems were, they would send me to school patrol.
25             Three months later I was in juvenile court
 
                                                               156
                          Thompson - direct
 1   addressing some issues there, in regards to juvenile laws, in
 2   regards to juvenile proposals.
 3             I was also assigned briefly to the academy to assist
 4   with developing exams for youth officers, those persons who
 5   would be taking exams to be promoted to the rank of youth
 6   officer.
 7             What else did I do?  I think that was about it in
 8   Area 1.
 9   Q.   During that time did you spend any time acting as either
10   a watch commander or a field supervisor?
11   A.   In Area 1, yes, sir, I did.
12   Q.   Was that during the entire time?
13   A.   Back and forth, that's correct, yes, sir.
14   Q.   Now, that took us, I believe -- I'm sorry.  That was from
15   '90 to about '92 did you just describe, or am I --
16   A.   '91.
17   Q.   Go ahead.
18   A.   '91.  And in '91, I went before what's called an academic
19   selection board, and applied for admission to Northwestern
20   University.  That's the police administration training program
21   for sergeants and lieutenants.  And it's a nine-month training
22   program in management, and I was accepted for that particular
23   program.
24   Q.   Did you obtain a certificate from that program?
25   A.   I obtained graduation -- graduating was called -- with an
 
                                                               157
                          Thompson - direct
 1   advanced diploma.  You participated in ceremonies of
 2   Northwestern's graduation, the regular one in June.
 3   Q.   Were you also working during that time?
 4   A.   No, sir.  That is, my job from 8:00 to 4:00 was to be a
 5   student.  That's a program where there are 21 persons from
 6   around the world, lieutenants and sergeants, who are accepted
 7   for the program, and we're there to become better managers.
 8   Q.   When did you graduate from that program?
 9   A.   In 1992.
10   Q.   Okay.  And then from '92 after completing that program,
11   where were you assigned next?
12   A.   I was assigned to Area 4.
13   Q.   And what was your position in Area 4?
14   A.   Field supervisor for youth officers, and again acting as
15   a watch commander.  I also worked in the meantime as a
16   supervising SIU.  I forgot that.
17   Q.   I'm sorry.
18   A.   Prior to going to Northwestern, I was also assigned
19   briefly as a troubleshooter in special investigations unit.  I
20   had been a youth officer there years before that, and asked to
21   go back to that position as a supervisor.
22   Q.   That was just before attending Northwestern?
23   A.   Going to Northwestern, that's correct.
24   Q.   Now, in Area 4, I believe you just said --
25   A.   Yes, sir.
 
                                                               158
                          Thompson - direct
 1   Q.   -- how long were you in Area 4 after graduating from
 2   Northwestern?
 3   A.   Approximately four years.  I'm sorry.  '92 to about '96.
 4   Q.   And you were in a supervisory capacity throughout that
 5   time period?
 6   A.   Yes, that's correct.
 7   Q.   And in '96 where were you assigned?
 8   A.   To Area 1.  Again.
 9   Q.   And in Area 1 what was your role there?
10   A.   Again as a watch commander and a supervising sergeant.
11   Q.   And are you still in Area 1?
12   A.   No.  I'm currently in the 5th District.
13   Q.   When did you transfer?
14   A.   February 1997.  February of 1997.
15   Q.   And I think, I believe you already described your current
16   duties in the 5th District.
17   A.   Yes, I did.
18   Q.   So based on your experience and observations over these
19   20 plus years on the job, do you feel that you're familiar
20   with what Chicago police lieutenants do?
21   A.   Yes, sir.
22   Q.   And how are you so familiar?  What made you familiar with
23   what Chicago police lieutenants do?
24   A.   Based on my assignments, I've had the opportunity to work
25   in the capacity as a lieutenant in the youth division.  I
 
                                                               159
                          Thompson - direct
 1   worked very close with the lieutenants that I'm assigned to
 2   currently in patrol.
 3             An example is when there was a hazardous material
 4   spill on the south side of Chicago, I was asked to do the
 5   coordination for all of that for the lieutenant on the scene.
 6   Q.   Now, did you take the lieutenants' promotional exam in
 7   1994?
 8   A.   Yes, sir, I did.
 9   Q.   Did you prepare for that test?
10   A.   Yes, sir, I did.
11   Q.   When did you start preparing for that exam?
12   A.   Approximately a year prior to the exam itself.
13   Q.   About 1993?
14   A.   Yes, sir.
15   Q.   And how did you prepare?  What did you do to prepare?
16   A.   Took all of my current orders, notices, and made sure
17   that they were all current, obtained all the communications,
18   COS messages that might have changed and updated those
19   situations.
20   Q.   What are COS messages?
21   A.   Out communications.  What it is is sometimes there is a
22   general order, and the change comes from research and
23   development that something is being changed by that order.  We
24   have all the updated orders.
25             THE COURT:  Slow down just a little bit.
 
                                                               160
                          Thompson - direct
 1             THE WITNESS:  That was the first thing I did, was
 2   try and compare all of the data.  Then I began to spend two
 3   hours to four hours daily approximately six days a week in
 4   reviewing the material.
 5             Looked over some of the old exams that had been
 6   given by the police department, signed up for some courses
 7   also in regards to that; joined approximately four study
 8   groups in preparation for the exam.
 9   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
10   Q.   You said you signed up for some courses as well?
11   A.   Yes, that is correct.
12   Q.   What courses did you enroll in to help prepare you for
13   the exam?
14   A.   One of the ones -- there were two I actually paid for and
15   enrolled in.  One was called the Conley Group, C-O-N-L-E-Y,
16   which dealt with the in-basket, and the second one was a
17   partnership between the FOP and the Bernstein and Associates
18   group, which provided training for the in-basket also.
19             Those are the two I paid for.  The other groups
20   were, of course, free and provided to all officers.
21             I also reviewed a tape that was provided by the
22   department in helping to prepare for the exam.  That was
23   offered in the district level itself.
24   Q.   You said you also participated in study groups.
25   A.   Yes, that's correct.
 
                                                               161
                          Thompson - direct
 1   Q.   Can you describe what you did in the study groups?
 2   A.   In the study groups, one met Thursday evenings at
 3   University of Illinois, and at that group you were assigned a
 4   general order to review.  You developed questions from the
 5   order itself.  You forward those questions to the coordinating
 6   personnel of that particular study group.  They then develop
 7   an exam.
 8             So each Thursday you were given an exam of all the
 9   notices you supplied to them for coordination.  So that was
10   each Thursday where a group got together, over 102 officers
11   came together in the U of I and studied together.  After the
12   exam was administered it was scored, then you would discuss
13   any questions you would have about the questions themselves.
14   Q.   Did you believe you studied hard for the exam?
15   A.   Exceptionally hard, sir.
16   Q.   And you believe you studied appropriately for the exam?
17   A.   Yes, sir.  I was in study groups on Thursdays, Saturdays
18   and Sundays.
19   Q.   Now, the test itself, the lieutenants promotional exam
20   itself had three parts; is that right?
21   A.   That is correct.
22   Q.   The oral part, the written part, and the in-basket part?
23   A.   That is correct.
24   Q.   I'd like to ask you to focus really on the in-basket
25   part.
 
                                                               162
                          Thompson - direct
 1             MR. FUTTERMAN:  May I approach the witness?
 2             THE COURT:  You may.
 3   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
 4   Q.   I'd like to show you what's been marked Defendant's
 5   Exhibit 15, which I believe has been admitted into evidence as
 6   one of the stipulated exhibits.
 7             Sergeant Thompson, can you tell us what Defendant's
 8   Exhibit 15 is?
 9   A.   It is a copy of the in-basket that was administered by
10   the Chicago Police Department for the lieutenants in-basket
11   simulation.
12   Q.   Is that the in-basket portion of the test that you took
13   in 1994?
14   A.   I believe it is, sir, yes.
15   Q.   Generally, can you describe to the Court what the
16   in-basket test generally required you to do?
17   A.   There's a compilation of approximately maybe a hundred
18   sheets of paper, and you're required to familiarize yourself
19   with the information in the documents themselves, and then go
20   back and answer the questions, 60 questions in reference to
21   the documents that are provided in the stack of sheets here.
22   Q.   Those 60 questions, were they open-ended questions or
23   multiple choice questions?
24   A.   Multiple choice questions.
25   Q.   And were you given a specific amount of time in which you
 
                                                               163
                          Thompson - direct
 1   could answer those multiple choice questions?
 2   A.   Yes, we were.
 3   Q.   Do you remember how much time you were given?
 4   A.   I believe it was an hour and a half to answer the 60
 5   questions.
 6             THE COURT:  How long to read the papers?
 7             THE WITNESS:  It might have been two hours, an hour
 8   and a half or two.  I don't recall the exact time.
 9             THE COURT:  Can you direct me to this exhibit,
10   Counsel, where the timing is set forth?
11             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Sure.
12             THE COURT:  I'm looking at page 3, which is Bates
13   8429.  It says an hour and a half to complete the test.  I
14   don't know whether that includes reading the --
15             THE WITNESS:  No, sir.  It does not.
16             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Page 2, they're given two and a half
17   hours.
18             THE WITNESS:  To review.
19             MR. FLAXMAN:  He doesn't have the page.
20             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Your Honor, that's on page Bates
21   stamp 8452.
22             THE COURT:  Okay.
23             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Thank you.
24   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
25   Q.   Sergeant Thompson, in your experience, was this in-basket
 
                                                               164
                          Thompson - direct
 1   exercise representative of what Chicago police lieutenants
 2   actually do on the job?
 3   A.   No, sir, not at all.
 4   Q.   In your 20 plus years of experience on the job, have you
 5   ever known a Chicago police lieutenant to have to review and
 6   organize over a hundred pages of written materials, and then
 7   answer multiple choice questions in a time frame?
 8   A.   No, sir.
 9   Q.   In all of your experience as a police officer, have you
10   ever seen a Chicago police lieutenant obtain his or her work
11   through an in-basket?
12   A.   No, sir.
13   Q.   How do Chicago police lieutenants receive their work?
14   A.   Through the commanding officers book, which is a ledger
15   that has information from the DC, district commander of the
16   district, and that information is put in the book whenever it
17   comes in.  It's available to each watch commander, each
18   lieutenant.
19   Q.   What sort of information does the -- is it called a CO
20   book?
21   A.   CO book.  That's correct.
22   Q.   What information does the CO book contain?
23   A.   It contains information about staffing, it contains
24   information about details, it contains information about crime
25   situations in the district, reports that are due, data by
 
                                                               165
                          Thompson - direct
 1   director of patrol.  It's all in the CO book.
 2             THE COURT:  You're going very, very fast.
 3             THE WITNESS:  I'll slow down some more, then.
 4   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
 5   Q.   What specifically are Chicago police lieutenants required
 6   to do with the CO book?  What are their responsibilities
 7   regarding the CO book?
 8   A.   They're responsible to review it daily, they're
 9   responsible for knowing the information in the CO book,
10   they're responsible for making the information available to
11   the sergeants as well as the line officers.
12   Q.   Do they have to organize the materials that are in the CO
13   book?
14   A.   No, sir.  The materials are organized by the district
15   commander's office as well as the watch secretary.  A watch
16   secretary works in the desk area, and prior to roll call that
17   person would have come in and sorted out information in
18   regards to what has been put into the CO book.
19             The watch commander/lieutenant is given a list each
20   day of who is going to be working their beat cars, their beat
21   assignments, their foot patrol assignments.  That's done by
22   the watch secretary.
23   Q.   So the Chicago Police Department is a paramilitary
24   organization, is it not?
25   A.   That is correct.
 
                                                               166
                          Thompson - direct
 1   Q.   So what you're saying is those decisions and those
 2   organizational decisions are made first before the lieutenant
 3   gets a copy of the CO book; is that right?
 4   A.   That is correct.
 5   Q.   And the lieutenant's role in the chain of command is to
 6   be sure that what's in the CO book is enforced?
 7   A.   That is correct.
 8   Q.   Within his or her district?
 9   A.   Yes.
10             MR. PIELL:  Your Honor, objection.  We'll let the
11   last few questions go by, but we'll object to the leading
12   nature of these questions.
13             THE COURT:  Try not to lead.  Try not to lead,
14   Counsel.
15   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
16   Q.   How do field supervisors get their work, lieutenants,
17   when they're playing the role of field supervisor?
18   A.   From the watch commander and from the CO book also.
19   Q.   Are they given a hundred pages of written materials and
20   asked to organize them?
21   A.   No, sir.
22   Q.   Now, in addition to the fact that a lieutenant would not
23   do the type of work required by the in-basket test, can you
24   give the Court any other examples of how the in-basket test is
25   not representative of what Chicago police lieutenants actually
 
                                                               167
                          Thompson - direct
 1   do?
 2   A.   It includes information on scheduling, it includes
 3   information about who should work with whom.  It would include
 4   information about crossing guards, it includes information in
 5   regards to -- in regards to furloughs.
 6             Those are the basic ones that I can recall that are
 7   different than what the lieutenants in our department are
 8   required to have the responsibilities for doing.
 9   Q.   Let's talk first about scheduling.  Now, did the test
10   require you to arrange schedules, or time due slips, or
11   anything of that nature?
12   A.   Scheduling, yes, it did.  Several questions, especially
13   the last, maybe the last ten required scheduling information.
14   Q.   Now, do Chicago police lieutenants plan or create
15   schedules?
16   A.   No, sir.
17   Q.   Do lieutenants --
18   A.   The requirements --
19   Q.   I'm sorry.
20   A.   The requirements are done by the district commander in
21   regard to staffing requirements, how many sergeants are to be
22   working, how many people are supposed to be assigned to beats,
23   rapid response cars.  That comes from the area deputy chief
24   down to the district commander, and then to the various
25   watches as to staffing and manpower.
 
                                                               168
                          Thompson - direct
 1             The watch secretary has the responsibilities each
 2   day to come in and make sure that those assignments are
 3   fulfilled.  They're actually done the day before.  Today's
 4   schedule -- today is Wednesday, the schedule is prepared for
 5   tomorrow's date by the watch secretary.
 6   Q.   Thank you.
 7             At the district level is it then the watch secretary
 8   who has that primary responsibility?
 9   A.   Of filling out that form, yes, sir.
10   Q.   What if anything is the lieutenant's role with regard to
11   scheduling?
12   A.   The lieutenant doesn't have a role in regards to
13   scheduling.  The watch commander approves the assignments done
14   by the watch secretary, and then they're posted for review as
15   to the assignments by the various officers and supervisors.
16   Q.   You also mentioned something about a crossing guard plan
17   that was on the test.
18   A.   Yes.  The crossing guards are supervised by a crossing
19   guard liaison, who is often times a civilian, not a sworn
20   member whatsoever.
21             And by department policy of Chicago, the lieutenant
22   and all supervisors have the responsibilities of ensuring that
23   crossing guards are properly uniformed, that they're doing
24   their duty and they cover their post.
25             But as far as direct supervision, that is done by
 
                                                               169
                          Thompson - direct
 1   liaison for the crossing guards.  Anything else as to the
 2   crossing guards is dealt with between the district commander
 3   and the liaison or the coordinator for the crossing guards.
 4   Q.   So lieutenants do not have any role then in developing a
 5   crossing guard plan, do they?
 6   A.   No, sir.  They only do inspectional kinds of activities
 7   of crossing guards, of uniforms.
 8   Q.   As part of the test were you also required to review
 9   another lieutenant's notes?
10   A.   Yes.
11   Q.   Is that something that a Chicago police lieutenant would
12   ever do?
13   A.   No, sir.  That terminology of notes is very unfamiliar to
14   me.  We only use what's called to-from subject reports.
15   Throughout the in-basket exam itself, there was a reference to
16   reviewing someone's notes, reviewing somebody's notes, here
17   are my notes about that.
18   Q.   Slow down just a little bit.
19   A.   So there was no reference in our department of anyone
20   having notes.  We do actual reports, or we do actual forms.
21   We do not do notes.
22   Q.   In your 20 plus years of experience have you ever seen a
23   lieutenant's notes?
24   A.   No, sir.
25   Q.   I'd like to direct your attention back to the test
 
                                                               170
                          Thompson - direct
 1   itself, Defendant's Exhibit No. 15 that you have in front of
 2   you.  I'd like you to turn to question No. 24.
 3             THE COURT:  Give me a page number.
 4             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Which is on page 11.  Which is Bates
 5   number 8437, your Honor.
 6   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
 7   Q.   Sergeant, have you found question No. 24?
 8   A.   Yes, sir.
 9   Q.   And D is indicated to be the correct answer; is that
10   right?
11   A.   That is correct.
12   Q.   Can you explain the type of work that was required of you
13   -- that would be required of you to answer that question
14   correctly on the test?
15   A.   I would have had to have gone to locate Lieutenant
16   Joseph's notes, and the statement in regards to the CR
17   investigation of another sergeant.  And the notes, once again,
18   would have been an item or an article that is not used by the
19   Chicago Police Department.
20   Q.   I'd like you -- I'm sorry.
21             THE COURT:  Are those notes in here?
22             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Yes.  There are many notes.
23             THE COURT:  Well, the ones referred to in question
24   24.
25   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
 
                                                               171
                          Thompson - direct
 1   Q.   Sergeant, can you find an example in the written
 2   materials of the notes that you're speaking of?
 3   A.   I'd have to sort through the whole stack of pages here to
 4   locate the notes.
 5             MR. PIELL:  Counsel, you might want to look at 8466
 6   or 8475.
 7   BY THE WITNESS:
 8   A.   On page 8497 there are some notes, Roberta Joseph's.
 9   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
10   Q.   8497?
11   A.   That's one of them, yes.
12             THE COURT:  8497?
13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.
14   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
15   Q.   Would Chicago police lieutenants in practice have to do
16   the things required of you to answer question No. 24
17   correctly?
18   A.   No, sir.  I would not have to find someone's notes in
19   regards to this.
20   Q.   I'd like you now to review -- let me turn back.  Question
21   No. 27 -- I'll find the page in a moment -- which is 8438.
22   A.   27?
23   Q.   Yes.
24   A.   I have that.
25   Q.   Have you reviewed it?  What would you need to do to
 
                                                               172
                          Thompson - direct
 1   answer that question correctly?
 2   A.   I would have had to go through the notes, have sorted
 3   them out to determine which of the lieutenants would have had
 4   the assignment for the investigation or the CR number; would
 5   have had to establish that there was a relationship between
 6   Sergeant Carson or Lieutenant Epsy or Lieutenant Watkins;
 7   would have then also go and find in the notes the personnel
 8   assignment to find out which of the lieutenants Sergeant
 9   Carson was assigned to and being supervised by.
10   Q.   Is this something that a Chicago police lieutenant would
11   have to do in practice on the job?
12   A.   No, sir.
13   Q.   Why not?
14   A.   Because I would have had, as a lieutenant, the
15   information provided to me on the watch assignment forms, who
16   was assigned to whom.
17   Q.   And would you generally know the people on your watch?
18   A.   Yes, sir.
19   Q.   So you wouldn't have to look it up in the papers?
20   A.   Not through a stack of forms like this, no, sir.
21   Q.   I'd like you now to review question 28, which is on the
22   same page, 8438.
23   A.   Yes, sir.
24   Q.   What would you have to do to answer that question
25   correctly?
 
                                                               173
                          Thompson - direct
 1   A.   I would have had to go through the stacks again and then
 2   determine which of the sergeant's officer -- if there was
 3   going to be counseling of an officer, that would have been
 4   assigned to the one of three sergeants that's listed.  I would
 5   have to go and establish the fact from the personnel roster
 6   who was Officer Simmons assigned to, number one, and number
 7   two, that there was no relationship between the two that would
 8   compromise the counseling or investigation of this officer.
 9   Q.   Now, would a Chicago police lieutenant on the job have to
10   go through those sorts of papers to solve this problem?
11   A.   No, sir.
12   Q.   What would a Chicago police lieutenant have to do?
13   A.   Would have had that information available through the
14   watch assignment.
15   Q.   How about question No. 32, if you can take a look at
16   that, which is on page 8440.
17   A.   32?
18   Q.   Yes.
19   A.   And your question is?
20   Q.   My question, I'm sorry:  What would you need to do to
21   answer that question correctly?
22   A.   Well, the correct answer with this particular one is in
23   regards to the coverage at school crossings when crossing
24   guards are unavailable.  Again, there is a crossing guard
25   liaison or coordinator who would have that responsibility.
 
                                                               174
                          Thompson - direct
 1             He or she would get on the police radio, notify the
 2   dispatcher, I need a car to cover that particular crossing.
 3   The sergeant in that instance, if he or she passed that
 4   location, would ensure that the sergeant showed up at that
 5   location to cross the children.  But as far as the assignment
 6   and plan of personnel coverage, that would not have been done
 7   by a sergeant.
 8   Q.   Would that have been done by a lieutenant?
 9   A.   No, sir.
10   Q.   One more question, just as an example.
11             If you could turn to question No. 47, which is Bates
12   No. 8445.
13             After you review that question, can you please tell
14   the Court what you'd have to do to answer that question
15   correctly on the test.
16   A.   Once again, to locate Lieutenant Joseph's notes; would
17   have had to review all of the officers requested time to be
18   off for that day, look at the assignments for details from the
19   district commander's office in regards to this day, and decide
20   which day is better for Sergeant Woodward to be off in
21   December of '84.
22   Q.   Are these the sort of things Chicago police lieutenants
23   do on the job?
24   A.   No, sir.  When a request for time due is submitted, it's
25   submitted to the watch commander's office, put into a file,
 
                                                               175
                          Thompson - direct
 1   then on the day or two before the assignment is to be given,
 2   time to be given, the watch secretary again pulls the slips,
 3   look at the manpower coverage, and then see if that person can
 4   be off.
 5   Q.   So again, it's something that's a primary responsibility
 6   of somebody other than the lieutenant?
 7   A.   That is correct.
 8   Q.   What if anything would be the lieutenant's
 9   responsibilities with regard to that issue?
10   A.   In regards to this issue?  None whatsoever.
11   Q.   I'd like to talk to you a little bit about conditions
12   under which you took the in-basket exam.
13             First, where did you take the test?
14   A.   The test was taken by me at Daley College, in a classroom
15   setting.
16   Q.   And physically, where did you sit?  Did you sit -- did
17   you have a table, a desk?
18   A.   I sat at a student's desk, which is like a high school
19   desk.  And from there I was given the information package to
20   sort out and assimilate it relevant to the various questions
21   that were going to be asked.
22   Q.   Do you believe you had adequate space to organize the 100
23   plus pages of written materials?
24   A.   No, sir.  And in fact, the two classes that I took
25   earlier in regards to the in-basket, each time we took the
 
                                                               176
                          Thompson - direct
 1   simulation of the in-basket, a table was provided as though
 2   you were in an office with a desk setting.  You were able to
 3   sort through and label at that point across in front of you
 4   all the information.
 5             At the Daley College the desks were for high school
 6   students or college students.  I ended up using the floor, the
 7   space behind me, around me, wherever I could to lay these
 8   documents, and then try to retrieve them based on the various
 9   questions that were asked in the multiple choice.
10   Q.   In your experience on the job, including your own years
11   as a watch commander, do watch commanders have to review these
12   kind of written materials on the floor of their office?
13   A.   No, sir.
14   Q.   Where do they do their paperwork?
15   A.   The watch commander has an office with a desk, sir.
16   Q.   Do you believe that these space constraints affected your
17   performance on the test?
18   A.   Absolutely, sir.
19   Q.   Why?
20   A.   I've been on the job 20 years.  In 20 years I've never
21   had to work in these kind of space constraints in regards to
22   any of my assignments, whether it's for reviewing reports or
23   making assignments or anything follow-up.  I never had those
24   kind of constraints to work up under, or space.
25   Q.   Do you consider yourself an organized person?
 
                                                               177
                          Thompson - direct
 1   A.   Yes, sir.
 2   Q.   Were you able to organize those materials adequately on
 3   the day of the test within the time constraints?
 4   A.   No, sir.  My papers were on the floor, and unfortunately
 5   somebody walked by and kicked one of the folders, which caused
 6   them to spill out.  And that, of course, affected my time
 7   trying to reorganize that folder and put it back in sequence
 8   and answer the questions.
 9   Q.   You stated earlier that you were given an hour and a half
10   to answer the multiple choice questions or to do the actual
11   question part of the test.
12   A.   Yes, sir.
13   Q.   Do you feel that you had sufficient time to answer all
14   the questions correctly?
15   A.   No, sir.
16   Q.   Why not?  Did you run out of time?
17   A.   Yes, I did run out of the time, but the problem was the
18   physical constraints that I had in regards to in the work
19   time, once the folder got kicked over by someone going to the
20   washroom, it disorganized my sequence of trying to answer the
21   questions, trying to pick up the documents that came out of
22   the folder, trying to put them back in sequential order and
23   going from there.
24   Q.   Is it your experience that Chicago police lieutenants
25   operate under similarly rigid time constraints when doing
 
                                                               178
                          Thompson - direct
 1   their paperwork?
 2   A.   No, sir.
 3   Q.   And do you believe that these time constraints affected
 4   how well you did on the test?
 5   A.   Yes, sir, they did.
 6   Q.   In preparation for this trial, were you given a copy of
 7   the in-basket test with the answer key?
 8   A.   Yes, sir, I was.
 9   Q.   What did you do with them?
10   A.   I took it to my residence, took off the answer key, put
11   out a clock, timed myself, read the materials again, and then
12   commenced to take the exam.
13             But I took it at a desk in my home with adequate
14   space, adequate lighting, and no interruptions in regards to
15   me answering the questions.
16   Q.   So you didn't take the test on the floor, did you?
17   A.   No, sir.
18   Q.   Were you able to answer the questions correctly at your
19   home without the artificial time and space constraints?
20   A.   Yes, sir, I was.
21             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Your Honor, if I may approach
22   again.
23   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
24   Q.   Approximately how long did it take you to take the test
25   when you took it at home to get all the questions right?
 
                                                               179
                          Thompson - direct
 1   A.   An hour and 45 minutes.
 2             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Your Honor, if I may approach.
 3             THE COURT:  Did they give you the questions with the
 4   material originally, or did --
 5             THE WITNESS:  No, sir.
 6             THE COURT:  So they gave you the two and a half
 7   hours, and then they gave you the questions?
 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.
 9             THE COURT:  I see.
10   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
11   Q.   I'm now showing you what's marked Defendant's Exhibit
12   21.  This, I believe, is another one of the stipulated
13   exhibits that have been admitted into evidence.
14             Sergeant Thompson, can you tell the Court what the
15   title of that document is?
16   A.   Chicago police lieutenants examination final scores.
17   Q.   And I'd like to direct your attention to page 3 of the
18   document.
19             I'm sorry.  Before I do that, what information does
20   this document generally contain?
21   A.   It contains the name of what I assume are sergeants,
22   their addresses, their sex, their race, and their scores in
23   regards to the components of the exam, and their ranking.
24   Q.   Now, I'd like to direct your attention to page 3, to --
25   and to find the line with the name Guy DeSalvo on it,
 
                                                               180
                          Thompson - direct
 1   D-E-S-A-L-V-O.
 2   A.   Yes, sir.
 3             MR. PIELL:  Your Honor, we have a larger size of
 4   this.  May we hand you a copy of the blown-up size of this
 5   exhibit?
 6             THE COURT:  I have it.
 7             MR. PIELL:  You're laboring on a smaller size.
 8             THE COURT:  I can handle it.
 9             MR. PIELL:  Actually, I think you're on a different
10   exhibit than he's on.
11             THE COURT:  I'm looking at Exhibit 21.
12             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Entitled Chicago police lieutenants
13   examination final scores.  I think that's 22.
14             THE COURT:  22.  I see.  I see why you made that
15   offer now.
16             MR. FLAXMAN:  The parties are working on getting
17   even a more legible version of Exhibit 22.
18             THE COURT:  All right.  Well, this is helpful.
19   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
20   Q.   Sergeant, what does the document indicate regarding
21   Mr. DeSalvo's score on the written portion of the test?
22   A.   That his score was 121.
23   Q.   Is that the same as your score on the written portion of
24   the test?
25   A.   Yes, sir.
 
                                                               181
                          Thompson - direct
 1             THE COURT:  I'm looking for his name.  Page 3?
 2             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Line No. 127, page 3.  DeSalvo.
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.
 4   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
 5   Q.   I'm sorry.  He had the same score on the written part of
 6   the test as you did?
 7   A.   Yes, sir.
 8   Q.   Can you find what he scored on the oral portion of the
 9   test?  What does the document indicate?
10   A.   He scored 13.
11   Q.   Is that the same as your score on the oral portion of the
12   test?
13   A.   Yes, sir.
14   Q.   What did Mr. DeSalvo score on the in-basket portion of
15   the test?
16   A.   On the in-basket, 56.
17   Q.   Is this higher than your score on the in-basket?
18   A.   Yes, sir, it is.
19   Q.   What does the document indicate that was Mr. DeSalvo's
20   overall rank on the test?
21   A.   His overall rank is 102.
22   Q.   So according to his test results, Mr. DeSalvo is now a
23   Chicago police lieutenant?
24   A.   Yes, sir.
25   Q.   Sergeant Thompson, have you been promoted to the rank of
 
                                                               182
                           Thompson - cross
 1   lieutenant as a result of the 1994 lieutenants' promotional
 2   exam?
 3   A.   No, sir.
 4             MR. FUTTERMAN:  I don't have anything further.
 5                          CROSS EXAMINATION
 6   BY MR. PIELL:
 7   Q.   Good morning, Sergeant.
 8   A.   Good morning, Attorney Piell.
 9   Q.   It's Piell.
10             You testified earlier that you had served as a watch
11   commander in the youth division in Area 4; is that correct?
12   A.   That is correct.
13   Q.   And you served as a watch commander in the youth division
14   in Area 1, correct?
15   A.   That is correct.
16   Q.   You have not, however, served as a watch commander in the
17   patrol division; isn't that correct?
18   A.   That is correct.
19   Q.   Isn't it true that when sergeants are promoted to
20   lieutenant, the majority of those new promotees go to the
21   patrol division?
22   A.   Yes, sir.
23   Q.   When you were a watch commander in the youth division,
24   you were responsible for reviewing overtime authorizations;
25   isn't that correct?
 
                                                               183
                           Thompson - cross
 1   A.   That is correct.
 2   Q.   And when you were a watch commander in the youth
 3   division, you were responsible for manpower scheduling?
 4             MR. FLAXMAN:  Could I ask that Mr. Piell slow down
 5   so I could be sure that I hear the questions.
 6             THE COURT:  What about Mr. Futterman?  Who is
 7   handling this witness?
 8             MR. FLAXMAN:  I'm just trying to hear the
 9   questions.  I'm not making an objection, and Mr. Futterman
10   will make the objections, but I think I'm having trouble
11   following his questions.
12             THE COURT:  All right.  Slow down a little.
13   BY THE WITNESS:
14   A.   Would you repeat the question, please?
15   BY MR. PIELL:
16   Q.   I apologize if I ask you the same question again, but I
17   will try to not do that.
18             As a watch commander in the youth division, you were
19   responsible for manpower scheduling; isn't that correct?
20   A.   Not for manpower scheduling.  That's done by the unit
21   secretary, but I ensured that the coverage was made of all the
22   assignments that were required.  Not the scheduling itself as
23   to where they were to work.
24   Q.   Do you recall that I took your deposition last week?
25   A.   Yes.
 
                                                               184
                           Thompson - cross
 1   Q.   And you were under oath when you sat for that deposition?
 2   A.   That is correct.
 3   Q.   Do you recall at that deposition that I asked you the
 4   following question, you gave me the following answer.  Page
 5   20, Counsel, line 11:  "As watch commander in the youth
 6   division, are you responsible for working in the field and
 7   manpower situations when there is illnesses or leave
 8   situations?
 9             "Yes."  That's what your answer was.  Yes.
10             Next question:  "Is that one of the significant
11   parts of the watch commander's job, manpower situations"?
12             And your answer was:  "In youth division?"
13             And I then answered:  "Yes."
14             And you said:  "Yes."
15             MR. FUTTERMAN:  I'd object as not impeaching.
16   BY MR. PIELL:
17   Q.   Do you remember me asking those questions and you giving
18   those answers?
19             THE COURT:  Your objection is well noted.
20             I sustain the objection.  I don't see that as
21   impeaching.
22   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
23   Q.   When you were responsible for whatever responsibilities
24   you had for the manpower situation, you would agree it was
25   important to know the provisions and terms of the FOP contract
 
                                                               185
                           Thompson - cross
 1   in handling those responsibilities?
 2   A.   Yes.
 3   Q.   As a watch commander in the youth division, you
 4   investigated or directed investigations of cases involving on
 5   duty or off duty police officers; isn't that correct?
 6   A.   That is correct.
 7   Q.   And as a watch commander in the youth division, you
 8   investigated incidents where arrestees were hospitalized,
 9   correct?
10   A.   Yes.
11   Q.   And as a watch commander in the youth division, you were
12   responsible for ensuring that arrestee processing was done in
13   compliance with CPD directives and orders, correct?
14   A.   That is correct.
15   Q.   When you were ensuring that arrestee processing was done
16   in compliance with CPD directives and orders, it was important
17   to have knowledge of those CPD directives and orders,
18   correct?
19   A.   That is correct.
20   Q.   As a watch commander, you reviewed forms and reports that
21   were submitted to you by patrol officers, correct?
22   A.   No, sir.  By youth officers.
23   Q.   I'm sorry?
24   A.   Youth officers.
25   Q.   So you reviewed forms and reports that the youth officers
 
                                                               186
                           Thompson - cross
 1   submitted?
 2   A.   The follow-up investigators.
 3   Q.   As a watch commander, you reviewed injury on duty
 4   reports, correct?
 5   A.   That is correct.
 6   Q.   As a watch commander, you investigated complaints against
 7   the police officers in the youth division, correct?
 8   A.   Repeat that again, please.
 9   Q.   As a watch commander, you investigated complaints, any
10   complaints that were filed against police officers in the
11   youth division?
12   A.   That is correct.
13   Q.   And as a watch commander you investigated --
14   A.   May I say, if it was assigned to me.  If an investigation
15   was assigned to me, yes, I would do the investigation.  As a
16   watch commander in the youth division, I did not review other
17   sergeants' investigations.  That was done by the lieutenant.
18   Q.   Thank you.
19             As a watch commander, you investigated summary
20   punishment action requests; is that correct?
21   A.   Yes.
22   Q.   Is that term also referred to as SPAR, S-P-A-R?
23   A.   S-P-A-R, that is correct.
24   Q.   As a watch commander, you also reviewed case reports
25   prepared by youth officers, correct?
 
                                                               187
                           Thompson - cross
 1   A.   That is correct.
 2   Q.   So as a watch commander you came across a lot of
 3   different types of paperwork?
 4   A.   That is correct.  In the youth division, the sergeants
 5   have that kind of responsibility and that kind of role.
 6   Q.   As a watch commander you also reviewed time due slips,
 7   correct?
 8   A.   Yes, that is correct.
 9   Q.   And as a watch commander in the youth division, you
10   reviewed arrest reports prepared by youth officers, correct?
11   A.   That is correct.
12   Q.   And when you reviewed written arrest reports, you were
13   responsible for ensuring that the elements of the charge that
14   was identified in those reports were present in those cases,
15   correct?
16   A.   That is correct.
17   Q.   And to perform that task, you had to have the knowledge
18   regarding the elements of the charges that were involved in
19   those cases, correct?
20   A.   That is correct.  Or at least where to find the
21   information needed to validate it.
22   Q.   Thank you.
23             You testified earlier about the conditions under
24   which you sat for the in-basket component of the lieutenants'
25   exam.  Do you recall that testimony?
 
                                                               188
                           Thompson - cross
 1   A.   Yes.
 2   Q.   When you sat for the in-basket exercise, there were other
 3   candidates taking the exercise in the same room as you, isn't
 4   that correct?
 5   A.   That is correct.
 6   Q.   And isn't it also correct that all the other candidates
 7   who sat in that room with you sat at the same type of desk
 8   that you sat at?
 9   A.   That is correct.
10   Q.   So you all had the same space limitations?
11   A.   Yes, sir.
12   Q.   And with respect to those other individuals who sat in
13   the same room with you during the in-basket exercise, they all
14   had the same time constraints or time limitation that you had
15   when taking the in-basket exercise?
16   A.   Time constraints, yes.
17   Q.   When you were given the in-basket component, you actually
18   weren't given a basket, were you?
19   A.   No, sir.
20   Q.   You were just given a packet of papers?
21   A.   A packet of papers.  Which were different than the ones
22   given to lieutenants in the patrol division.
23   Q.   On your direct testimony -- strike that.
24             Just for clarification, in the patrol division, are
25   you aware of the fact that lieutenants often serve as watch
 
                                                               189
                           Thompson - cross
 1   commanders?
 2   A.   I'm aware of that, yes.
 3   Q.   So there are captains who serve as watch commanders and
 4   lieutenants who serve as watch commanders?
 5   A.   That is correct.
 6   Q.   And a lieutenant who serves as a watch commander on some
 7   days may also serve as a field lieutenant on other days of the
 8   week?
 9   A.   That is correct.
10   Q.   Now, you testified before that as a watch commander, a
11   lieutenant does not deal with the details of scheduling
12   personnel.  Do you recall that testimony?
13   A.   Say that again to me, please.
14   Q.   I believe you testified that when a lieutenant serves as
15   a watch commander, they're not responsible for scheduling on a
16   shift.
17   A.   They don't do the actual scheduling.
18   Q.   And I believe you said the watch secretary or the desk
19   sergeant does that scheduling?
20   A.   The watch commander secretary does the scheduling.
21   Q.   And who supervises the watch secretary?
22   A.   The watch secretary is supervised usually by the desk
23   sergeant.
24   Q.   And who supervises the desk sergeant?
25   A.   The watch commander.
 
                                                               190
                           Thompson - cross
 1   Q.   And the time slips and overtime authorizations prepared
 2   on the watch are reviewed by the watch commander, correct?
 3   A.   They are reviewed by the watch commander.
 4   Q.   And the watch commander is reviewing those documents to
 5   make sure that they are prepared correctly; is that correct?
 6   A.   That is correct.
 7   Q.   And the watch commander is responsible for making sure
 8   that those types of documents are prepared in compliance with
 9   CPD directives and the FOP contract, correct?
10   A.   Correct.
11   Q.   With respect to your testimony regarding the crossing
12   guard duties, do you recall talking about crossing guard
13   responsibilities on direct?
14   A.   That is correct.
15   Q.   The in-basket exercise didn't require you to develop a
16   crossing guard plan, did it?
17   A.   No, sir.  The question asked that --
18   Q.   I'm sorry.  There is no question pending.
19   A.   Oh.
20   Q.   I believe you stated on your direct that there are
21   situations where -- strike that.
22             In a situation where crossing guards are not present
23   at a corner or wherever a crossing guard is needed, there is
24   some responsibility for the police department to cover that
25   crossing area; isn't that correct?
 
                                                               191
                           Thompson - cross
 1   A.   That is correct.
 2   Q.   And so if a sergeant is put on that position, that means
 3   the sergeant is being moved from a different assignment; isn't
 4   that correct?
 5   A.   That is not correct, sir.  What happens, as I said
 6   earlier, is that the crossing guard liaison, who is a
 7   civilian, gets on the radio, notifies communication that I
 8   have a post at 111th Street and Michigan, a school crossing
 9   that needs coverage.  Okay.
10             The communication person on the radio, dispatcher,
11   then finds out a beat that's available, a beat car, not a
12   sergeant, and then assigns that beat car to cover the
13   crossing, say from 9:00 o'clock to 9:30.
14   Q.   So that beat car is assigned to a particular district
15   though, correct?
16   A.   Yes.
17   Q.   And so the watch commander for that district would have
18   some knowledge that a beat car has been assigned to a crossing
19   guard assignment?
20   A.   Probably not, sir.
21   Q.   You don't know that to be a fact, though, in all
22   situations; isn't that correct?
23   A.   No, sir.  I don't know that for a fact in all districts.
24   No, I don't know that.
25   Q.   You testified earlier that -- you testified earlier about
 
                                                               192
                           Thompson - cross
 1   a CO book, and that you received as a watch commander a lot of
 2   information through a CO book.  Do you recall that testimony?
 3   A.   Yes.
 4   Q.   You don't receive all the documents that you review as a
 5   watch commander through that CO book, though; isn't that
 6   correct?
 7   A.   That is correct.
 8   Q.   So you would receive things like arrest reports and case
 9   reports outside of that CO book; is that correct?
10   A.   That is correct.
11   Q.   And other documents like a CR investigation report or a
12   SPAR form would not come to you through the CO book, correct?
13   A.   That is correct.
14   Q.   And there are occasions when you're working as a watch
15   commander when you receive more than one type of report or
16   other written information at any given time; isn't that
17   correct?
18   A.   More than one report possibly.  What I have observed,
19   maybe two or three at one time.
20   Q.   Two or three different types of reports that you may
21   receive at the same time; is that what you're saying?
22   A.   Not at the same time, no, but they are available.  They
23   might need review.  You might have people at your door with an
24   arrest report to be reviewed.  You might have somebody with a
25   watch commander's log to be signed.  But it's never all --
 
                                                               193
                           Thompson - cross
 1   it's different entities that have to be addressed, but not all
 2   at one time.
 3   Q.   That has been your experience as a watch commander in the
 4   youth division, correct?
 5   A.   In the youth division and what I've observed in patrol.
 6   Q.   You testified earlier about some materials that were
 7   provided in the in-basket exercise that are labeled as
 8   lieutenant notes.  Do you recall that testimony?
 9   A.   Yes.
10   Q.   And I believe you testified that as a watch commander you
11   wouldn't receive lieutenant notes, but what you would receive
12   are documents that are called to-from subject reports; isn't
13   that correct?
14   A.   That is correct.
15   Q.   And there were some to-from subject reports included in
16   the materials provided in-basket simulation, correct?
17   A.   There were some.
18   Q.   And with respect to the lieutenant notes to which you
19   were referring, do you recall that those notes contained
20   factual information that was ostensibly provided by a
21   lieutenant in the exercise?
22   A.   Repeat that again, please.
23   Q.   I apologize.  Do you recall with respect to the
24   lieutenant notes that you saw in in-basket exercise, that
25   those notes contained factual information?
 
                                                               194
                           Thompson - cross
 1   A.   Not being familiar with notes, lieutenants' notes, I
 2   wasn't sure what to expect from them, sir.
 3   Q.   But what you did see was a document that was providing
 4   you with some factual information?
 5   A.   Information.  Factual I don't know, but information, it
 6   was just notes.
 7             THE COURT:  Please wait until he finishes the
 8   question before you start your answer.
 9   BY MR. PIELL:
10   Q.   You stated earlier in your testimony that you do certain
11   types of investigations when you serve as a watch commander,
12   correct?
13   A.   That is correct.
14   Q.   Have you ever taken over an investigation from some other
15   officer who is handling an investigation?
16   A.   As a watch commander?
17   Q.   Yes.
18   A.   No, sir.
19   Q.   Are you aware or -- strike that.
20             Is it possible in your 20 years of experience as a
21   Chicago police officer that there have been situations where
22   other officers have taken over investigations that were
23   started by other either sergeants or lieutenants or watch
24   commanders?
25   A.   Yes.
 
                                                               195
                           Thompson - cross
 1   Q.   When you're doing an investigation of, say, a weapons
 2   discharge incident, in the conduct of that investigation, do
 3   you do any oral interviews for information?
 4   A.   In what capacity?  As a sergeant, as a watch commander,
 5   as a lieutenant?
 6   Q.   As a watch commander.
 7   A.   As a watch commander, yes.
 8   Q.   So you actually would talk to an officer who was on the
 9   scene or involved to develop information?
10   A.   That is correct.
11   Q.   Correct?
12             If you'll recall, the in-basket exercise required
13   you to review arrest reports for accuracy and completeness;
14   isn't that correct?
15   A.   Yes.
16   Q.   The in-basket exercise required you to review documents
17   regarding a weapons discharge incident, correct?
18   A.   Yes.
19   Q.   And the in-basket exercise required you to review
20   documents regarding complaint register investigations,
21   correct?
22   A.   Yes.
23   Q.   And the in-basket exercise required you to review
24   documents regarding a summary punishment investigation?
25   A.   Yes.
 
                                                               196
                           Thompson - cross
 1   Q.   With respect to the individual items on the in-basket
 2   exercise that you went over on your direct, it's not your
 3   testimony that the material needed to answer those questions
 4   was not provided to you as part of the test, correct?
 5   A.   I'm sorry.  Repeat that.
 6   Q.   When you took the in-basket exercise, you had all the
 7   information provided to you that you needed to answer the
 8   questions correctly in the packet of materials that came with
 9   the testing booklet; isn't that correct?
10   A.   Not relevant to the Chicago Police Department.
11   Q.   In order to answer the questions that were included in
12   the in-basket exercise, the materials were provided to you
13   from which those answers could be derived; is that correct?
14   Or do you not know that?
15   A.   The answer, the material was there.
16   Q.   So it was provided in a packet?
17   A.   In a format that was unfamiliar with the Chicago Police
18   Department.
19   Q.   Thank you.
20             You testified earlier that you took this in-basket
21   exercise a second time, correct?
22   A.   Yes, sir.
23   Q.   And you took it a second time after your attorneys
24   provided you with a copy of the in-basket exercise?
25   A.   That is correct.
 
                                                               197
                           Thompson - cross
 1   Q.   And this is the same exact in-basket exercise that you
 2   took back in 1994 as part of the lieutenants' exam, correct?
 3   A.   Yes, sir.
 4   Q.   So you had seen all those materials before that were
 5   included in the packet; is that correct?  The materials in the
 6   packet that were provided to you by your attorney were the
 7   same materials that were provided to you by the City of
 8   Chicago when you took the lieutenants' exam in 1994, correct?
 9   A.   Yes, sir.
10   Q.   And the questions that you answered when you just took
11   the in-basket exercise recently were the same exact questions
12   that were asked to you before when you took the exam in 1994,
13   correct?
14   A.   That is correct.
15   Q.   So you had seen the materials and the questions before?
16   A.   That is correct.
17   Q.   Sergeant Thompson, you have no idea where you would end
18   up in a scale of scores if the in-basket component was
19   eliminated completely from the 1994 promotional exam, do you?
20             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Objection.
21             THE COURT:  Overruled.
22   BY MR. PIELL:
23   Q.   Do you have any idea where you would end up if that
24   component was completely eliminated?
25   A.   I would have been promoted.
 
                                                               198
                           Thompson - cross
 1   Q.   Do you have any direct knowledge or facts to show that
 2   you would be in the top 108 candidates who took that
 3   component, or took all three components that you would have
 4   been in that top 108 if the in-basket component was
 5   eliminated?
 6             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Again, this is beyond the scope of
 7   her knowledge.
 8             THE COURT:  She testified about her relative
 9   standing with the other sergeants, so I think it's a fair
10   question.  If she knows.
11             THE WITNESS:  Repeat the question, please.
12   BY MR. PIELL:
13   Q.   One more time.  You have no direct knowledge or any facts
14   to support your claim that if you eliminated the in-basket
15   component of the exam, you would have been promoted, you would
16   have been in the top 108 scores on this exam?
17   A.   Based on the final scores that I have been presented this
18   morning, the answer would be yes, I would have been promoted.
19             My score was 121 in the written.  So was Sergeant
20   DeSalvo.  My oral was 13 out of 15, the same as his.  Based on
21   information that was presented to me today, yes, I would have
22   been promoted, sir, if I did not have this in-basket of
23   material here.
24   Q.   And you testified before that Sergeant DeSalvo came in
25   102 on his final score; is that correct?
 
                                                               199
                     Thompson - cross - redirect
 1   A.   Yes, sir.
 2   Q.   And you have no knowledge or any facts that Sergeant
 3   DeSalvo would have been promoted or would have been in the top
 4   108 scores if the in-basket component had been totally
 5   eliminated from the test; isn't that correct?
 6   A.   I don't have statistical breakdown of what the company
 7   used, no, I don't have that available.  But based on who they
 8   have promoted, and based on the written scores, and based on
 9   the oral scores, I would have been promoted to the rank of
10   lieutenant, sir.
11             MR. PIELL:  That's all I have.  Thank you very much.
12             THE COURT:  Thank you.
13             MR. FUTTERMAN:  Just a few short questions.
14                        REDIRECT EXAMINATION
15   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
16   Q.   Sergeant, during all the time you spent as a watch
17   commander, did you have access to a copy of a set of general
18   and special orders?
19   A.   Yes, I do.  Yes, I did.
20   Q.   And did you also have access to a copy of the FOP
21   contract?
22   A.   Yes, sir.
23   Q.   Do you have access to the municipal ordinances?
24   A.   Yes, I have my copies of all those that I carry with me
25   in the squad car.
 
                                                               200
                         Thompson - redirect
 1   Q.   When you were watch commander?
 2   A.   Oh, yes, as a watch commander there is a set in the watch
 3   commander's office.
 4   Q.   Is that also true with the general orders and special
 5   orders?
 6   A.   Yes, sir.
 7   Q.   What about the Illinois criminal statutes?
 8   A.   Yes, sir.  It's available.
 9   Q.   In the watch commander's office?
10   A.   In the watch commander's office.
11   Q.   Are you able to look up any of these things?
12   A.   Yes, sir.
13             MR. FUTTERMAN:  I don't have anything else.
14             THE COURT:  Anything else?
15             MR. PIELL:  We're done.
16             THE COURT:  Thank you sergeant, very much.
17             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
18        (Witness excused.)
19             MR. FLAXMAN:  Before we proceed with our next
20   witness, there is an evidentiary question that perhaps you
21   could rule on.
22             In the pretrial order, the defendants have
23   identified a series of expert reports which the defendant
24   contends are admissible, the plaintiff contends they are not
25   admissible, they are hearsay, there is no hearsay exception.
 
                                                               201
 1             If your Honor rules against the plaintiff on that,
 2   then we'll be offering Dr. York's expert report, which he's
 3   here to testify about.  And I would ask your Honor to rule on
 4   that legal issue at this time.
 5             MR. HOLZHAUER:  Your Honor, I think that's premature
 6   at this point because Dr. York's report is not on the exhibit
 7   list, so I don't think Mr. Flaxman can offer to admit that
 8   report in any event.
 9             Secondly, the hearsay, one of the hearsay rules that
10   I relied upon in indicating that they are -- they can be
11   admissible is that that's a matter on which the witness
12   testified, and it goes to his credibility on that testimony.
13   That's part of the 801 rules.  I believe your Honor has to
14   hear the testimony before you can tell that.
15             In addition, I think under some circumstances,
16   depending upon the testimony, depending upon the nature of the
17   report and who it's produced for, it can be a record of
18   regularly conducted activity or a public record.  So I think
19   that's the strongest claim for Dr. Barrett's first exhibit,
20   which has already been admitted.
21             THE COURT:  His first report has been admitted?
22             MR. HOLZHAUER:  That's correct.
23             MR. FLAXMAN:  Yes.  The plaintiff moved his first
24   report.
25             THE COURT:  I'm having trouble locating the pretrial
 
                                                               202
 1   order here.  I suspect I must have taken it into chambers.
 2             I don't see how an expert report would get admitted
 3   over objection, except to the extent it was used for
 4   impeachment purposes.  I mean, I've never admitted an expert
 5   report as such without something like that, or unless there
 6   was an agreement.
 7             So if this is a motion in limine, I would be
 8   inclined to tell you that those reports are not coming in
 9   unless -- I'd have to be convinced beyond any prediction that
10   I will give you right now.
11             MR. HOLZHAUER:  Your Honor, I would refer you, I
12   think, to Rule 081 itself.  Statements which are not
13   hearsay --
14             THE COURT:  But they are hearsay.  I assume you're
15   admitting them for the truth of what's in the report,
16   correct?
17             MR. HOLZHAUER:  Your Honor, under the 801 (b)
18   definition the following things are not hearsay:  a prior
19   statement by the witness if the declarant testifies at trial
20   and it is consistent with declarant's testimony and is offered
21   to rebut an express or implied charge of the declarant of
22   recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.
23             THE COURT:  I think I just said that unless the
24   witness is being impeached somehow, they wouldn't be
25   admitted.  They are always admitted under that rule on
 
                                                               203
                            York - direct
 1   redirect, if that's where Mr. Flaxman goes with his cross.  I
 2   don't know whether that's where he'll go or not.
 3             MR. HOLZHAUER:  That's exactly my point, your
 4   Honor.  I think it's premature to rule on the admissibility of
 5   these things.  We're not sure that we're going to move to
 6   admit them.  We put them on our list because we may move to
 7   admit them if the circumstances warrant.
 8             THE COURT:  I think we understand the rules.
 9             MR. FLAXMAN:  I do now.
10             Dr. York is our next witness.
11        (Witness sworn.)
12             THE COURT:  Have a seat.
13      DR. KENNETH MICHAEL YORK, PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS, DULY SWORN
14                         DIRECT EXAMINATION
15   BY MR. FLAXMAN:
16   Q.   Could you state your name, please.
17   A.   Kenneth Michael York.
18   Q.   And what's your business or occupation?
19   A.   I'm an assistant professor of management in the School of
20   Business Administration at Oakland University in Rochester,
21   Michigan.
22   Q.   Let me show you what I think has been stipulated to as
23   Plaintiffs' Exhibit 135.  If we could just take a minute to be
24   sure --
25             MR. HOLZHAUER:  That's correct.
 
                                                               204
                            York - direct
 1   BY MR. FLAXMAN:
 2   Q.   Is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 135 a copy of your curriculum
 3   vitae?
 4   A.   That is correct.
 5   Q.   And does that set out your education and experience and
 6   publications?
 7   A.   Yes, it does.
 8   Q.   And briefly, what do you have a Ph.D. in?
 9   A.   My Ph.D. is in industrial organizational psychology.
10   Q.   And what does that mean?
11   A.   An industrial organizational psychologist studies the
12   behavior of people at work, which involves such things as
13   recruitment selection, management development, performance
14   appraisal, equal employment opportunity issues and so on.
15   Q.   Have you published articles in that field?
16   A.   Yes.
17   Q.   And do you teach in that field?
18   A.   Yes, I do.
19   Q.   Are you familiar with assessment centers?
20   A.   Yes.
21   Q.   How have you become familiar with assessment centers?
22   A.   Assessment centers are a commonly used tool for
23   management development as well as for selection.
24             I've published a couple of articles in that area,
25   and also created a number of exercises that I use in the class
 
                                                               205
                            York - direct
 1   to help my students understand what assessment centers are and
 2   how they're used as well.
 3   Q.   Are you familiar with something called an in-basket
 4   exercise?
 5   A.   Yes, the in-basket exercise is a frequently used exercise
 6   in an assessment center.
 7   Q.   Did you become familiar with an in-basket exercise in the
 8   course of your work as an IO psychologist?
 9   A.   Yes.
10   Q.   Now, you were retained as an expert in this case; is that
11   right?
12   A.   Yes.
13   Q.   And what were you asked to do?
14   A.   I was asked to look at the in-basket that was used in the
15   police lieutenants' exam to see if it was in fact a
16   traditional in-basket exercise that has been used in industry
17   for a number of years, or if it was not a traditional type of
18   test.
19   Q.   And I gave you a copy of the in-basket; is that right?
20   A.   Correct.
21   Q.   And did you look at it?
22   A.   Yes, I did.
23   Q.   And then what did you do to answer the question I had
24   posed to you?
25   A.   Well, I looked at all of the references that I could find
 
                                                               206
                            York - direct
 1   relating to in-basket and assessment centers more generally to
 2   see what people had used as in-baskets in the past in
 3   industry, and what had been written about in-baskets for their
 4   use both for developmental purposes and for selection
 5   purposes, and got a good idea of the way that in-baskets are
 6   traditionally done so I could form my opinion as to whether
 7   this was a traditional in-basket or not.
 8   Q.   When you say you reviewed materials, what did you
 9   review?
10   A.   Well, I reviewed three basic different sources.  First I
11   looked at what the textbooks had to say, the human resource
12   management textbooks.  Textbooks generally indicate what the
13   state of the field is, the current state of knowledge in a
14   particular area.  So I looked at human resource management
15   textbooks to see what they had to say about assessment centers
16   and about in-baskets in particular.
17             I also looked at practitioner articles.
18   Practitioner articles are articles that are written for people
19   who actually do human resources management.  They are written
20   to help them to implement various procedures in recruitment
21   and selection, development, et cetera.
22             And then I looked at empirical articles, research
23   articles that investigated the validity of in-baskets'
24   reliability, ratings, issues, et cetera, scientific research
25   done on the in-basket to establish its validity and proper
 
                                                               207
                            York - direct
 1   use.
 2   Q.   And do you remember how many of those items, those
 3   practitioner academic textbooks items you looked at?
 4   A.   Approximately 75 to 80 articles.  Somewhere in that
 5   area.
 6   Q.   And after you submitted an opinion in this case, you were
 7   -- you had your deposition taken; is that correct?
 8   A.   Yes.
 9   Q.   And after you had your deposition taken, did you get a
10   chance to review some criticisms of your conclusions prepared
11   by Dr. Barrett?
12   A.   Yes, I did.
13   Q.   After you received those criticisms, did you go look at
14   any more articles?
15   A.   Before the deposition I had looked at approximately 60
16   sources.  After the deposition I was up to about 77 or so.
17   Most of the additional references were inter-library loans
18   that didn't come in before the deposition, or were references
19   taken from the rebuttal.
20   Q.   After reviewing all of those materials, did you -- as you
21   sit here now, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the
22   in-basket exercise in the 1994 lieutenants test is what you
23   would describe as a traditional in-basket?
24   A.   This is not a traditional in-basket.  It differs
25   fundamentally from the traditional in-basket in a number of
 
                                                               208
                            York - direct
 1   significant ways.
 2             In the first case, the traditional in-basket
 3   presents the candidates with a collection of materials that
 4   they are supposed to take actions on.  There's memos, phone
 5   messages, documents of all kinds, a variety of materials that
 6   they take action on.
 7             The assessors then evaluate the actions that the
 8   candidates have taken with all of these items:  what items
 9   they have delegated to others; what items that they have
10   postponed; what meetings they have called, the agendas that
11   they have created for those meetings.  And they have to
12   generate those answers themselves and decide what actions to
13   take.
14             In the in-basket here in the Chicago police
15   in-basket, the candidates have all that material in front of
16   them, but after they have looked at all the material, they
17   take a multiple choice test.
18             In looking at all the articles that I looked at,
19   using a multiple choice test to score the in-basket is very
20   unusual.  A more traditional way to do it is to evaluate the
21   subjects on a variety of performance dimensions, or perhaps
22   use some kind of scoring key or some accounting rule to look
23   at how they acted on the items rather than to get a multiple
24   choice test.
25             The key difference is that in additional in-basket
 
                                                               209
                            York - direct
 1   the subjects have to generate their own answers as opposed to
 2   identifying or recognizing the correct answer in a list of
 3   alternatives in each multiple choice question.
 4   Q.   Is that different, are those two tests different, Doctor?
 5   A.   Yes, they are very different.  In the one case a person
 6   has to look at all the materials and figure out the right
 7   course of action from an infinite number of possible actions
 8   that they could take.
 9             In the multiple choice question, they have four or
10   five alternatives, and they have to choose which alternative
11   to take.
12   Q.   Now, in the course of your review of the literature about
13   in-baskets, did you form an opinion as to whether or not an
14   in-basket exercise is a valid measure of selecting employees?
15   A.   In-baskets have been used for many years to select
16   employees, and they traditionally have very good
17   reliabilities, very good validities, and low adverse impact.
18   So that's why they have been used for 30 or more years.
19   Q.   Now, if the Chicago test is not a traditional in-basket,
20   is there any reason to believe it would have the same validity
21   and reliability as a traditional in-basket?
22   A.   There is no way to know, because it's fundamentally
23   different.  In the one case, you have a multiple choice test,
24   in the other case you have subjects coming up with their own
25   answers as to how to act on each item.
 
                                                               210
                            York - direct
 1             It's so different a situation that you can't infer
 2   the validity from the prior research that's done on
 3   traditional in-basket designs.  The validity of the in-basket
 4   test in this case could be as good as a traditional in-basket,
 5   it could be better, it could be worse.  Until you do a
 6   validation study you just don't know.
 7   Q.   When you say "do a validation study," what do you mean?
 8   A.   What I mean is that you would take the test scores and
 9   see if they correlate with job performance.  Essentially what
10   you're doing is seeing if the test predicts later on-the-job
11   performance.
12   Q.   And if that hasn't been done, seeing if the test doesn't
13   predict later on-the-job performance, is there any way, of
14   which you're aware, that you can say whether or not the
15   in-basket as administered to the 1994 Chicago promotional
16   lieutenants test was valid?
17   A.   Well, there is a number of ways that you could establish
18   the validity of the test.
19             I'm sorry.  I should go slower.
20             There are three different ways that you could
21   establish the validity of the test:  criterion-related
22   validity, content validity, and construct validity.  In
23   criterion-related validity, you measure the correlation
24   between the test scores and job performance.
25             In construct validity, you measure some hypothetical
 
                                                               211
                            York - direct
 1   construct, like administrative skills or leadership, and you
 2   then see if the measure of that construct is a predictor of
 3   later job performance.
 4             In content validity, the test is a representative
 5   sample of the job, and that requires a judgment as to whether
 6   the test actually is a representative sample of the job.
 7   Q.   And -- okay.
 8             THE COURT:  What is construct again?
 9             THE WITNESS:  Construct validity is a test -- is a
10   measure of some hypothetical construct:  administrative
11   skills, leadership, delegation, some hypothetical idea that
12   you're trying to measure.  Once you have a measure of that,
13   you can then correlate that with a measure of job
14   performance.  The most commonly used one you might find is a
15   measure of cognitive skills, or intelligence, and if that is
16   found to be related to later job performance, then the test
17   would be valid.
18   BY MR. FLAXMAN:
19   Q.   Would administrative decision making be a construct?
20   A.   That sounds like a construct to me.
21   Q.   When you say "it sounds like a construct," what do you
22   mean?
23   A.   Well, a construct is a scientific idea.  It could involve
24   many different ideas.  Just hearing the term, I can't know
25   what you exactly mean by that, but it sounds like a
 
                                                               212
                            York - direct
 1   construct.  It sounds like a collection -- it sounds like an
 2   idea that explains a collection of possible behaviors.
 3             Administrative skills might involve things like
 4   ability to delegate, ability to prioritize, recognizing what's
 5   important and what's trivial and so on.  So it might involve a
 6   lot of different things.
 7   Q.   If you had a test which you said measured administrative
 8   decision-making, is that a content theory of development?
 9   A.   That sounds to me like it would be a construct that
10   you're trying to measure there.
11   Q.   Now, you talked about the judgment for a content valid
12   test.  For a construct valid test what do you need to say that
13   it's valid?
14             MR. HOLZHAUER:  Objection, your Honor.  Again, this
15   is the same objection I made the other day, but I think it's
16   even more so.  Mr. Flaxman might be nodding that way.
17             This is way beyond -- he didn't talk anything about
18   validation strategy in his expert report, didn't purport to be
19   an expert on validation strategies in any sense.
20             MR. FLAXMAN:  I was trying to explore the question,
21   your Honor, but it is beyond his report.  I will admit that.
22             THE COURT:  Well, I'll sustain the objection.
23   BY MR. FLAXMAN:
24   Q.   Now, after your deposition, when you had a chance to
25   review Dr. Barrett's criticisms of your report --
 
                                                               213
                            York - direct
 1   A.   Yes.
 2   Q.   -- do you remember Dr. Barrett criticized your reliance
 3   on assessing the work product of people who take an in-basket?
 4   A.   Yes.
 5   Q.   And is that assessment of the work product something that
 6   you saw when you reviewed articles about in-baskets?
 7   A.   Yes.  The traditional way that you evaluate candidate
 8   performance in the in-basket is that the assessors look at
 9   what the candidates have done in the in-basket.  They look at
10   the memos that they've written, the phone messages they plan
11   to leave, the meeting agendas that they create, the tasks they
12   delegate to others.
13   Q.   And is there any of that looking at the process by which
14   the answers were reached involved in answering these 60
15   multiple choice questions?
16   A.   Generally what they're looking at is what they have done,
17   what they've completed.  The end product.  They don't watch
18   them actually doing the in-basket, sorting the materials, they
19   want to see what actions they've taken.
20   Q.   Was that kind of assessment done on the test that you
21   looked at, the lieutenants' test?
22   A.   No.  In this case, the candidates could do whatever
23   sorting or collating, or whatever they wanted to do with the
24   materials, and then they took the multiple choice test, and
25   nothing that they did with the materials would affect their
 
                                                               214
                            York - direct
 1   multiple choice score.
 2   Q.   Now, another one of Dr. Barrett's criticisms of your
 3   conclusion was that assessing each candidate with assessors is
 4   too expensive, that you didn't consider that a thousand people
 5   were going to be assessed.
 6   A.   Yes.
 7   Q.   Did you revise your opinion based on that criticism?
 8   A.   I don't think so.  I think that when you make selection
 9   decisions, they're important decisions.  You want to get the
10   right people in the job.  There are consequences to making the
11   wrong selection decision.
12             My point of view is that human resource management
13   is an investment in your people that -- in the people that are
14   going to be doing the jobs.  So the cost that you invest in
15   good selection decisions is returned in the higher quality of
16   candidates that you end up hiring into those positions.
17   Q.   Do you recall that another one of Dr. Barrett's
18   criticisms was that his test was more objective than a
19   traditional in-basket?
20   A.   Yes.
21   Q.   And did that criticism cause you to change your opinion?
22   A.   I don't think so.  I think that in this case, an
23   objective test allows you to get a number.  I'm not sure it
24   allows you to get a very good understanding of people's work
25   habits, the way that they handle items, the way that they
 
                                                               215
                            York - direct
 1   understood the situation.
 2             One of the advantages of the in-basket and one of
 3   the reasons the in-basket was created in the first place is to
 4   get a more thorough understanding of the management skills of
 5   the candidates being evaluated.
 6             When the in-baskets were created in the 1940s and
 7   '50s, they were created to get away from paper and pencil
 8   tests, because they provided only a limited view of candidate
 9   behavior.
10             Putting people in the situation that they would find
11   themselves in in the job and seeing how they react, what
12   actions they would take would provide you with a more complete
13   picture of their management skills.
14   Q.   Dr. Barrett also criticized your opinions because he
15   contended that his in-basket was very reliable.  Did that
16   criticism cause you to change your opinion?
17   A.   Well, in-baskets traditionally have fairly good
18   reliabilities and validities.  A multiple choice test
19   obviously has very high validities.  The only problem is
20   whatever small degree of error might come with some
21   machine-scored test, which is very small.
22   Q.   You said high degree of validity on a multiple choice
23   test.
24   A.   I'm sorry.  High degrees of reliability on a multiple
25   choice test.
 
                                                               216
                            York - direct
 1   Q.   What's the difference between reliability and validity?
 2   A.   Reliability is the consistency of the measurement,
 3   repeated measurement of the same thing which will get you the
 4   same number.  In the case of a test, if you gave someone a
 5   test today and you gave them the same test a week from today,
 6   they should get the same number.  That's called test retest
 7   reliability.
 8             You can also measure the internal consistency of a
 9   test.  The key idea here is that the test, if it's measuring
10   the same thing repeatedly, should give the same answer.
11   Therefore reliability is the upper limit of validity.
12   Therefore the test can be no more valid than it is reliable.
13             So reliability is important.  It's the first step to
14   test validity.
15   Q.   But if you had a clock that was stopped at 2:00 o'clock,
16   would that be a reliable measure?
17   A.   Well, I guess that's a trivial example of reliability.
18   Obviously it's giving you the same answer all the time, but
19   not the correct answer.
20   Q.   Would that be a valid measure of the time?
21   A.   It would not be a valid measure.
22   Q.   Now, Dr. Barrett also criticized your opinions because he
23   argued that his in-basket was content valid.
24   A.   Yes.
25   Q.   And did his arguments about content validation cause you
 
                                                               217
                            York - direct
 1   to change your opinions about whether or not empirical
 2   evidence was needed to validate the particular test that we're
 3   talking about here, the 1994 lieutenants in-basket?
 4   A.   No, I don't think so in this case, because the job that
 5   we're talking about is a management job.  It's a complicated
 6   job, involves very many tasks that you have to do.
 7             If that's the case, then it's very difficult to do a
 8   content valid test for it.  The more difficult it is to
 9   measure the job performance of a particular job, the more
10   difficult it is to create a content valid test for it.
11             For example, if you have the job of data entry
12   clerk, creating a content valid test for that is relatively
13   simple.  You sit them in front of a terminal, give them some
14   data to enter typical of the kind of data they would normally
15   enter in that job, and see how well they do.
16             If it's a managerial job it's more difficult,
17   because managers do many different activities throughout the
18   day.  So it's more difficult to create a content-valid test.
19             MR. FLAXMAN:  I have no further questions.  Thank
20   you.
21                          CROSS EXAMINATION
22   BY MR. PIELL:
23   Q.   Good morning, Doctor.
24   A.   Good morning.
25   Q.   Greetings from a fellow Michigander.
 
                                                               218
                             York - cross
 1             Just some questions about your background, to
 2   start.
 3             You have never developed any in-basket exercises for
 4   employment selection purposes, have you?
 5   A.   No.
 6   Q.   And you have never developed a scoring key or any scoring
 7   mechanism for an in-basket selection exercise, have you?
 8   A.   No.
 9   Q.   You have never administered an in-basket exercise for
10   employment selection?
11   A.   No.
12   Q.   You have never actively participated in any way in an
13   in-basket exercise for selection purposes, correct?
14   A.   No.
15   Q.   No, that's not correct?
16   A.   That's correct.  I have not.
17   Q.   And you have not developed any selection procedures or
18   tasks for the purposes of employment; is that correct?
19   A.   That's correct.
20   Q.   And you never developed an in-basket or any other
21   assessment center for any police department or for any safety
22   position; is that correct?
23   A.   Correct.
24   Q.   Now, you're not here to offer any opinion regarding the
25   content of the specific questions asked on the Chicago Police
 
                                                               219
                             York - cross
 1   Department in-basket exercise; is that correct?
 2   A.   That's correct.
 3   Q.   And you have no opinion as to whether the in-basket
 4   component captured a sufficient portion of the job domain of a
 5   lieutenant job; is that correct?
 6   A.   That is correct.
 7   Q.   You're not offering an opinion as to the method of test
 8   validation performed by Dr. Barrett or Barrett and Associates,
 9   correct?
10   A.   Correct.
11             MR. FLAXMAN:  Objection.  That assumes there was a
12   method of test validation performed, which is a fact not in
13   evidence.
14             THE COURT:  Therefore the answer is no.
15             MR. PIELL:  Which I believe the answer was no.
16   BY MR. PIELL:
17   Q.   And you are not offering an opinion as to whether the
18   in-basket exercise utilized in the 1994 Chicago Police
19   Department lieutenant exam was valid or not, correct?
20   A.   Correct.
21   Q.   In fact, you have no opinion as to whether this in-basket
22   test is content valid, correct?
23   A.   Correct.
24   Q.   You are not familiar with the Chicago Police Department
25   in any particularities or detail; is that correct?
 
                                                               220
                             York - cross
 1   A.   Not in any detail, no.
 2   Q.   You have no familiarity or knowledge with any municipal
 3   police department in the country?
 4   A.   No.
 5   Q.   You have not done any specific work with any police
 6   department; is that correct?
 7   A.   That's correct.
 8   Q.   You have no detailed knowledge about the job of police
 9   lieutenant in the Chicago Police Department, correct?
10   A.   Correct.
11   Q.   And in preparing your expert report you didn't interview
12   or speak with any lieutenants in the Chicago Police
13   Department, correct?
14   A.   Correct.
15   Q.   You didn't interview any of the plaintiffs in this case,
16   correct?
17   A.   Correct.
18   Q.   You didn't speak with any police department personnel
19   from Chicago or any other city with respect to this case,
20   correct?
21   A.   Correct.
22   Q.   And at the time you issued your opinion in this matter,
23   you had not seen or reviewed the job analysis for the
24   lieutenant position prepared by Barrett and Associates,
25   correct?
 
                                                               221
                             York - cross
 1   A.   Correct.
 2   Q.   And you have not performed any job analysis on your own
 3   for any rank in the Chicago Police Department, correct?
 4   A.   Correct.
 5   Q.   And isn't it true that you do not know the performance
 6   dimensions that the in-basket for the Chicago Police
 7   Department lieutenants exam was trying to test?
 8   A.   Correct.
 9   Q.   And you don't know what knowledge, skills, and abilities
10   were sought to be captured by the in-basket exercise of the
11   Chicago Police Department exam, correct?
12   A.   Correct.
13             MR. PIELL:  One second, please.
14        (Brief pause.)
15   BY MR. PIELL:
16   Q.   Dr. York, you know who Dr. Gerald Barrett is, do you not?
17   A.   Yes.
18   Q.   And at a deposition you gave in this matter you conceded
19   that you were less of an expert than Dr. Barrett in test
20   validation because you lacked the practical real world
21   experience that he has?
22   A.   Yes.
23             MR. FLAXMAN:  Objection.
24             MR. PIELL:  That's all I have.  Thank you.
25             THE COURT:  Wait a minute, counsel.  There is an
 
                                                               222
                       York - cross - redirect
 1   objection.  You don't just walk away from an objection.
 2             Your objection is based on what?
 3             MR. FLAXMAN:  It's argumentative, and it is not
 4   relevant.
 5             THE COURT:  Overruled.
 6             MR. PIELL:  Thank you.  That's all I have.
 7                        REDIRECT EXAMINATION
 8   BY MR. FLAXMAN:
 9   Q.   All those things Mr. Piell asked you that you said you
10   didn't know, did you need to know about the job analysis
11   before forming your opinion that empirical evidence was
12   necessary before you could say that the Barrett in-basket had
13   the same validity as a traditional in-basket?
14   A.   No, I didn't need that.  I was just looking at the way
15   the test was administered and scored.
16   Q.   So you didn't need to know -- you didn't need to talk to
17   any of the plaintiffs?
18   A.   No.
19   Q.   You didn't need to know anything about the job of
20   policeman?
21   A.   No.
22   Q.   In fact, all you needed to do was to look at the test and
23   do your library research?
24   A.   Right.  I needed to look at the test and read as many
25   articles as I could find on the in-basket, and see which ones
 
                                                               223
                            Hardy - direct
 1   used a multiple choice for in-basket and which ones used a
 2   traditional design.
 3   Q.   Now, Mr. Piell asked you whether you thought Dr. Barrett
 4   is more experienced in test validation than you are.  Do you
 5   think Dr. Barrett is more experienced in doing library
 6   research than you are?
 7   A.   I don't know.  I've done quite a bit of it.
 8   Q.   Are you real good at library research?
 9   A.   For this project, I used every electronic resource that I
10   had available at Oakland University.  Karl and Kuber, ABIN
11   form, Lewis, everything I could use to find the information
12   that's out there in various libraries.
13             MR. FLAXMAN:  Thank you.  Nothing further.
14             THE COURT:  Anything else?
15             MR. PIELL:  One second, please.
16             We have nothing further, your Honor.
17             THE COURT:  Thank you.  You're excused, sir.
18        (Witness excused.)
19             THE COURT:  Do you have your next witness?
20             MR. FLAXMAN:  Yes.
21        (Witness sworn.)
22           JUDGE F. HARDY, PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS, DULY SWORN
23                         DIRECT EXAMINATION
24   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
25   Q.   Good morning, Sergeant.  Could you please introduce
 
                                                               224
                            Hardy - direct
 1   yourself to the Court and spell your last name for the court
 2   reporter.
 3   A.   My name is Sergeant Judge F. Hardy.  That's H-A-R-D-Y.
 4   Q.   Where do you work, Sergeant Hardy?
 5   A.   I'm currently assigned to the 4th District.
 6   Q.   I'm sorry?
 7   A.   I'm currently assigned to the 4th District.
 8   Q.   For the Chicago Police Department?
 9   A.   Yes.
10   Q.   When did you begin working for the Chicago Police
11   Department?
12   A.   My actual appointment day is 22 October of '73.
13   Q.   Where did you start working when you were first assigned
14   to the department?
15   A.   After leaving the police academy, I was assigned to the
16   3rd District.
17   Q.   What were your initial assignments?
18   A.   Patrol duties.
19   Q.   How long were you in the 3rd District doing patrol?
20   A.   Probably six to eight months.
21   Q.   Where did you go after you left the 3rd District?
22   A.   After leaving the 3rd District I was assigned to Chicago
23   Police Department's mass transit unit.
24   Q.   And still as a patrol officer?
25   A.   Yes.
 
                                                               225
                            Hardy - direct
 1   Q.   How long were you in mass transit?
 2   A.   About three or four years.
 3   Q.   And after mass transit, where did you go?
 4   A.   I went briefly to the 5th District.  I stayed about a
 5   month in the 5th District, maybe two months, and then I went
 6   to the 22nd District.
 7   Q.   On both occasions still on patrol?
 8   A.   Yes.
 9   Q.   When that's on patrol, that's out in the field; is that
10   correct?
11   A.   This is correct.
12   Q.   After doing those couple months there, what was your next
13   assignment?
14   A.   1978 November I was promoted to youth officer.
15   Q.   Where were you assigned as a youth officer?
16   A.   My original assignment was Area 2 youth.
17   Q.   Where is Area 2?
18   A.   At the time that I was originally assigned, Area 2 was at
19   91st and Cottage Grove.  It's later been moved to 727 West
20   111th.
21   Q.   I guess what I meant was --
22   A.   I'm sorry.
23   Q.   -- what geographical area does that cover?
24   A.   Far south side, far south and southeast side.
25   Q.   How long were you working as a youth officer in Area 2,
 
                                                               226
                            Hardy - direct
 1   approximately?
 2   A.   About two years.
 3   Q.   During that two-year period were you entirely out in the
 4   field?
 5   A.   Yes.
 6   Q.   Where did you go after leaving Area 2?
 7   A.   I went back to patrol for a short stint.  I was assigned
 8   to Mayor Washington's security detail for a period of time.
 9   Q.   What were your duties on that detail, on Mayor
10   Washington's detail?
11   A.   I did the house security in and around his house, and
12   occasional relief on the personal bodyguard detail.
13   Q.   After that patrol assignment and the detail assignment to
14   Mayor Washington, where did you go next?
15   A.   I was assigned back to the youth division.
16   Q.   Back in Area 2?
17   A.   Yes.
18   Q.   And how long did you spend there?
19   A.   I stayed a period -- when I -- when I came back to the
20   youth division, I went to Area 2, then 4, then 2, then 1.
21   Q.   Okay.  What were you doing during that time period in the
22   various areas?
23   A.   The basic youth officer's duties, processing juveniles.
24   Q.   And you were in the field again?
25   A.   Yes.
 
                                                               227
                            Hardy - direct
 1   Q.   After going back and forth between those areas as a youth
 2   officer, what did you do next?
 3   A.   In November of 1990 I was promoted to sergeant.
 4   Q.   Where were you first assigned as a sergeant in November
 5   '90?
 6   A.   3rd District.
 7   Q.   And what were your duties of your first assignment?
 8   A.   Field duties.  Field supervisory duties.
 9   Q.   Okay.  And how long were you working as a field
10   supervisor in that 3rd District?
11   A.   Three or four months.  I'm not -- about three or four
12   months.
13   Q.   Where did you go from then?
14   A.   I went to Chicago Police Department's public housing
15   unit.
16   Q.   What was your title in the public housing unit?
17   A.   I was the midnight watch commander and later became the
18   third watch watch commander.
19   Q.   And how long were you working as a watch commander in
20   public housing?
21   A.   About three years, two to three years.
22   Q.   After you left public housing as a watch commander, where
23   did you go next?
24   A.   4th District.
25   Q.   What was your assignment in the 4th District?
 
                                                               228
                            Hardy - direct
 1   A.   Field supervisor.
 2   Q.   I'm sorry.  Back when you were working as a watch
 3   commander, is that considered an inside or an outside job?
 4   A.   Inside.
 5   Q.   What does that mean -- what does an inside job mean?
 6   A.   Well, actually as a watch commander we were responsible
 7   for the roll call functions, the check off from the previous
 8   watches.
 9             We were also responsible to ensure that anything
10   that was assigned to the particular watch that I was the watch
11   commander of, as the orders came out or came through the CO
12   book, that they were implemented and carried out.
13   Q.   And then you said you went back into the field?
14   A.   Yes.
15   Q.   As a supervisor?
16   A.   In the 4th District, yes.
17   Q.   As field supervisor, what are your responsibilities?
18   A.   To supervise the day-to-day activities of patrol officers
19   assigned to the 4th District, responding to assignments.
20   Q.   About how long did you spend as a field supervisor in the
21   4th?
22   A.   I'm still currently assigned, from the time I left public
23   housing to this date I'm still assigned to the 4th District.
24   Q.   About how long has that been?
25   A.   About three years.
 
                                                               229
                            Hardy - direct
 1   Q.   And you said you spent about two to three years as a
 2   watch commander in public housing?
 3   A.   Yes.
 4   Q.   Have you -- do you have any particular management or
 5   supervisory training, either before or during the time you've
 6   been a Chicago police officer?
 7   A.   Yes, I attended the University of Illinois' supervisors
 8   managerial course provided by the police department.
 9   Q.   Did you complete the course?
10   A.   I sure did.
11   Q.   When did you complete that course?  Approximately what
12   year?
13   A.   About two years ago.
14   Q.   Based on your experience and observations on the job
15   since 1973, are you familiar with what Chicago police
16   lieutenants do?
17   A.   Yes, I am.
18   Q.   How are you so familiar?
19   A.   Well, as a watch commander, I perform the duties that
20   would normally be performed by a lieutenant.
21             As a field sergeant, I worked very closely with the
22   lieutenants assigned to the districts in the fields, and on
23   occasions I'm called upon to act as a field lieutenant when we
24   don't have a field lieutenant up and available or assigned at
25   night, or if we have more than the normal or more than the
 
                                                               230
                            Hardy - direct
 1   needed number of sergeants.  Say we have three sergeants --
 2   say we have four sergeants and we only need three, and there
 3   is no 90 or no lieutenant available --
 4   Q.   90 is lieutenant?
 5   A.   Yes.  Then I could be assigned as 90 for that tour of
 6   duty.
 7   Q.   And even as a field sergeant, who is your immediate
 8   supervisor?
 9   A.   The watch commander.
10   Q.   The lieutenant?
11   A.   Yes.
12   Q.   You took the lieutenants promotional exam in 1994?
13   A.   Yes.
14   Q.   You prepared for that exam?
15   A.   Yes.
16   Q.   How did you do so?
17   A.   Well, I studied probably six months or eight months
18   before the test, materials that we thought would be part of
19   the test.  I participated in three different study groups.  I
20   put in, I would say, two hours a day for over eight months.
21   Q.   Did you say you took any classes as well?
22   A.   Yes.  I took -- I paid for a class on how to do
23   in-baskets, and I belonged, like I said, to two studies groups
24   where we studied in-baskets, we studied oral briefings and
25   written examinations.
 
                                                               231
                            Hardy - direct
 1   Q.   When you said you were studying an average of two hours a
 2   day, is that every day?
 3   A.   Yes.
 4   Q.   And really, again, I'd like to direct you -- I would like
 5   to talk more about the in-basket portion of the exam.
 6             MR. FUTTERMAN:  May I approach, your Honor?
 7             THE COURT:  You may.
 8   BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
 9   Q.   I'm showing you what's marked Defendant's Exhibit 15
10   that's been admitted into evidence.  Can you tell the Judge
11   what that is?
12   A.   This is the Chicago Police Department's lieutenants'
13   in-basket simulation.
14   Q.   Is that the test that you took in 1994?
15   A.   Yes.
16   Q.   What did this test require you to do, in your opinion?
17   A.   It required me to do a lot of reading, and answer
18   multiple choice questions.
19   Q.   In your opinion, was the in-basket exercise
20   representative of what Chicago police lieutenants do on the
21   job?
22   A.   In my almost 25 years as a Chicago policeman, working
23   very closely with the watch commander, working as a watch
24   commander, working very closely with lieutenants, this is
25   nothing that I've ever seen a lieutenant do in my years as a
 
                                                               232
                            Hardy - direct
 1   policeman.
 2   Q.   Have you ever seen anything like an in-basket on the job
 3   in a watch commander's office or in a field lieutenant's car?
 4   A.   Never.
 5   Q.   Well, how do lieutenants get -- how do they get their
 6   work?  How do they get their work assignments?
 7   A.   Lieutenants are usually given their assignments through
 8   the CO book.  They're -- or given assignments directly from
 9   the watch commander, told that they're needed to do this, or
10   would they check on this.  But never through anything like
11   this.
12   Q.   Do Chicago police lieutenants, in your 25 years of
13   experience, have to organize and collate hundreds of pages of
14   materials to start their tour of duty?
15   A.   No, they don't.
16   Q.   What do they do when they get the CO book?  What are the
17   responsibilities of a lieutenant once they get the orders in
18   the CO book?
19   A.   The lieutenant will read through the book, he will make
20   the notifications, and he will probably make those people who
21   need to be alerted that there is something in the book that
22   concerns them that they need to be aware of, and probably sign
23   off as notifying those persons, and have those persons sign
24   the book as being notified.
25   Q.   Do they have to organize the materials in the book?
 
                                                               233
                            Hardy - direct
 1   A.   No.
 2   Q.   Now, you said that you never saw anything like this
 3   in-basket exercise on the job.  Can you give the Court some
 4   examples of what you mean by that?
 5   A.   Well, the way this was set up, I've never seen a
 6   situation where -- and I've been assigned, as I said, as a
 7   watch commander, I've been present when a watch commander has
 8   arrived for his tour of duty when he has sat down as his desk,
 9   and I've also had the opportunity to sit in the watch
10   commander's office when the watch commander has to leave out.
11             Our district commander has a policy that someone
12   will always be sitting in that seat with a white shirt.  So
13   I've had an opportunity on a number of occasions to sit in
14   that seat and see exactly what comes across that desk, and in
15   all my years, I've never seen anything like this at all.
16             I've never seen a lieutenant have to go through a
17   hundred pages of material, I've never seen a lieutenant have
18   to put any of this material or anything that he needs to read
19   on the floor of his office, get down on his knees, and try to
20   prepare or put in order anything to be presented.
21   Q.   I'd like you to look at a few particular questions on the
22   test again as examples.
23             THE COURT:  I think we're going to do this after
24   lunch.  Let's break for -- let's say 1:25.  1:25.
25        (Recess at 12:20 p.m.)
                                                            234
 1                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
 2                         EASTERN DIVISION
 3  ERNEST T. BROWN, et al.,           )
                                       )
 4                Plaintiffs,          )
                                       )  No. 95 C 1890
 5           v.                        )  Chicago, Illinois
                                       )  November 19, 1997
 6  CITY OF CHICAGO,                   )  1:30 p.m.
                                       )
 7                 Defendant.          )
 8                             VOLUME 2
 9                 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - TRIAL
10             BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. GETTLEMAN
11  APPEARANCES:
12  For the Plaintiffs:           KENNETH N. FLAXMAN, P.C.
                                  122 South Michigan Avenue
13                                Suite 1850
                                  Chicago, Illinois 60603-6107
14                                BY:  MR. KENNETH N. FLAXMAN
15                                          and
16                                FUTTERMAN & HOWARD, CHTD.
                                  122 South Michigan Avenue
17                                Suite 1850
                                  Chicago, Illinois 60603
18                                BY:  MR. CRAIG FUTTERMAN
19
    For the Defendant:            MAYER, BROWN & PLATT
20                                190 South LaSalle Street
                                  Chicago, Illinois 60603
21                                BY:  MR. JAMES HOLZHAUER
                                       MR. JEFFREY S. PIELL
22                                     MS. ANGELA K. DORN
                                       MR. ANDREW NICELY
23
    Official Court Reporter:      JENNIFER S. COSTALES, CSR, RMR
24                                219 South Dearborn Street
                                  Room 1744-A
25                                Chicago, Illinois 60604
                                  (312) 427-5351

                                                                     235
                            Hardy - direct
 1       (Proceedings heard in open court.)
 2              THE COURT:  Mr. Hardy, you're still under oath.
 3        JUDGE HARDY, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, PREVIOUSLY SWORN
 4                   DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
 5  BY MR. FUTTERMAN:
 6  Q.  All right, Sergeant Hardy, we were just about to look at
 7  Defendant's Exhibit 15 again, the test, the in-basket test.  I
 8  was going to have you look at question No. 29, which is Bates
 9  8439.
10  A.  Question 29?
11  Q.  Right.  Tell me when you've found it.
12  A.  So that we're on the same page, is this a complaint
13  registered investigation of Officer McKay?
14  Q.  Correct.
15  A.  Okay.
16  Q.  Take a look at question No. 29 and tell me what you need to
17  do to answer that question correctly on the test.
18  A.  I would need to go back and read all of the information
19  leading up to this question.  I would have to go back through
20  all of the material, pull that material and, I guess, sort that
21  material to make the determination as to who this would be
22  assigned to.
23  Q.  Is that the sort of thing that an actual Chicago police
24  lieutenant would have to do?
25  A.  No.

                                                                     236
                            Hardy - direct
 1  Q.  Why not?  What would a Chicago police lieutenant have to
 2  do?
 3  A.  If a CR number was to be assigned to an officer on your
 4  watch, you would know based on --
 5  Q.  Could you speak up a little bit?
 6  A.  I'm sorry.
 7            If a CR number was to be assigned to someone on your
 8  watch, there is a log that you go through.  And it's done in
 9  sequence, meaning that each supervisor is given a CR number,
10  and the next one up would get the next CR number.
11  Q.  Let's look at another question.  How about question No. 30,
12  same page, 8439?
13  A.  Again, I would have to read all of the material, go through
14  it to make the determination as to who should be assigned to
15  counsel Officer Towns.
16  Q.  Would a Chicago police lieutenant have to do that in the
17  real world?
18  A.  No, we wouldn't.
19  Q.  Why not?
20  A.  Because the supervisor and the sergeant who supervises
21  Officer Towns would be given that assignment, and I would know
22  who that supervisor is based on the schedule or the listing for
23  that day.
24  Q.  You wouldn't have to go through a hundred pages of material
25  to figure that out?

                                                                     237
                            Hardy - direct
 1  A.  No, I wouldn't.
 2  Q.  How about question 34, which is Bates 8440?  To answer that
 3  question, what would you have to do?
 4  A.  Again, I would have to read and go through all of the
 5  information that was provided for this question to make the
 6  determination as to who would be assigned.
 7  Q.  In the real world, how would the lieutenant make this
 8  determination?
 9  A.  Well, first of all, in the real world, if it was determined
10  that a crime in fact had been committed, he would have an
11  officer, he would have an officer assigned to make a case
12  report.
13            And once the case report is initiated, it would go
14  through channels.  Our criminal investigation or our detective
15  division would then be assigned to do the follow-up on this.
16  Q.  So when you say an officer would be assigned in the first
17  instance, are you speaking of a patrol or a beat officer?
18  A.  Yes, I am.
19  Q.  Then when it goes through channels, who would approve the
20  patrol or beat officer's report?
21  A.  The sergeant, his supervising sergeant.
22  Q.  Would the lieutenant ever review that case report?
23  A.  In all likelihood, no.
24  Q.  Why not?
25  A.  Unless there was some, some real significance that was

                                                                     238
                            Hardy - direct
 1  attached to this particular incident that he felt that he
 2  needed to be involved in, in all likelihood, he wouldn't, he
 3  wouldn't look at it.
 4  Q.  Is there a spot for the lieutenant to sign off on case
 5  reports?
 6  A.  No, there isn't.
 7  Q.  How about for sergeants?
 8  A.  Yes.
 9  Q.  How about another question, question 48 page 8445.  Are you
10  with me, Sergeant?
11  A.  Yes, I am.
12  Q.  Okay, same question:  What would you have to do to answer
13  it, first on the test?
14  A.  Again, I would have to go through the material.  I would
15  have to determine what day-off group the officers were in and
16  what day-off group was off on this particular day and make that
17  decision based on going through all the material.
18  Q.  Do Chicago police lieutenants do that kind of work?
19  A.  No, they don't.
20  Q.  Why not?
21  A.  Well, we have a desk officer whose primary responsibility
22  is to make sure that these kinds of things are filled.
23  Q.  Lieutenants don't do that?
24  A.  No, we don't.
25  Q.  What, if anything, would be a lieutenant's role after the

                                                                     239
                            Hardy - direct
 1  desk officer did it in the first instance?
 2  A.  The lieutenant's role is just to approve the report.  I
 3  mean, whatever the desk officer decided to do in this
 4  particular incident, the signature would be required of the
 5  watch commander.  A lieutenant wouldn't even get involved.  A
 6  field lieutenant wouldn't be involved in this at all.
 7  Q.  Let's look at one more question, question 49, same page,
 8  8445.  Take a chance and review that one.
 9            Same question:  What would you need to do to answer
10  that question correctly on the test?
11  A.  I would have to go through all of the papers, sort those
12  papers to determine the day-off groups, and I'd have to
13  determine based on seniority who had the least amount of
14  seniority in order to make this decision.
15  Q.  Do Chicago police lieutenants do this kind of work in real
16  life?
17  A.  Not really.  The field lieutenant, no.
18  Q.  How about the police lieutenants who are watch commanders?
19  A.  The watch commander would not do this.  But the watch
20  commander could get involved in this.  But this would not
21  normally be his function or his duty.
22  Q.  Whose duty is it?
23  A.  The desk clerk, or the desk officer, if you want to refer
24  to him as that.
25  Q.  So if at any time a watch commander would be involved, it

                                                                     240
                            Hardy - direct
 1  wouldn't be in doing the actual scheduling, would it?
 2  A.  No.
 3  Q.  It would only be in approving something that was already
 4  done?
 5  A.  Correct.
 6  Q.  I'd like to direct your attention to a couple of pages of
 7  the written materials and the tests.  I'm going to hand them up
 8  to you, first what's Bates stamped as 8462, same exhibit.
 9            Is what's Bates stamped 8462, the document in front
10  of you, is that the type of document you would see as a
11  lieutenant on the job?
12  A.  I've never seen anything like this.
13  Q.  What is it or what does it appear to be?
14  A.  It appears to be a work assignment.
15  Q.  How do -- is there anything like it that a police
16  lieutenant, Chicago police lieutenant might see or anything
17  that would cover that issue?
18  A.  In all my years, I've never seen anything like this.
19  Q.  Let me move to the next consecutive page on the test, 8463.
20  Take a look at that.
21            Is that something that a Chicago police lieutenant
22  would see on the job in that form?
23  A.  This looks like a personnel roster.  And a lieutenant might
24  see a personnel roster.
25  Q.  Do Chicago police departments have personnel rosters in

                                                                     241
                            Hardy - direct
 1  that form?
 2  A.  No.
 3  Q.  What do they use?
 4  A.  They use -- if we're talking about particular watches?
 5  Q.  Uh-huh.
 6  A.  Or are we talking about assigned to a district or the unit
 7  itself?
 8  Q.  Start with a particular watch.  Would that be an attendance
 9  and assignment sheet?
10  A.  No.
11  Q.  What would it be?
12  A.  Could you repeat the question?  I'm sorry.
13  Q.  I'm sorry.
14            You said that first a roster for a particular watch.
15  What form would that be on the Chicago police department?
16  A.  Well, it would be in the form of who is assigned to what
17  car.  And usually they have -- they'll have also the assigned
18  lunch times.  The beats and the assigned lunch times are
19  usually listed on the day-to-day rosters.
20  Q.  Do you know what those day-to-day rosters are called?
21  A.  We just call them the "sheets."  How do I appear on the
22  sheet for this particular day?
23  Q.  Did it look anything like what you see in front of you?
24  A.  No.
25  Q.  Now, you referred to another sort of roster.  It slips my

                                                                     242
                            Hardy - direct
 1  mind.  You said there was another kind of personnel roster?
 2  A.  The A&A sheets?
 3  Q.  Yes.
 4            Does that look anything like an A&A sheet?
 5  A.  Nothing.
 6  Q.  Does it look like anything that a lieutenant normally sees
 7  on the job in the Chicago Police Department?
 8  A.  Not in any of the years that I've been associated with the
 9  Chicago Police Department.
10  Q.  Okay.  Let's look at the next consecutive sheet of
11  materials, 8464.
12            The same question:  Is that the type of material that
13  you would see as a police lieutenant on the job in the Chicago
14  Police Department?
15  A.  Somewhat, it's somewhat similar to it.
16  Q.  What is it?
17  A.  This is the sector assignments for the second watch.  And
18  it lists the officers and the supervising sergeant for the two
19  sectors --
20  Q.  Is that --
21  A.  -- or the three sectors.
22  Q.  I'm sorry.
23            Is that in the same form that you would see something
24  like that on the Chicago Police Department?
25  A.  Not quite, no.

                                                                     243
                            Hardy - direct
 1  Q.  Let me give you another -- two pages later, 8466.  Is that
 2  something you would see as a Chicago police lieutenant?
 3  A.  No.
 4  Q.  What is it?
 5  A.  This is a weapons -- this is Lieutenant Robert Joseph's
 6  notes.  And it's in regards to a weapons discharge
 7  investigation.
 8  Q.  Would you see another lieutenant's notes with regard to a
 9  weapons discharge investigation?
10  A.  No, no, you would not.
11  Q.  Why not?
12  A.  Usually these investigations are kind of held by the
13  lieutenant and are not privy for anybody to take a look at.
14  Q.  Let me show you just one more sheet, the next consecutive
15  sheet just by way of example, 8467, and I'll move on.
16            Does that sheet -- is that sheet in the same form of
17  written material that you would see as a Chicago police
18  lieutenant?
19  A.  You might see this report.
20  Q.  And what is it?
21  A.  This is a to/from/subject from one of the officers that --
22  who witnessed the weapons discharge of Officer Essex.
23  Q.  In Chicago Police Department to/from reports written by
24  other officers, do the officers refer to themselves by "I" or
25  "me" as it is in that report?  Is that standard Chicago Police

                                                                     244
                            Hardy - direct
 1  Department lingo, so to speak?  Is that the form in which you
 2  would see things?
 3  A.  Not really, no.
 4  Q.  What would you see?
 5  A.  The reporting officer, meaning himself, when he refers to
 6  himself, he would go "reporting officer" or "RO."
 7  Q.  In summary -- let me have those materials.
 8            The majority of materials that you had to review to
 9  answer those questions, were they like the materials that a
10  lieutenant sees on a day-to-day basis?
11  A.  I would say no.
12  Q.  You mentioned a little bit earlier or near the beginning of
13  your testimony that you had to put the materials on the floor
14  to take the test?
15  A.  Yes.
16  Q.  Do watch commanders ever have to work on the floor?
17  A.  In my 27 years, I've never seen a watch commander on his
18  hands and knees working on the floor.
19  Q.  Do you believe that having to work on the floor with the
20  materials spread out over the floor raised any security
21  concerns about the test?
22  A.  A great number.  In the classroom that I was in, I observed
23  some things that I thought were a little unusual.
24  Q.  Can you explain?
25  A.  Well, I didn't realize at the time exactly what was going

                                                                     245
                            Hardy - direct
 1  on, because I was basically concentrating on what was going on
 2  in my area in terms of what was happening on my desk, in and
 3  around my area.
 4            But I observed, and I made mention of it, that there
 5  were three guys who seemed to be working in harmony together.
 6  I mean, they seemed to be doing something that all three seemed
 7  to be a part of.  And I witnessed one of them exchange papers
 8  with the other one, not paper but booklet, because we were
 9  setting things on the floor, I saw his booklet on the floor,
10  and I thought that he had accidentally kicked his booklet.  But
11  what actually happened was the guy in front of him picked up
12  his booklet, and he put his booklet on the floor, and so they
13  actually exchanged booklets.
14  Q.  Do you believe the conditions under which you took the test
15  allowed for opportunities to cheat?
16  A.  Very much so.
17  Q.  Now, you said you were allotted a particular amount of time
18  to complete the multiple-choice questions?
19  A.  That's correct.
20  Q.  Do you believe those time constraints affected how well you
21  did on the test?
22  A.  I think so.
23  Q.  Did you run out of time when you took the test?
24  A.  I sure did.
25  Q.  Now, the other day you had an opportunity to see what

                                                                     246
                            Hardy - direct
 1  questions you got wrong on the test, is that right?
 2  A.  Yes.
 3  Q.  Did you get a lot of the last 10 or 15 or so questions
 4  wrong?
 5  A.  I sure did.
 6  Q.  Why?
 7  A.  Basically guessed at them when they told us it was time to
 8  put the pencils down.  I basically guessed the last, you know,
 9  last 10 or 15 questions.
10  Q.  Now, you also from co-counsel have had an opportunity to
11  take in-basket tests home with you?
12  A.  Yes.
13  Q.  What did you do