115
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
2 EASTERN DIVISION
3
ERNEST T. BROWN, ) DOCKET NO. 95 C 1890
4 )
Plaintiff, )
5 )
vs. )
6 )
CITY OF CHICAGO, ) Chicago, Illinois
7 ) February 9, 1996
Defendant. ) 2:00 p.
8
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
9 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. GETTLEMAN
10 APPEARANCES:
11 For the Plaintiff: MR. KENNETH N. FLAXMAN
122 South Michigan Avenue
12 Suite 1850
Chicago, Illinois 60603
13
14 For the Defendant: MR. PATRICK J. ROCKS, JR.
MR. MICHAEL A. FORTI
15 MS. SHONA B. GLINK
30 North LaSalle Street
16 Chicago, Illinois 60602
17
18
19
20 WANDA L. BARNES
Official Court Reporter - U.S. District Court
21 219 S. Dearborn Street
Room 1918
22 Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 435-5568
23
* * * * * *
24
25
116
Hardy - direct
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 MR. FLAXMAN: I assume we are going to continue with
3 plaintiff's case or --
4 THE COURT: I think that's where we left off. So
5 call your next witness, Mr. Flaxman.
6 MR. FLAXMAN: Our next witness is Sergeant Judge
7 Hardy.
8 THE COURT: Would you please raise your right hand.
9 (Witness sworn.)
10 THE COURT: Please take a seat.
11 JUDGE F. HARDY, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, DULY SWORN
12 DIRECT EXAMINATION
13 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
14 Q Could you state your name and spell your last name for the
15 court reporter.
16 A Sergeant Judge F. Hardy, H-a-r-d-y.
17 Q Would you stay a little bit further back.
18 A Okay.
19 Q What's your business or occupation?
20 A Sergeant, Chicago Police Department.
21 Q How long have you been a sergeant?
22 A Since November 1, 1990.
23 Q And how long have you been a police officer?
24 A Since 22 October 1973.
25 Q Now, what kind of work do you do as a sergeant?
117
Hardy - direct
1 A Right now I'm a field sergeant assigned to the 4th
2 district.
3 Q Does that mean you're out in the community?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Do you -- in your work as a Chicago police officer and a
6 Chicago police sergeant, have you observed what lieutenants do?
7 A Yes, I have.
8 Q Have you ever had to act as a watch commander?
9 A For two years I worked in the Public Housing North as the
10 sergeant. I was the watch commander during that period of
11 time.
12 Q Now, from what you know about what a lieutenant does, is
13 the ability to understand what citizens say important for what
14 a lieutenant does?
15 A I would say very.
16 Q Is the ability to write clearly and concisely important
17 for what a lieutenant does?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Now, do you remember where you rank on the final -- did
20 you take -- strike that.
21 Did you take the most recent promotional test to be a
22 lieutenant?
23 A Yes, I did.
24 Q And did you study for that test?
25 A Yes, I did.
118
Hardy - direct
1 Q What did you do to study for the test?
2 A Well, I would say that I devoted about four hours a days
3 for almost a year studying for that exam.
4 Q And did you know the exam was coming before it was
5 announced?
6 A Well, there were rumors that the exam would soon be posted
7 or soon be announced.
8 Q And when you studied, what were you trying to study?
9 A I was trying to study material that I thought would be
10 relevant to being a lieutenant for the Chicago Police
11 Department.
12 Q And then when you took the test and got your results back,
13 did you learn where you placed on the final list?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And where is that?
16 A 400 and something?
17 Q Now, in front of you, you have some papers; is that right?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And could you tell the court what those papers are.
20 A These papers are part of the in-basket examination or part
21 of the lieutenant's promotional exam which was called the
22 in-basket portion.
23 MR. ROCKS: Your Honor, before this proceeds any
24 further, Mr. Flaxman and I have agreed that these after this
25 testimony and the other testimony today be filed under seal.
119
Hardy - direct
1 MR. FLAXMAN: Subject, of course, to Your Honor's
2 approval.
3 MR. ROCKS: Of course.
4 THE COURT: That's fine.
5 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
6 Q And is what you have before you, which we're going to put
7 into an envelope and call Plaintiff's Exhibit 41, is that the
8 same test that you took, a copy of the same test that you took?
9 A It appears to be.
10 Q Could you describe for us what those papers are.
11 A These papers appear to be simulated in-basket exercises.
12 Q And what do you have to do in that simulated in-basket
13 exercise to take the test?
14 A You're supposed to go through these papers, arrange them
15 and then make calls or decisions based on arrangement of these
16 papers.
17 Q And those decisions or calls were multiple choice
18 questions?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Now, you took that test; is that right?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And you're familiar with what lieutenants do; is that
23 right?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Is the kind of work that you did to take that test the
120
Hardy - direct
1 kind of work that a lieutenant in the Chicago Police Department
2 does?
3 A I would say no.
4 Q Why is that?
5 A Well, firstly, the first part of the test, we were
6 explained that if we need to, we can spread these papers out
7 and work on the floor.
8 Q Have you ever seen a Chicago police officer --
9 A In 24 years I have never seen a lieutenant on the floor
10 doing any of his paperwork.
11 Q Aside from putting the paperwork on a floor, what else is
12 different than what a lieutenant does?
13 A As I recall, I remember some of the things that they asked
14 you to do, such as scheduling and those kind of things that a
15 lieutenant doesn't do.
16 Q Who does scheduling?
17 A We have desk people who are assigned clerk duties and desk
18 officer jobs who ultimately do those sheets. The lieutenant
19 just okays them and makes recommendations.
20 Q Is there anything else about the in-basket exercise that's
21 not the kind of work that you've seen a Chicago police
22 lieutenant do?
23 A Basically none of the things that we went over in this
24 in-basket have I ever seen a lieutenant in a police department
25 do.
121
Hardy - cross
1 MR. FLAXMAN: Thank you. Nothing further.
2 CROSS EXAMINATION
3 BY MR. FORTI:
4 Q Sergeant Hardy, you testified that you studied several
5 hours a day for this test; is that right?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q For approximately what period of time?
8 A I'm sorry. What do you mean?
9 Q For how many days?
10 A I studied --
11 Q Was it days or weeks?
12 A I studied six or seven days a week.
13 Q Were you part of any study group?
14 A Yes, I was. I was a part of three different study groups.
15 Q This was a difficult test, was it not?
16 A I would say it was difficult.
17 Q It was one of the most difficult tests you've ever taken,
18 isn't it?
19 A No.
20 Q No? The fact that the test was difficult, could that
21 explain in part why you did poorly on the test?
22 A No. I think if you asked me why, I think that none of it
23 related to the jobs of a duty of a lieutenant, that I got
24 prepared to do or take a test that I thought would be job
25 related.
122
Hardy - cross
1 Q Now, am I correct that before taking the test you were
2 given a reading list as to what the subject matters were going
3 to be on the test? Is that right?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Now, did that reading list identify things that you
6 concede relate to the job of a lieutenant?
7 A Some of the material, yes.
8 Q But none of those materials were in the in-basket portion;
9 that's your testimony?
10 A I'm saying that the majority of the test or the most
11 consuming part of this test in my opinion did not relate to the
12 duties of that of a field lieutenant or a watch commander.
13 Q Now your testimony is not just the in-basket, but other
14 parts --
15 A No. I'm only testifying to the in-basket. That's what
16 you ked me.
17 Q All right. Let me make sure I understand your testimony.
18 As to the in-basket your testimony is that none of it relates
19 to the job of what a lieutenant actually does; is that right?
20 A I'm saying the majority of the test, of the in-basket that
21 I took, the most consuming part in my opinion did not relate or
22 was not what an actual field lieutenant or a watch commander
23 does.
24 Q All right. How does it compare to what -- do the special
25 orders identify what lieutenants are supposed to do?
123
Hardy - cross
1 A Some of them give guidelines, yes.
2 Q All right. Were --
3 A Or responsibilities. They give responsibility, yes.
4 Q Based on your most recent review of the in-basket, did
5 those special orders play a role?
6 MR. FLAXMAN: Object to the form of the question.
7 THE COURT: Overruled.
8 BY MR. FORTI:
9 Q Were the special orders part of the in-basket that you
10 recently reviewed?
11 A They gave us mock orders. They were not the orders that
12 were from the police department's list. These were orders that
13 they simulated.
14 Q Are those orders similar to the orders that are in place
15 that govern in part the conduct of lieutenants?
16 A Yes, but I think when you read it and you had to read the
17 entire order, that there were some very -- variations.
18 Q Could you give me an example?
19 A Not offhand. I mean if I had an opportunity to go through
20 this, I probably could.
21 Q Okay. You also mentioned that to the best of your
22 knowledge no lieutenant performed scheduling; is that right?
23 A That they don't do the worksheets, no, they don't. To my
24 knowledge they do not do the worksheets. We have a clerk or
25 desk officer who does the worksheets and the lieutenant simply
124
Hardy - cross
1 or merely gives him the time slips for the people who are going
2 to be off and then the clerk puts the sheets together for the
3 following day.
4 Q And what portion of the in-basket test if you can be
5 specific tells you to schedule?
6 A Am I to look through this and pick it out?
7 Q As I understand it, your counsel told you -- said that
8 there were sheets of paper in front of you. I assumed that you
9 had looked at them.
10 A Well, since we returned from lunch I haven't had an
11 opportunity to pick out which portion or which part of this
12 test was that portion of the exam.
13 Q All right. Now, Sergeant Hardy, at the conclusion of the
14 exam am I correct that you had an opportunity to lodge
15 objections over any portions of the test that you found
16 objectionable for any reason? Is that correct?
17 A I have no knowledge of it.
18 Q Did anyone tell you at the end or -- after the exam that
19 you could lodge objections to any portion of the test?
20 A No.
21 Q That's not true?
22 A Not to my knowledge.
23 Q Now, Sergeant Hardy, you don't have any degrees in
24 industrial psychology, do you?
25 MR. FLAXMAN: Objection. He hasn't been offered as
125
Hardy - redirect
1 an expert.
2 THE COURT: I'll let him answer.
3 BY THE WITNESS:
4 A No, I don't.
5 BY MR. FORTI:
6 Q And you haven't had any experience in test formations,
7 have you?
8 A No.
9 MR. FORTI: No further questions.
10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
12 Q Let me show you -- I only have one copy -- what I have now
13 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 42. Is this a copy of the
14 reading list that was issued for the lieutenant's test that you
15 took?
16 A Yes, it is.
17 Q And did you read all of that material to study for the
18 test?
19 A Yes, I did.
20 Q Now, one of those things is something called "Together We
21 Can, a Strategic Plan for Reinventing the Chicago Police
22 Department." That's on page F 7 and it has a number 4 next to
23 it.
24 Do you see that?
25 A Yes.
126
Hardy - redirect
1 Q Is that about the CAPS program?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And you studied about the CAPS program to prepare for the
4 test; is that right?
5 A Yes.
6 MR. FLAXMAN: Thank you.
7 Nothing further.
8 THE COURT: Sergeant, I just have one question. I'm
9 not sure what you did study besides what counsel just asked you
10 about to take the test. Can you tell me a little more about
11 that?
12 THE WITNESS: Well, they issued -- the police
13 department has a list of reading material and they told us that
14 this material would be used or questions would be taken from
15 this material that was issued for us to read. That's what the
16 basis of the test would be from.
17 THE COURT: All right. So you basically read what
18 was on the reading list?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 THE COURT: Everything?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 THE COURT: Okay. Did you do anything else?
23 THE WITNESS: Well, I looked at the last two
24 lieutenant exams that were given and I participated in three
25 other study groups that talked about how to take tests, the
127
Hardy - redirect
1 kinds of questions that they were probably asking in this exam.
2 We looked at also one other test that talked about or
3 that dealt with the kinds of tests that they were taking out in
4 terms of what they considered the most correct answer test,
5 which is the kind of test that they gave this time.
6 THE COURT: So you practiced taking multiple choice
7 tests?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 THE COURT: Did you do any oral practicing?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. And I also paid to take a
11 class on in-basket. One of the groups gave an in-basket
12 seminar that we paid, and I took that course.
13 THE COURT: So you knew what types of -- what the
14 components were of this test you were about to take?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 THE COURT: All right. Thanks.
17 Anything that you want to ask based on what I have
18 asked?
19 MR. FORTI: No, Your Honor.
20 MR. FLAXMAN: No, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Sergeant, you're excused. Thank
22 you.
23 MR. FLAXMAN: Our next witness is Sergeant Starks.
24 THE COURT: Please raise your right hand.
25 (Witness sworn.)
128
Starks - direct
1 THE COURT: Please have a seat.
2 Are you stipulating to the addition of all these
3 exhibits?
4 MR. FLAXMAN: Yes. I believe --
5 MR. ROCKS: Yes. We're going to work that out
6 hopefully at the end of the day.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 DANA V. STARKS, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, DULY SWORN
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
11 Q Could you state your name again.
12 A My name is Sergeant Dana, D-a-n-a, V middle initial,
13 Starks, S-t-a-r-k-s.
14 Q What's your business or occupation?
15 A I am a sergeant of police for the Chicago Police
16 Department.
17 Q How long have you been employed by the Chicago Police
18 Department?
19 A I started on the Chicago Police Department 1 November
20 1977.
21 Q And when did you become a sergeant?
22 A 1 December 1988.
23 Q And did you take the most recent lieutenant's promotional
24 test?
25 A Yes, I did.
129
Starks - direct
1 Q Did you study for that test?
2 A I studied very hard.
3 Q What did you do to study for the test?
4 A Well, just like Sergeant Hardy, I was in three study
5 groups. I took an in-basket class, and one of the study groups
6 I was in also had the practicing of the oral exam part of the
7 test.
8 Q Now, what kind of work do you do as a sergeant? Are you
9 inside or outside?
10 A Right now I am a field sergeant in the district 5 of
11 Chicago Police Department.
12 Q Is district 5 one of the busier districts?
13 A Extremely busy district.
14 Q Are there some districts that are more busy than others?
15 A Of course, there are some districts that have more crime
16 than others.
17 Q Are there particular parts of the city where those
18 districts are that have more crime than others?
19 A Repeat that. I'm sorry.
20 Q Are there particular parts of the city?
21 A Yes, there are particular parts of the city.
22 Q Are those the poorer parts of the city?
23 A Poorer in some respect, yes. But, you know, within those
24 communities there are communities, people that live there that
25 are pretty well off, too.
130
Starks - direct
1 Q Is it correct that this -- the percentage of minority --
2 or of African-American police officers is higher in those high
3 crime districts than it is in low crime districts?
4 A Yes, that's true.
5 Q Now, are you familiar -- in your work as a police sergeant
6 and police officer have you become familiar with the work that
7 lieutenants do?
8 A Yes, I have.
9 Q And is that from watching what lieutenants do?
10 A It's from watching what lieutenants do on a daily basis
11 while I'm working, and also knowing that I wanted to go to the
12 next rank. You know, one of the best ways to learn, too, is
13 also by observation. So you would also observe the duties that
14 lieutenants do because you would hope that one day you would be
15 performing those duties.
16 Q Why do you want to go to the next rank?
17 A Well, the reason I want to go to the next rank is first of
18 all like most people it's for my own self -- self-esteem. I
19 know I am a competent and capable sergeant. I know I'm an
20 excellent sergeant in fact. I know I service my community and
21 I service it well, and when I say that I mean the entire
22 community.
23 I think I have all the abilities that are needed to
24 become a lieutenant of police and also all the abilities to
25 become a superintendent of police.
131
Starks - direct
1 Q Now, you have before you the paperwork that made up the
2 oral component of the lieutenant's test.
3 A Yes, I do.
4 Q Now, I understand that there were three different packets
5 of material for the oral board; is that right?
6 A As I understand it, there were different scenarios that
7 were given.
8 Q Do you have in front of you the scenario that you had?
9 A Yes, I do. I have it.
10 Q Is there any way to identify that, like without disclosing
11 the name?
12 Can I see which one you is yours?
13 (Brief pause.)
14 MR. FLAXMAN: I think that we'll be placing that into
15 an envelope that we'll be referring to as Plaintiff's Exhibit
16 43.
17 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
18 Q Now, could you tell us what was involved -- and I'll give
19 it back to you -- in the oral component of the examination?
20 What did you have to do?
21 A As I recall, we were given about 18 pieces of paper. We
22 were -- we were asked to review these 18 pieces of paper,
23 basically give a brief synopsis of what we read, and then we
24 were supposed to envision ourselves as the watch commander
25 attending roll call and dissemination of this information.
132
Starks - direct
1 Q Now, the material you had to read was about things that
2 sort of relate -- that relate to what police do or what police
3 see; is that right?
4 A Well, you know, we deal with gangs and --
5 Q Was there material about gangs?
6 A The material I had was about gangs, yes.
7 Q And the exercise that you had to do, to read the material
8 and then give a speech -- is that a fair summary of what you
9 had to do?
10 A As far as what they were asking us to do?
11 Q Right.
12 A Yes, basically, yes.
13 Q Is that the kind of work that you have seen Chicago police
14 lieutenants do?
15 A No.
16 Q And how is it different than the work you see lieutenants
17 do?
18 A Because there are no times that a lieutenant is asked to
19 go before roll call. First prior to roll call reading 18
20 pieces of paper, give a brief synopsis, gather a brief idea of
21 what he wants to give or disseminate to the troops and then go
22 out and do that.
23 Basically the only thing that a watch commander does
24 at roll call is, No., 1, call the troops to stand at attention
25 where he inspects them, inspects that their uniforms is proper,
133
Starks - direct
1 the weapons are proper, and, 2, they may read from what we call
2 a commanding officer's book or in short CO book where
3 information in a teletype type nature, preprinted nature is
4 already there and that lieutenant or captain reads directly
5 from what's preprinted.
6 Q When you say preprinted, are you referring to directives
7 that come from police headquarters?
8 A Whether it's a general order, a special order, a
9 department notice, a teletype receiving a general order or
10 adding an addition to a general order, it's preprinted and it's
11 read by that lieutenant from that preprinted material.
12 Q Have you ever been seen a situation where a commander
13 gives a lieutenant a packet of information and asks the
14 lieutenant to summarize it in a speech at roll call?
15 A It's not done period.
16 MR. FLAXMAN: I have nothing further. Thank you.
17 CROSS EXAMINATION
18 BY MS. GLINK:
19 Q Sergeant Starks, you testified previously that you studied
20 very hard for the test.
21 A Yes, ma'am.
22 Q And I take it that you studied for a long time for that
23 test?
24 A Extremely long time, yes.
25 Q Do you also agree that the test was a difficult test?
134
Starks - direct
1 A To some degree, yes.
2 Q Could that explain why you got the results on the test
3 that you did receive?
4 A No way could it explain that.
5 Q In your opinion what was wrong with the test?
6 A Are we talking about the entire test or are we just
7 talking about what I'm talking about now, the oral part of the
8 exam.
9 Q The entire test.
10 A Well, in my opinion -- first of all, let me again just
11 deal with the oral part of the exam. The oral part of the exam
12 again did not encompass any duties that a field lieutenant or
13 watch commander would perform.
14 To give an example, the last exam, the last exam had
15 a -- had a written essay portion of the exam which tested
16 knowledge about the exam, okay, which you had to write out --
17 it gave you a scenario, said write it out, write out what you
18 would do, and it related directly to duties that a field
19 sergeant or a field lieutenant does.
20 Q Let me stop you there, Sergeant. Would it be fair to say
21 overall you felt that the test did not -- wasn't job related?
22 A No, I don't think the test was job related.
23 Q And did you ever make any formal complaint to the police
24 department complaining about the fact that the lieutenant's
25 test wasn't job related?
135
Kimber - direct
1 A No, ma'am, I did not.
2 Q Do you have a degree in industrial psychology, Sergeant
3 Starks?
4 A No, ma'am, I do not.
5 Q Have you had any experience in developing tests?
6 A No, ma'am, I have not.
7 Q Mr. Starks -- Sergeant Starks, are you a plaintiff in this
8 case?
9 A Am I a plaintiff? No, ma'am I am not.
10 MS. GLINK: Thank you. I have nothing further.
11 MR. FLAXMAN: No redirect. Thank you.
12 THE COURT: You're excused. Thank you very much.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
14 (Witness excused.)
15 MR. FLAXMAN: Next witness is Sergeant Vance Kimber.
16 THE COURT: Please raise your right hand.
17 (Witness sworn.)
18 THE COURT: Have a seat.
19 VANCE T. KIMBER, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, DULY SWORN
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
22 Q Would you state your name, please, and spell your last
23 name.
24 A Vance T. Kimber, K-i-m-b-e-r.
25 Q And what's your business or occupation?
136
Kimber - direct
1 A I am a sergeant of police.
2 Q How long have you been a police officer?
3 A I have been a police officer since February 19, 1973.
4 Q For how long have you been a sergeant?
5 A I have been a sergeant since July 1st, I think it is,
6 1995, or June 1st, 1985.
7 Q And what's your present assignment?
8 A I'm assigned to management and labor affairs section of
9 the Chicago Police Department.
10 Q Is that what's called an inside job?
11 A Yes, it would be.
12 Q Before getting this inside job did you have an outside
13 job?
14 A Yes, I did.
15 Q What did you do on the outside?
16 A I worked the 12th district as a sergeant. I worked the
17 11th district, Harrison and Kedzie as a sergeant. I worked
18 communications as a sergeant. I worked the 3rd district as a
19 sergeant.
20 Q Are those what's known as busy districts?
21 A The 3rd district and the 11th district were busy
22 districts.
23 Q What makes a district a busy district?
24 A Well, to give you an example, just for the judge so he can
25 understand, busy districts receive more calls and more crimes
137
Kimber - direct
1 than nonbusy districts. An example is that a district on the
2 north side may receive 2 to 300 calls for service during a
3 24-hour period; whereas, a busy district on the south side,
4 example Robert Taylor, I spent ten years in Robert Taylor,
5 Robert Taylor would receive a thousand calls a day as opposed
6 to 2 to 300, and then the crime index would be higher in those
7 districts.
8 Q Do the police follow different practices in busier
9 districts than they do in less busy districts?
10 A Yes, they do.
11 Q And why is that?
12 A Because of the busy district being busy you tend to cut
13 corners and do things a little bit different. I think the
14 superintendent said earlier this morning that you have formal
15 and informal organizations inside, and that takes place also in
16 busy and nonbusy districts.
17 Q Now, are those busier districts predominantly
18 African-American and Hispanic?
19 A Yes. When you look at the crime index for the city, the
20 busy districts, 2, 10, 7, 11, are predominantly black and
21 Hispanic and socially and economically are usually on the
22 lower end of the scale in those districts.
23 Q Are the police officers who are assigned to those
24 districts predominantly black and Hispanic?
25 A Usually the higher percentages of police officers assigned
138
Kimber - direct
1 to those police districts are black and Hispanic also.
2 Q Now, did you take the most recent lieutenant's test?
3 A Yes, I did.
4 Q Did you study for it?
5 A Yes, I did.
6 Q Did you study just as hard as Sergeant Hardy and Sergeant
7 Starks?
8 A I thought I studied harder.
9 Q And how well did you do on that test?
10 A I didn't do well.
11 Q Do you know what your number is?
12 A I believe it was 474.
13 Q Now, you have in front of you, do you not, the written
14 multiple job knowledge test?
15 A Yes, I do.
16 Q And we're going to put that into an envelope later and
17 call it Plaintiff's Exhibit 44.
18 And is that test that's in front of you the same test
19 that you took?
20 A It appears to be.
21 Q Now, when's the first time after you took the test that
22 you had a chance to look -- to review those questions?
23 A Today.
24 Q About --
25 A About 15 minutes ago.
139
Kimber - direct
1 Q Okay. And when you looked at those questions, are there
2 any questions in there that you're able to find or identify in
3 the 15 minutes where the practice is different in a busier
4 district than a less busy district?
5 A Just -- yes, it was.
6 Q Were you able to find -- were you able to find one?
7 A Yes, I was.
8 Q And how many questions did you look through? Did you stop
9 when you found that one?
10 A When I found one, I stopped. I did.
11 Q And what question number is that?
12 A I started toward the middle and I went to -- I got to 80.
13 That's on page 35.
14 Q Okay. Now, I don't know if the City cares if we disclose
15 question 80 or if that's inappropriate or what we're going to
16 do about that.
17 MR. ROCKS: If it's a few questions, we don't oppose
18 it.
19 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
20 Q What does question 80 ask about?
21 A It talks about a non-traffic summons issued for public
22 indecency.
23 Q And is there a particular general order which -- or
24 special order which relates to that question?
25 A There is an order that covers -- we have an order that
140
Kimber - direct
1 covers almost everything. So there is an order that covers
2 public indecency.
3 Q And there's a way to deal with public indecency that's by
4 the book in accordance with that order; is that right?
5 A Yes, it would be.
6 Q And what is that way?
7 A They give you several multiple choice answers here, but
8 the difference between what would take place and the question
9 and what takes place in a busy district is that it's -- and the
10 answer is not in the book. What takes place in a busy district
11 is that the person is told that they don't have time to print
12 them.
13 The question refers to --
14 Q You could read the question.
15 A Oh, okay. The question says judicial non-traffic summons
16 was issued to Mark Hill for public indecency. Mark Hill
17 appeared in court and after hearing --
18 Q You can stay a little bit further back.
19 A And after hearing facts sufficient for a finding of guilty
20 the court has ordered that Mark Hill report to a detention
21 facility to be fingerprinted and photographed. Desk sergeant
22 Cooper ensures that the prints and photographs are taken of
23 Mark Hill and asked watch operations lieutenant Jones for
24 further instructions. Watch operations lieutenant Jones should
25 instruct the desk sergeant Cooper what to do. And then it
141
Kimber - direct
1 gives five different explanations.
2 Well, in a busy district -- and as I've said, I've
3 worked in a busy district. In the 2nd district I spent 10
4 years. When someone would come in and say they needed to be
5 fingerprinted and photographed for this, we would tell them
6 that we did not have time, and in fact over a period of time it
7 would just be we don't fingerprint you here. You go downtown
8 to get fingerprinted.
9 Q Have you had -- that would be handled differently for
10 somebody in a busy district than in a nonbusy district?
11 A In a nonbusy district, correct.
12 Q You don't know if you looked at the whole -- the rest of
13 the test you would find any other questions like that, do you?
14 A I would have to spend time to look at the entire booklet.
15 Q In addition to looking at the lieutenant's written
16 multiple choice test today before court did you ever have a
17 chance to look at the multiple choice test given in the
18 sergeant's -- for the sergeant's promotional test?
19 A Yes, I did.
20 Q Was that the same kind of written multiple choice test
21 about rules and regulations and things like that?
22 A Yes, it was.
23 Q And did you have a little more time to look at those
24 questions?
25 A Yes, I did.
142
Kimber - direct
1 Q Were you able to find any questions at all in the time you
2 had to look at the test that were questions that would be
3 answered differently in a busy district than a nonbusy
4 district?
5 A Yes, I did.
6 MR. FORTI: Objection, Your Honor, as to the
7 relevancy of the sergeant's exam, which is not at issue, and
8 there is a big leap I believe Mr. Flaxman is making between
9 test questions that were reviewed by the sergeant -- the
10 sergeant's exam and leaping and making that same assumption as
11 to the lieutenant's exam.
12 THE COURT: I don't think he's making any assumptions
13 at this point. I'll overrule the objection.
14 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
15 Q Did you find more than one question that would be answered
16 where the practice would be different in a busy district than
17 in a nonbusy district?
18 A Yes, I did.
19 Q Do you remember how many questions you actually had a
20 chance to look at, how many you found that were different in
21 busy versus nonbusy?
22 A Several. After I found several I stopped.
23 Q Now, in addition to being a police sergeant, are you
24 involved in any police organizations?
25 A Yes, I am.
143
Kimber - direct
1 Q And what police organizations are you involved in?
2 A I am the president of the Guardians Police Association,
3 which is an African-American male female police organization
4 that's been around for about 28 years.
5 Q And is that limited just to people who are presently
6 Chicago police officers?
7 A No. It's sworn and -- sworn police officers, retired and
8 active.
9 Q So -- and are you -- do you know everybody who is a member
10 of the Guardians?
11 A Yes, I do.
12 Q Are you -- in the course of knowing everybody who is a
13 member of the Guardians, have you become familiar with how long
14 black police officers work on the job before retiring?
15 A Yes, I do.
16 Q Is there some magic number of years before you retire?
17 A To get your full pension you have to go 32 years of the
18 service. To get the maximum, I should say, is 32 years of
19 service. 20 years of service, 50 years of age gets you the
20 pension. 32 years of service gets you your full entire maximum
21 pension of 75 percent.
22 Q In your experience do black police officers stay on the
23 job after those 32 years of service?
24 A No, they usually do not.
25 Q Now --
144
Kimber - direct
1 A On an average I should say. Some do, some don't, but on
2 average, no, they do not.
3 Q Let me show you what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit
4 45, and I'll tell you that the parties will agree after they
5 have had more of a chance to check it that this accurately
6 summarizes a computer disk produced by the city which
7 identifies field lieutenants -- lieutenants working in the
8 grade of lieutenant who are African-American or Hispanic as of
9 sometime in the last week.
10 MR. ROCKS: Your Honor, we would like to check it
11 against the data set and we can do that when we submit post
12 findings of fact.
13 THE COURT: Very well. Why don't I accept it
14 conditionally then.
15 MR. FLAXMAN: Okay.
16 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
17 Q How many of the -- well, who on that list do you believe
18 is going to retire in the next two years or has already
19 indicated that they will or are in the process of retiring?
20 A Officer -- Lieutenant Bearden just retired or will retire.
21 -- will officially retire I think this month. Lieutenant Digby
22 and Lieutenant Lemon, Robert Lemon. And the last lieutenant on
23 the list, Lieutenant White has 35 years of service, so he
24 technically is over the 32, so he can retire at any time and
25 has mentioned that he probably will too also.
145
Kimber - direct
1 So four. Definitely three, possibility of four.
2 Q Is there any others that you expect to retire?
3 A Torres, yes Torres, Donald Torres on the list, also has 35
4 years of service, as well as Nolan Hawkins.
5 As I mentioned, once you get to 32 you can't increase
6 your pension by any number.
7 Q Just so that the record is more coherent, can you just
8 count for us how many people there are on that list. You named
9 six that you think are going to retire. How many are there?
10 A 46.
11 MR. FLAXMAN: Okay. Thank you. Nothing further.
12 CROSS EXAMINATION
13 BY MR. FORTI:
14 Q Sergeant Kimber, you were informed, were you not, as other
15 people that were taking the test, that you should study certain
16 special orders and general orders; is that right?
17 A We were given a reading list, that's correct.
18 Q And it included special orders and general orders or it
19 made reference to them; is that correct?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q And I trust that special orders and general orders apply
22 to police department policy citywide; is that right?
23 A That is correct.
24 Q General orders and special orders don't distinguish
25 between the districts you described as busy and those that
146
Kimber - direct
1 might not be as busy; is that right?
2 A No, they do not.
3 Q They apply uniformly across the board; is that right?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Now, when you were told to study for this test, you were
6 never advised by anybody that you should study for the special
7 orders that only apply in busy districts, were you?
8 A No, I was not.
9 Q You were told to study the special orders that apply
10 citywide; is that correct?
11 A That is correct.
12 Q So you were put on notice that the test was going to test
13 you on the special orders and general orders that were
14 applicable citywide; is that correct?
15 A That is correct.
16 Q Now, let's take the example -- you mentioned about public
17 indecency and you said that in some of the busy districts where
18 you had practiced there was a different policy; is that
19 correct?
20 A That is correct.
21 Q And you explained the difference in that policy.
22 A Procedure.
23 Q Now, if you were transferred to another district, isn't it
24 true that you would be expected to know the policy as reflected
25 in the special order not in the practice of the busier
147
Kimber - direct
1 district?
2 A My answer to that would be when I worked in the busy
3 district, and as an example I gave No. 80, I was told to do it
4 a certain way. That's --
5 Q I appreciate that.
6 A Okay. Wait. I'm trying to answer your question, counsel.
7 When I did get transferred from that district to a
8 nonbusy district, I went to 12 as a supervisor, I think then it
9 was only I realized from being transferred and going to a
10 nonbusy district and then being explained to me, that it wasn't
11 done this way.
12 Q But the expectation is that in the nonbusy district that
13 you play it according to how the special order is written; is
14 that right?
15 A I'm sorry. Repeat your question, counsel.
16 Q The expectation once you were transferred to the nonbusy
17 district was that you were going to adhere to the special order
18 or general order as written; is that right?
19 MR. FLAXMAN: Objection to the form of the question.
20 Whose expectation?
21 THE COURT: Overruled. Can you answer?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 BY THE WITNESS:
24 A The expectation was from the supervisors that I would
25 perform in the same manner, but from my perspective, from being
148
Kimber - direct
1 trained in policy and procedure, as I mentioned earlier, the
2 superintendent said formal and informal, my procedure had
3 taught me or my training for my 10 years was that this is the
4 procedure we use, and it had been so ingrained that I thought
5 this was the proper procedure.
6 BY MR. FORTI:
7 Q Given the fact that you had slightly different training
8 because you were in a busy district, then you were unprepared
9 to know what the special order as written required; isn't that
10 right?
11 THE COURT: At what time?
12 MR. FORTI: At the time he was transferred to the
13 less busy district.
14 BY THE WITNESS:
15 A I'm sorry, counselor. Repeat your question.
16 BY MR. FORTI:
17 Q Sergeant Kimber, you testified you had been trained and in
18 fact I think you used the word ingrained to follow certain
19 practices in the busy district.
20 A Right.
21 Q I'm asking you once you were transferred to the nonbusy
22 district, that meant you were unprepared because you did not
23 know the language and the practices of the special orders and
24 the general orders as they apply in the less busy district;
25 isn't that right?
149
Kimber - direct
1 A Until I reviewed those orders.
2 Q All right. Until you reviewed them.
3 Now, tell me Sergeant Kimber, you mentioned that in
4 the busy districts that there is a way of cutting corners; is
5 that right?
6 A Correct.
7 Q Does cutting corners violate the policy of the Chicago
8 Police Department if you vary from the special order or a
9 general order?
10 A Sometimes it does, yes.
11 Q Are you suggesting that in the busy districts they
12 routinely violate the policy of the Chicago Police Department
13 and -- in the way they abide by special orders and general
14 orders?
15 A I'm saying that in busy districts the policy and procedure
16 that are used are not the same policy and procedures that are
17 done in nonbusy districts. If you're asking for specified
18 examples, you would have to give me one and I can say or no to
19 that example.
20 Q Now, you had mentioned that you were a member of the
21 Guardians; is that right?
22 A Yes, I am.
23 Q For how long have you been a member of the Guardians?
24 A Ah, about 15, 16 years, I guess. 15, 16 years. Maybe a
25 little bit longer. Maybe 20, something like that.
150
Kimber - direct
1 Q Are you familiar with the Blue Ribbon Panel that was
2 formed by the mayor several years ago to address the question
3 of how to best formulate tests for promotions?
4 A Yes, I am.
5 Q Did the Guardians submit any proposals or suggestions to
6 that Blue Ribbon Panel as to what the best or appropriate
7 testing procedure should be?
8 A Yes, we did.
9 Q What did you submit?
10 A We testified in front of -- in fact, I testified in front
11 of Blue Ribbon Panel.
12 Q And what was your testimony?
13 A My testimony was regarding the testing procedures that the
14 Chicago Police Department used.
15 Q Did you have any recommendations as to what the Blue
16 Ribbon Panel should adopt?
17 A Yes, I did.
18 Q What was that?
19 A Some of the recommendations -- all the recommendations or
20 --
21 Q Well, if you could summarize them briefly. Or let me ask
22 you this. Did the Blue Ribbon Panel accept any of your
23 recommendations?
24 A I never received a written communication back from the
25 city as to what the Blue Ribbon Panel accepted for my
151
Kimber - redirect
1 recommendations.
2 Q Was your organization in favor of objective tests?
3 A Yes, we were.
4 Q You mentioned as well after Mr. Flaxman showed you a
5 certain exhibit that various -- you anticipated that certain
6 black lieutenants were expected to retire in the not too
7 distant future; is that correct?
8 A Correct.
9 Q That means there will be more vacancies rather than less
10 vacancies within the lieutenant ranks; is that correct?
11 A That's correct.
12 Q And that will increase the opportunity at some point for
13 additional sergeants to be promoted; is that right?
14 A That is correct.
15 MR. FORTI: No further questions.
16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
18 Q And if additional sergeants are promoted from the existing
19 list, there will be white guys replacing these black
20 lieutenants who are retiring; is that right?
21 A According to my statistics, I believe it's 42 -- and this
22 is from my Guardian Association, there are 42 or 46 -- 46 black
23 lieutenants. Within this year six will retire, which will mean
24 there will be 36 black lieutenants. Six are scheduled to
25 retire or quit before the end the year is over.
152
Cadogan - direct
1 Q So 46 you said or --
2 A I'm sorry. 42. We say it's 42 black lieutenants and six
3 retiring will leave us 36 lieutenants.
4 Q And if they're replaced from the current list, they'll be
5 replaced by --
6 A Our percentages will go down, correct.
7 MR. FLAXMAN: Thank you. Nothing further.
8 MR. FORTI: Nothing further.
9 THE COURT: Thank you.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
11 (Witness excused.)
12 MR. FLAXMAN: Next witness is Mr. Cadogan.
13 THE COURT: Please raise your right hand.
14 (Witness sworn.)
15 JOHN CADOGAN, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, DULY SWORN
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
18 Q State your name, first, please.
19 A John Cadogan, C-a-d-o-g-a-n.
20 Q What's your business or occupation?
21 A Presently serve as the chief of the patrol division in the
22 Chicago Police Department.
23 Q What does it mean to be the chief of the patrol division?
24 A Chief of the patrol division is responsible for ensuring
25 the delivery of basic police services, answering calls for
153
Cadogan - direct
1 service, the preliminary investigation of crime, the handling
2 of traffic accidents in the 25 police districts that make up
3 the city of Chicago.
4 Q How long have you been the chief?
5 A Since July of 1992.
6 Q When you took over, were there any vacant sergeant
7 positions?
8 A I have no idea, sir.
9 Q Well, when you took over, were there any vacant lieutenant
10 positions?
11 A I don't know that either.
12 Q Did you ever become aware that there were vacant sergeant
13 positions in the patrol division?
14 A In 1992?
15 Q At any time since July of 1992, when you came into your
16 position, have you ever learned that there were vacant sergeant
17 positions?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q When's the first time that you learned there were vacant
20 sergeant positions?
21 A I don't have an independent recollection.
22 Q Well, it was sometime in 1992, wasn't it?
23 A That it would have been.
24 Q That's because the City didn't make any promotions to
25 sergeant in 1992; is that right?
154
Cadogan - direct
1 A I don't know that.
2 Q And there were more vacant positions, weren't there, in
3 1993? Is that right?
4 A I can't answer that question without looking at
5 documentation.
6 Q What kind of documentation would you have to look at?
7 A Well, we prepare monthly reports that indicate how many
8 positions are staffed and how many aren't. I just don't have a
9 recollection back to '92 and '93.
10 Q Well, do you know whether or not there were any promotions
11 to sergeant in 1993?
12 A I don't. I don't know.
13 Q Do you know if any sergeants retired in 1992?
14 A Based on historical rate of retirement, I would say there
15 were retirements of sergeants in 1992, yes.
16 Q And there were probably retirements in 1993; is that
17 right?
18 A I would say that's correct.
19 Q And there were probably retirements in '94; is that right?
20 A That's correct also.
21 Q And was the police department in the City of Chicago
22 getting smaller in 1992, '93, '94?
23 Was the business being downsized?
24 A I don't know. I don't know the strength figures.
25 Q Okay. Do you know when the last promotions were made to
155
Cadogan - direct
1 sergeant?
2 A I believe this --
3 Q 1995?
4 A '95, right.
5 Q And weren't those the first promotions to sergeant since
6 1991?
7 A I'm not sure of the date, sir.
8 Q Well, at the time those promotions were made in 1995
9 weren't there about -- well, were there any vacancies when
10 those promotions were made?
11 A I would anticipate that there were vacancies. In order to
12 have the promotions, you would need budget vacancies.
13 Q There were about 300 vacancies then, weren't there?
14 A That I don't know.
15 Q And you don't know if there had been 300 vacancies in
16 1992, 1993, 1994?
17 A That correct.
18 Q And if I asked you the same questions about lieutenants,
19 do you know when the last lieutenant promotions were made
20 before promotions -- let me go back.
21 Were there lieutenant promotions in 1995?
22 A I believe there was.
23 Q As a matter of fact, there were 54; is that right?
24 A That sounds about right.
25 Q Okay. And three of those were African-Americans; is that
156
Cadogan - direct
1 right?
2 A I don't know that.
3 Q And before those promotions in 1995, isn't it true that
4 there had not been a lieutenant promotion since 1991?
5 A Sir, I don't know that either.
6 Q What do you do as chief of patrol?
7 A Ensure the basic delivery of police services throughout
8 the 25 police districts in the city.
9 Q Do you supervise lieutenants? Are there lieutenants in
10 your command?
11 A There are lieutenants in my command.
12 Q Are there sergeants in your command?
13 A There are sergeants in my command.
14 Q Would it be important to the work that you do if there
15 were 200 less sergeants than you need to do your job?
16 A That would have an effect on the delivery of police
17 services, correct.
18 Q And that would be important to you in your work to know
19 that you could not -- that there would be this effect on
20 delivery of police services from not having enough manpower; is
21 that right?
22 A I would be concerned about that.
23 Q Are you concerned now that there aren't enough
24 lieutenants?
25 A I am concerned.
157
Cadogan - direct
1 Q Are you concerned now that there aren't enough sergeants?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q Is it important to you, your concern that there aren't
4 enough lieutenants?
5 A I said I'm concerned and you're saying is it important to
6 me that I'm concerned?
7 Q Yeah. Is that an important concern that there aren't
8 enough lieutenants?
9 A Yes, it's an important concern.
10 Q Now, are you telling us you don't remember -- well, let me
11 go back.
12 Would it have been an important concern in 1994 that
13 there weren't enough lieutenants?
14 A Certainly.
15 Q Would it have been an important concern in 1993 if there
16 weren't enough lieutenants?
17 A You know, when you say there weren't enough lieutenants, I
18 mean everything has degrees. If there weren't enough
19 lieutenants and I was only short two or three lieutenants, that
20 has a different effect than if I'm short 25 or 30 or 50
21 lieutenants.
22 So, you know, that's the only way I can answer that.
23 Tell me how many lieutenants I'm short and I'll give
24 you some indication of how serious the problem is.
25 Q And you don't know how many, if any, you were short in
158
Cadogan - direct
1 '92, '93; is that right?
2 A Without looking at some kind of documentation, I couldn't
3 give you that off the top of my head.
4 Q And how long would it take you to look at that
5 documentation?
6 A Sir, I don't even know that it exists.
7 Q No way you could figure that out?
8 A I don't know.
9 Q The 18 -- you know that there is a plan to promote 18
10 sergeants; is that correct?
11 A That's correct -- 18 what?
12 Q Excuse me. 18 lieutenants.
13 A 18, yes.
14 Q Where are they going to be assigned?
15 A That's up to the superintendent to determine.
16 Traditionally new assignments have been made to the patrol
17 division.
18 Q Is that your division?
19 A Yes, it is.
20 Q How many lieutenants are you down right now?
21 A At the present time I am either at or slightly over my
22 lieutenant strength.
23 Q So you don't need 18 more lieutenants; is that right?
24 A I need many more than 18 lieutenants. The question calls
25 for further explanation.
159
Cadogan - direct
1 Q Well, what does it mean to be at your strength?
2 A Well, there are certain number of budgeted lieutenant
3 positions; and if you have that number of positions, I would
4 say I was at strength.
5 Q Well, how many lieutenant positions are budgeted for
6 patrol?
7 A In district law there are a hundred and I believe -- a
8 hundred and about eighty, 179 or 180.
9 Q And how many do you have?
10 A I have 180.
11 Q Does a lieutenant have to be budgeted before you can hire
12 one?
13 A I believe that's a requirement of the city ordinance.
14 Q So you don't have any shortage of lieutenants; is that
15 right?
16 A Yes, I said I am short lieutenants. I said the question
17 called for further explanation.
18 Q Okay. Well, for you to get more lieutenants would you
19 need to get your budget increased?
20 A In order to answer your question, I would have to go into
21 some of the staffing history of the patrol division, and that
22 staffing history is that historically there were three captains
23 and seven lieutenants assigned to each one of the 25 police
24 districts, with the exception of the 1st and the 18th that had
25 an eighth lieutenant assigned.
160
Cadogan - direct
1 So if you took the -- did the multiplication of 25
2 times the three and the seven which are ten, that was 250, and
3 the extra lieutenant and captain in the 1st and 18th district,
4 it was 252. And that was the number I need to run and be
5 completely fully manned in the district law enforcement.
6 Q And you're only budgeted for 180?
7 A No. I'm budgeted for 75 district watch commanders, of
8 which at the present time 42 are vacant.
9 Q And --
10 A And I have to assign one of the lieutenants to fill that
11 district watch commander position.
12 Q When was the last time you had 75 watch commanders, if
13 ever?
14 A Oh, it was probably about -- and I'm going to guess, maybe
15 four, five years ago.
16 Q So how many watch commanders have you been down in the
17 last --
18 A Each year you drop.
19 Q Well, has the City of Chicago -- has the police department
20 of the City of Chicago been able to do its job with 42 watch
21 commanders?
22 A By utilizing the lieutenants in the acting watch commander
23 position, yes.
24 MR. FLAXMAN: I have nothing further.
25 MR. FORTI: Your Honor, we intend to call Chief
161
Cadogan - cross
1 Cadogan in our case in chief. Should I proceed now with his
2 direct?
3 THE COURT: I would encourage it.
4 CROSS EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. FORTI:
6 Q Chief Cadogan, let's try to clear up plain and simple some
7 of the confusion that was elicited during your direct
8 examination by Mr. Flaxman.
9 Could you explain the current vacancies that exist
10 within district law. And first tell me what is district law?
11 A District law enforcement makes up -- is composed of the 25
12 police districts that comprise the City of Chicago that deliver
13 basic police service to the citizenry.
14 Q So when other officers have testified they're in district
15 4 or district 15, those are the same 25 we're talking about?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q And district law is under your supervision; is that
18 correct?
19 A That is correct.
20 Q All right. Could you explain what vacancies there are
21 within district law that need to be filled.
22 A As I stated earlier, in order to staff the districts up to
23 budget strength, I have 75 district watch commander positions
24 and 177 lieutenant positions. That comes to 252. And that's
25 what I need to be able to staff.
162
Cadogan - cross
1 At the present time I have 33 captains serving in the
2 position of watch commander and I have 42 lieutenants filling
3 in as the acting watch commander. So that 33 and that 42 total
4 75.
5 Additionally I have 140 other lieutenants that are
6 serving as patrol division field lieutenants or field
7 operations lieutenants.
8 If you add the 75 to the 140, I believe you come out
9 with 215. Since I'm supposed to have 252, that puts me 37
10 short.
11 Q So 37 is the shortage within the -- within district law;
12 is that correct?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q Is there another major subdivision to the area that you're
15 in charge of?
16 A Well, the patrol division is comprised of district law and
17 the special function group in addition to the labor unit, which
18 is a very small unit.
19 Q Could you describe for us what is the special functions
20 group.
21 A The special functions group consists of divisions such as
22 the public housing division, the public transportation
23 division, the traffic division, airport law enforcement, and
24 one other now and I'm not picking it up.
25 Q That is okay.
163
Cadogan - cross
1 A I can't remember.
2 Q Are lieutenants assigned to the special functions group?
3 A Yes, lieutenants are assigned to the special functions
4 group.
5 Q Currently are there any vacancies within special
6 functions?
7 A At the present time I'm supposed to have 21 lieutenants
8 and I believe I have 15, which would put me six short in
9 special functions.
10 Q So is it correct that if you add the 27 and the 6, there
11 are -- you are 43 short currently within the patrol division?
12 A That's correct.
13 Q Do you anticipate any other vacancies in the near future,
14 in the lieutenant's position?
15 A Well, as the witness that was here before me spoke about,
16 some of the lieutenants that he knew that were going to retire
17 shortly, I'm also aware of those. I have a lieutenant in the
18 2nd district, a captain in the 4th district, two lieutenants in
19 the 6th district, a captain in the 11th district, and a
20 lieutenant in the 17th district that I'm aware of that have
21 indicated their desire to retire either through a power form or
22 currently have a schedule to use the time that they have coming
23 to them.
24 Q So to the best of your knowledge on top of the 43
25 vacancies, there's approximately how many additional vacancies
164
Cadogan - cross
1 that you anticipate in the near future?
2 A There's approximately six more in the near future.
3 Q Now, are you aware of any vacancies for the position of
4 lieutenant outside of the patrol division?
5 A I'm aware of some of the units that have vacancies, yes.
6 Q Could you identify those, and approximately how many
7 vacancies, if you know?
8 A Well, I believe there is a vacancy in the internal affairs
9 division. There is a vacancy in the intelligence division.
10 There is a vacancy in the gang crimes section. There's, I
11 believe, four vacancies in the detective division. There's a
12 vacancy in the youth division.
13 That's about what I can remember right now.
14 Q All right. With respect solely to the patrol division,
15 because that's the area that you're in charge of, what's been
16 the effect of these vacancies on the operations of the patrol
17 division?
18 A When you have a shortage of supervisors, especially with
19 the conditions that we have had in the last two years and the
20 current year, the hiring that has gone on in '94 and '95 was I
21 believe 1800 and 40 or 50 new police officers were hired. In
22 addition the '96 budget anticipates hiring 550 more, so that
23 we'll have almost 2400 new police officers on the street.
24 Those officers need supervision. They need
25 direction. So that when you're short supervisors, you end up
165
Cadogan - cross
1 with officers not -- excuse me, I'm running dry, not being able
2 to fulfill their responsibility properly.
3 Q You -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.
4 A I was just going to say it ends up with mistakes being
5 made or the proper service not being rendered.
6 Q Now, you mentioned that there were approximately 2,000 new
7 officers since 1994?
8 A 1800 I believe -- about 1800 and 50 in '94 and '5 with 550
9 to be hired this year.
10 Q How do those numbers compare to the total numbers in the
11 police department?
12 A I believe in the police officer position in district law
13 enforcement I have about 7,900 police officers. So that would
14 be about 30 percent of the total police officers.
15 Q In addition to training these new recruits, is there any
16 other way that the vacant lieutenant positions has adversely
17 affected the operations of the patrol division?
18 A Well, what happens is that in every district you're
19 supposed to have a watch commander who is inside the district
20 running the district operation, making sure that things like
21 arrestee processing, bail bonding and things like that are
22 being properly handled, that the people that are doing that are
23 doing it properly, approving charges and things like that.
24 You also have a lieutenant who works in the field,
25 and he supervises all of the field activities, all of the beat
166
Cadogan - cross
1 cars that are working out there, the sergeants' cars that are
2 working out there, and he's to ensure that they're responding
3 appropriately to citizens' calls for service, that the
4 sergeants are going in on supervision.
5 The lieutenant has to take in felony calls. He has
6 to respond to all plans. He has to go to fires, explosions,
7 major crime incidents. He has to do preliminary investigation
8 if there is a police officer shooting.
9 What has happened with my having to work those
10 lieutenants as watch commanders is that in the 13th police
11 period of 1995, which comprised about the last three weeks of
12 December and the first week of January of '96, my staffing
13 levels were such that on the midnight shift 68 percent of the
14 time I did not have a lieutenant working in the field. On the
15 second watch, which is the day shift, 71 percent of the time I
16 did not have a lieutenant working, and --
17 Q And was that throughout the entire city?
18 A That's on the basis of the whole city, the 25 police
19 districts.
20 And on the third watch, excuse me, which is the 4 to
21 12 shift, it was 74.0, I believe, percent of the times I had a
22 lieutenant's car down.
23 Q So therefore there was no supervisory person in those
24 divisions at that time?
25 A That's correct.
167
Cadogan - cross
1 Q Let me go back just for a second for a little bit of your
2 background.
3 When did you first become employed by the Chicago
4 Police Department?
5 A January 9th, 1961.
6 Q And what was your entry-level position?
7 A Probationary police officer.
8 Q Chief Cadogan, could you describe the rank positions you
9 have held since that time up to the present, very briefly, just
10 those titles.
11 A I've held the position of sergeant, lieutenant, captain,
12 director of research and development, assistant deputy
13 superintendent for the bureau of operation -- bureau of
14 operational services, deputy chief -- administrative deputy
15 chief in the patrol division, chief of the organized crime
16 division, and now chief of the patrol division.
17 Q Now, based on that experience, Chief Cadogan, I trust you
18 can tell me or you're familiar with the obligations and duties
19 of sergeants as well as the duties of lieutenants; is that
20 right?
21 A Yes, I have.
22 Q You have heard perhaps testimony earlier today where
23 various sergeants have indicated that they have observed
24 lieutenants in action and therefore they have a sense of what a
25 lieutenant does. Did you hear that testimony?
168
Cadogan - cross
1 A I did.
2 Q Are there differences between the job of sergeant and the
3 job of lieutenant?
4 A Well, the sergeant for the most part is dealing with one
5 particular segment of the district, what we call a sector. He
6 supervises beat cars in that particular sector where the -- and
7 there are three sectors in each district; whereas, the
8 lieutenant will have primary responsibility for not only
9 supervising the three sergeants, the entire district. The
10 lieutenant acts as a watch commander in the patrol division
11 districts, which a sergeant does not do. And that -- there is
12 a big difference between the sergeant and the lieutenant's job
13 at that particular time.
14 The lieutenant is called in then to work inside and
15 relieve the watch commander, and he is then responsible for
16 approving arrests. He's responsible for the placing of charges
17 on misdemeanor and ordinance cases. He's responsible to ensure
18 that the state's attorney is contacted and that felony review
19 approval is received when we're going to place charges in
20 felony cases. He's responsible at that time for all of the
21 activities that are occurring in the police district station.
22 So the level of responsibility changes significantly
23 when you're a lieutenant versus the sergeant.
24 Q And is there also conduct that the lieutenant would engage
25 in that a sergeant would not see?
169
Cadogan - cross
1 A Well, when the lieutenant would be the acting watch
2 commander, the only time a sergeant would be able to observe
3 what's he doing at that point in time is if that sergeant was a
4 desk sergeant, otherwise the other sergeants are out in the
5 field.
6 Q Okay. Now, if the vacancies that you've referred to
7 within the patrol division are not filled, what will the
8 consequences be, if any, during the upcoming months?
9 A Well, we have a -- not only am I concerned about what the
10 consequences are right now by the vacancies, as you can see, by
11 the number of times I'm not able to field a lieutenant's car,
12 but we're going into a season right now when there are many,
13 many special events that occur in the city and they all need to
14 be policed.
15 What happens is you draw from patrol division
16 districts and you send police officers with their supervisors
17 and their lieutenants to police these events, and some of these
18 events are significant size events. I mean we have the normal
19 events that we have every year. As an example you would have
20 Puerto Rican Week, Venetian Night, Viva Chicago, Taste of State
21 Street. We'll have the Cinco de Mayo, the El Gareto Parade.
22 I mean there are just -- there are probably 150
23 special events that need to be policed that start in the spring
24 and end in early fall.
25 Q Well, what role do lieutenants have in all of this?
170
Cadogan - cross
1 A Well, the lieutenants -- some of these events call for as
2 many as 15, 20, 25 tactical teams to be assigned to these
3 events; and when that many tactical teams come, they each come
4 with a tactical sergeant.
5 Well, then you need a lieutenant to manage the
6 tactical sergeants. So that if you brought 25 tactical teams
7 down to one of these events, you'd probably bring 3 or 4
8 lieutenants to come with them to make sure that the sergeants
9 have the proper supervision and they're doing what they're
10 supposed to be doing.
11 Q In order to prepare for these summer events that you
12 referred to, how soon would you like to see these promotions
13 occur?
14 A As soon as possible.
15 I left out one major event, too. I guess I didn't
16 say it. I am concerned about the Democratic National
17 Convention.
18 Q Why will the convention -- how will the convention, if at
19 all, impact the operations of the patrol division and its need
20 for lieutenants?
21 A If you remember in the last convention we had here, we
22 ended up in almost total department mobilization to address the
23 problems that were occurring. So that the planning that is
24 being done now has to anticipate the worst case. If something
25 happens, if the war in Bosnia turns negative and people start
171
Cadogan - cross
1 to come out and demonstrate, we may face the same kind of
2 conditions this year as we faced in 1968. We have to be
3 prepared for that.
4 There will be thousands of policemen out on the
5 street and I'll need supervisors to make sure that the police
6 officers are not over reacting and that they're doing what
7 they're supposed to be doing; and that if citizens are
8 expressing their right to petition their government, they're
9 allowed to do that.
10 Q Chief, are -- is there extra sensitivity within the
11 department given the history of what happened in 1968?
12 A Absolutely.
13 Q Now, it's my understanding -- Chief, are you aware that at
14 issue here is sergeants seeking to become lieutenants took a
15 test prepared by Barrett & Associates?
16 A I'm aware of that.
17 Q What role, if any, did you play in the development of the
18 test?
19 A I participated in the review of the various parts of the
20 test that the vendor put together in terms of subject matter,
21 in terms of the way the questions were worded, in terms of did
22 I believe that they reflected what a sergeant or a lieutenant
23 would have to know.
24 Q Did you exam all three components of the test?
25 A I did.
172
Cadogan - cross
1 Q Did anyone else examine these three components with you?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q Who was that?
4 A On the sergeant's test, Lieutenant -- currently Lieutenant
5 John Klein. On the lieutenant's test I believe we did the
6 first review, and then I think we had assistance in terms of
7 Commander DeLopez and Deputy Chief Shaw from the detective
8 division for the lieutenant's exam.
9 Q What steps did you take to determine whether the items on
10 the job knowledge portion of the test were related to what a
11 lieutenant does within the Chicago Police Department?
12 A Well, a lieutenant has to know -- because he's going to be
13 in a position of approving charges, he has to know the law. He
14 has to know the ordinances. He has to know the state statutes.
15 I saw questions relative to that material on the
16 test.
17 As a lieutenant or a sergeant you're going to get
18 grievances because there's a labor contract in this city. So
19 there were questions relative to the labor issues and the FOP
20 contract that we deal with on a daily basis. So that people
21 have to know how to process grievances and whether something
22 can be grieved.
23 There were several questions relative to that on the
24 exam.
25 And then there were a great deal of questions that
173
Cadogan - cross
1 dealt with policy and procedure that I felt a lieutenant should
2 know.
3 So based on the material that I reviewed I thought
4 the exam was very well put together.
5 Q Did you also have a similar opportunity to review the
6 forms included and items included for the in-basket portion of
7 the test?
8 A I did.
9 Q What steps did you take to determine if the materials in
10 the in-basket test were related or similar to the functions
11 performed by a lieutenant in the Chicago Police Department?
12 A Well, we got to review the material that was presented,
13 and if my memory serves me, I believe there was a -- an example
14 of an arrest report and there was narratives filled in and
15 there was material left out, and since a lieutenant would be
16 approving arrest reports, I thought that was something that
17 would be fair to test on.
18 Q During the course of your review was there any occasion
19 for you either to add or to delete items that were -- that were
20 proposed by Dr. Barrett?
21 A Yes, there was. The individuals that we worked with were
22 very open and attentive. When we made suggestions, they took
23 them very quickly. They made the changes. I was very
24 impressed with the professionalism that they displayed.
25 Q Based on your review of the test, was there any portion of
174
Cadogan - redirect
1 the test that did not test the basic knowledge skills and
2 abilities needed to be a Chicago lieutenant?
3 A Not to my knowledge.
4 MR. FORTI: No further questions. Thank you.
5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
7 Q You don't have a degree in industrial psychology, do you?
8 A I do not.
9 Q But you do know what police officers do; is that right?
10 A I believe so.
11 Q And you know what lieutenants do; is that right?
12 A I think I do.
13 Q Do lieutenants have to be able to write clearly and
14 concisely?
15 A Yes, they do. I would say that's a trait that they should
16 possess.
17 Q That's an essential trait, isn't it?
18 A I think as I indicated in the dep you took from me I
19 believe that's an essential trait of police officers, sergeants
20 and lieutenants, all the way up. You should be able to write
21 correctly.
22 Q And oral communication, is it important for police
23 officers, sergeants and lieutenants to be able to understand
24 what civilians say to them?
25 A Yes, it is.
175
Cadogan - redirect
1 Q And that's -- is that a very important part of the job of
2 lieutenant?
3 A It's one part of many parts of the job of lieutenant that
4 I would consider to be important.
5 Q Now, in the work that you did with Dr. Barrett, did you
6 ever -- were you ever asked to look over a job description and
7 say these are all the things that a lieutenant does?
8 A I don't remember seeing a job description.
9 Q Now, you talked about these special events. You said they
10 start in the spring and then your counsel said -- the City's
11 counsel said they start in the summer. When --
12 A I would consider the first event I have to be concerned
13 with that kind of kicks off is the St. Patrick's Day Parade.
14 Q When is that?
15 A It will be in March. One will be on the 17th and one on
16 the south side maybe before that.
17 Q And after the St. Patrick's Day Parade, are there -- when
18 are the next special events?
19 A I believe they start heavily in May, toward the end of May
20 and into June. I think Cinco de Mayo is another one that
21 requires significant coverage, and that's in early May.
22 Q Now, let's say we all agree that there is a need for more
23 lieutenants in the Chicago Police Department. Would the City
24 be irreparably harmed if you were asked to hold off another two
25 weeks in making promotions?
176
Cadogan - by the Court
1 Would you be able to manage for another two weeks, if
2 you were asked to do that?
3 A I think I would.
4 MR. FLAXMAN: Thank you. I have nothing further.
5 MR. FORTI: Nothing further, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: I'm not quite clear about how long you've
7 had this severe shortage of lieutenants. Can you tell me?
8 THE WITNESS: We've been -- we've been struggling
9 with this because our effort to put together this program for
10 this district watch commander has been going on for a
11 significant period of time.
12 We're trying to get a program together to where the
13 district commander, who is running this district, can appoint
14 lieutenants up to a position of watch commander, which they
15 would get an increase in pay to do, and that district -- that
16 district commander would appoint those people. And as long as
17 they worked out, they would remain in that position and they
18 would get that additional pay. But when they stop being able
19 to do the job, he would be able to remove them and appoint
20 whoever else he would think would do a good job.
21 We haven't been able to get all the particulars for
22 that program worked out. But it's something that we're moving
23 very cautiously but with some dispatch to try and get resolved.
24 THE COURT: And how long has that been going on?
25 THE WITNESS: I'd say that's been going on -- oh, we
177
Cadogan - by the Court
1 ran into -- when we made the proposal more than a year ago, I
2 would say, we ran into a problem with what we considered
3 Shakman exemptions, and we were not able to get any ruling on
4 whether it was or it wasn't, but just recently I believe we
5 have a ruling that indicates that while it may not be an
6 exemption, it may be an exception.
7 And that's a layperson talking about Shakman. I'm
8 not an authority on Shakman.
9 THE COURT: What has to be excepted from the Shakman
10 decree? Watch commander?
11 THE WITNESS: In order for us to just appoint a
12 person to that position without any testing and to be able to
13 remove him much as the superintendent does with his exempt
14 members that he chooses, it was our initial impression that we
15 had to be exempted from Shakman to do that. Otherwise we had
16 to develop some kind of a testing process.
17 THE COURT: I understand. Okay. Thank you.
18 Anything else?
19 MR. FLAXMAN: No.
20 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You are excused.
21 (Witness excused.)
22 THE COURT: We're going to take a break. I have a
23 very short arraignment. You don't even have to leave.
24 (Brief recess.)
25 THE COURT: Raise your right hand.
178
Joyce - direct
1 (Witness sworn.)
2 THE COURT: Have a seat.
3 ROBERT JOYCE, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, DULY SWORN
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
6 Q State your name, please.
7 A Robert T. Joyce, J-o-y-c-e.
8 Q Are you the or a deputy commissioner of the City of
9 Chicago, Department of Personnel?
10 A I am a deputy commissioner, yes.
11 Q As deputy commissioner are you responsible for staffing
12 approximately 39,000 positions in city government?
13 A I oversee the unit that has that essential function and
14 responsibility, yes.
15 Q Are part of your responsibilities to oversee the
16 development, administration and scoring of career service
17 promotional testing for uniform positions in the Chicago Police
18 Department?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Uniform positions, does that include lieutenant?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And have you held this particular position of being a
23 deputy commissioner since 1981?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Between 1977 and 1981 did you hold a position of manager
179
Joyce - direct
1 of employment services?
2 A I held that title. I believe that was the time period.
3 Q And did you have similar responsibilities as manager of
4 employment services as you do now as deputy commissioner?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And have you been employed in the personnel department
7 since about 1970?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Have you been involved in any way with police promotional
10 tests?
11 A Yes.
12 Q As a matter of fact, were you involved with the 1977
13 lieutenant's promotional test?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Were you involved in the design, creation, scoring and
16 administration and the legal defense of that test?
17 A I was certainly involved in the development and scoring of
18 it. I'm not sure what you mean by the legal defense of it.
19 Q Well, were you a fact witness who testified at the trial
20 in that case, in a case involving that test?
21 A Yes, I was.
22 Q For several days, as I recall?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Were you also involved in the preparation and the design
25 and the scoring of the next sergeant's promotional test --
180
Joyce - direct
1 excuse me, the next lieutenant's promotional test in 1987?
2 A Yes. I was part of that committee.
3 Q Now -- and were promotions made from the 1987 test?
4 A Yes.
5 Q As a matter of fact, were promotions made in 1988, 1989,
6 1990 and 1991?
7 A I cannot recall specifically when promotions were made
8 from the list.
9 Q Well, did there come a time that the City stopped using
10 the 1987 lieutenant's promotional test?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And was that after the 1991 Civil Rights Act became
13 effective?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Was that because the City was -- well, let me go back.
16 Was the 1987 lieutenant's test scored using something
17 called race norming?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Could you tell us what race norming was or is.
20 A If after administering a test and analyzing component raw
21 scores there is a statistically significant difference in
22 performance between race, ethnic groups or genders that cannot
23 be defended or explained by job analysis or other forms of
24 validation, my organization at the time would correct for that
25 using the terminology race norming which in effect converted
181
Joyce - direct
1 the scores from these different scales onto a unique and
2 overlapping scale. So that the adverse impact of particular
3 test components would be eliminated or at least minimize.
4 Q And that was race norming; is that right?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And is race norming a technique that was specifically
7 outlawed by an act of Congress in the 1991 Civil Rights Act?
8 MR. ROCKS: Objection, calls for a complex legal
9 conclusion.
10 MR. FLAXMAN: Well, let me rephrase the question.
11 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
12 Q Is race norming a phrase -- well, no.
13 Is race norming something that is addressed in the
14 1991 Civil Rights Act?
15 A The words "race norming" appear in the 1991 Civil Rights
16 Act.
17 Q Or words to that effect? I think -- is that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And it was after the 1991 Civil Rights Act came into
20 effect, was it not, that the City of Chicago stopped making
21 promotions from the 1987 lieutenant's list; is that right?
22 A Yes.
23 Q As a matter of fact, do you remember whether or not there
24 was a lawsuit to try to force the City to use that list to make
25 promotions?
182
Joyce - direct
1 A I presently have no such recall.
2 Q Now, when is the next test that the City had in place
3 after the 1987 lieutenant's promotional test? Is that the test
4 we have now?
5 A It's the test in question, yes.
6 Q And were promotions to lieutenant first made in 1995 from
7 the Dr. Barrett test? Is that right?
8 A I don't recall when the first promotions were.
9 Q Well, between the effective date of the Civil Rights Act
10 of 1991 and the time, whenever it was that the first promotions
11 were made from Dr. Barrett's test, did the City have any way to
12 make lieutenant promotions?
13 A In the absence of an eligible list, I am not aware of any.
14 Q So is it correct then that in 1992 there were no
15 lieutenant promotions?
16 A It is my understanding.
17 Q 1993 there were no lieutenant promotions?
18 A I believe that's correct.
19 Q And 1994 there were no lieutenant promotions?
20 A I don't know when the new eligible list was adopted, so I
21 can't speak to '94.
22 Q And the same thing true for sergeants?
23 A In what respect?
24 Q That that -- that there had been a race norm list that had
25 been put up in 1987.
183
Joyce - cross
1 A Approximately 1987 and it was race normed.
2 Q And the City stopped using that race norm list in 1991?
3 A I don't know if it was '91 or the beginning of '92.
4 Q After the City stopped using that race norm list, it
5 didn't make any sergeant promotions until the new Dr. Barrett
6 list; is that right?
7 A That's my understanding.
8 MR. FLAXMAN: Thank you. Nothing further.
9 CROSS EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. ROCKS:
11 Q Mr. Joyce, the examination for lieutenant prior to the
12 Barrett examination that Mr. Flaxman was referring to, what
13 were the components of that examination?
14 A There were three components: a written multiple choice,
15 which was to be used only as a cut score or an initial hurdle.
16 Those persons who passed that part of the examination, the
17 written multiple choice, were allowed on to take or to have
18 evaluated two additional parts of the test, a form that was
19 called a written short answer and an oral board examination.
20 Q Would you explain what the written short answer component
21 involved.
22 A The individuals were provided with open-ended questions
23 that typically require them to give a phrase or a word or a --
24 possibly a sentence or two answer in direct response to a
25 question dealing with police procedures. They would have had
184
Joyce - cross
1 to recall the answer from their own -- their own memory. There
2 were approximately 10 or 11 questions on the test.
3 Q Did the work -- the written short answer component of that
4 exam measure writing clarity or competence?
5 A One of 11 or so ratings given to it addressed was was the
6 writing legible and was it in a form that was understandable to
7 a reasonable reader.
8 Q And what -- when you say understand, you mean syntax or
9 its appearance on the page?
10 A Was the person able to get their idea and concept across
11 as opposed to grammar or syntax.
12 Q What was the result of the written short answer component
13 in that exam?
14 A It was rather disappointing as a testing device because
15 the test scores were skewed to the high end, as we might say in
16 the testing business. It was a very easy test. Most people
17 achieved a perfect score or very narrowly a perfect score and
18 consequently it was unable to differentiate superior performers
19 from average performers.
20 Q Was Mr. Flaxman involved in the preparation or discussions
21 leading to the preparation of the lieutenant examination that
22 we're discussing?
23 A Yes, he was.
24 Q And in what way was he involved?
25 A Well, he made reference to a prior lawsuit. He was the
185
Joyce - cross
1 plaintiff's attorney in the prior lawsuit. And in the judgment
2 it was determined that plaintiff's attorneys could play a role
3 in participating and developing the next examination, and it
4 was in that role as an adviser and a participant in the test
5 decision strategies.
6 Q Did he play any role or did he participate in any
7 discussions regarding the written short answer component?
8 A Yes, he did.
9 Q Could you explain briefly what his involvement was in
10 that.
11 MR. FLAXMAN: I object. It's not relevant to this,
12 and it also --
13 THE COURT: You brought up this '87 test. I'm not
14 sure it's relevant very frankly. But let's not go too much
15 farther with this. I'm sure we have more important things to
16 do today.
17 BY THE WITNESS:
18 A He reviewed proposed test questions that were going to
19 appear on it. He had veto power over what was going to appear
20 on it. He participated in developing the scoring key that
21 would be used as -- to determine what is the correct answer and
22 what would -- how the scoring process would work in terms of
23 pointing. Also participated in a decision to throw out a
24 couple of the questions because of lack of clarity.
25 BY MR. ROCKS:
186
Joyce - cross
1 Q With respect to the merit selection process that we've
2 been discussing here today in the current examination, were you
3 involved in that process?
4 A Yes, I was.
5 Q What was your involvement in that?
6 A Well, the superintendent of police wrote to my immediate
7 boss, the commissioner of personnel, asking that some
8 consideration be given to a merit component and whether a merit
9 component could be justified. That process, that evaluation
10 was assigned to me in great part.
11 Q Did you form an opinion as to the proposal by the
12 superintendent of police?
13 A Yes, I did.
14 Q And what was that opinion?
15 A That given his proposal in the framework in which it was
16 proposed, that it would be a valid and useful tool to add to
17 the selection process or to the determination of who was
18 promoted to lieutenant.
19 Q Was there a particular percentage of promotions
20 recommended by the superintendent?
21 A Yes. He recommended a 20 percent of each promotional
22 group -- a goal of 20 percent of a promotional group be
23 allocated to meritorious appointment.
24 Q Did you form an opinion as to the validity or propriety of
25 that percentage?
187
Joyce - cross
1 A Yes, I did.
2 Q Have you formed an opinion at any point as to whether that
3 percentage should have been higher?
4 A I would be concerned at this point about going into a
5 higher percentage without additional information and a track
6 record.
7 Q What is it that is of concern to you?
8 A Well, we have never done meritorious at a point greater
9 than that. Part of what I relied upon to make my judgment and
10 form my opinion was the experience that the police department
11 has had in the meritorious appointments to detective, which for
12 quite some time had been 10 percent and worked very effectively
13 in my opinion.
14 More recently it was changed and raised to 20
15 percent, and in my opinion that is working effectively and
16 fairly. I would like to have a little bit more time to see
17 that in action before going much further.
18 Also, the concept of the merit promotions as done by
19 the police department through the Academic Advisory Panel or
20 what its actual title is, it is my opinion that identifying
21 persons based on outstanding and demonstrably superior
22 performance can be done, but I do not have a strong basis in
23 fact as to how far you can take that before it becomes somewhat
24 unreliable.
25 To me, as I see it, and the way other people have
188
Joyce - redirect
1 said it in other settings, I think it is fairly easy to
2 identify the very top of your performance group and very bottom
3 of your performance group through basic observation and job
4 performance. But as you try and make those judgmental
5 decisions in greater and greater increments, it becomes less
6 reliable. And to the extent it becomes less reliable, I think
7 it would detract from the overall promotional process, again
8 tying it back into the -- also utilizing the written components
9 of the examination.
10 MR. ROCKS: Thank you, Mr. Joyce.
11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
13 Q In that 1987 test, the written multiple choice -- was
14 there -- there was a written multiple choice job knowledge
15 test; is that right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And you said that was graded on a pass/fail basis; is that
18 right?
19 A A pass/fail or a hurdle approach, yes.
20 Q It wasn't used -- was the score on that test used to
21 develop your final -- the applicant's final score?
22 A No.
23 Q And was a decision made to use the written multiple choice
24 test as a hurdle rather than as a ranking device because of the
25 concern of all the people who were creating that test that
189
Joyce - redirect
1 multiple choice examinations are likely to have an adverse
2 impact on minority groups?
3 A No. As a matter of fact, the reason that -- I recall I
4 wanted it to play a part in the final score, but you said that
5 if we -- if we, the City, went along that course of action, you
6 would go back to court to try and stop us. At that point I
7 demurred to your position.
8 Q Is that what you said in an affidavit that you filed in
9 federal court in 19 -- in a case known as Bigby v. The City of
10 Chicago?
11 A I don't recall what that affidavit says.
12 Q Let me show you what we will mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit
13 46, and ask you to look at page 9. Is that your signature?
14 A Yes, that is my signature.
15 Q And is that a signature that you have affixed to an
16 affidavit that was going to be filed in a case pending in the
17 United States District Court for the Northern District of
18 Illinois, known as Bigby v. City of Chicago?
19 A Bigby Herwin Intervenors v. City of Chicago. Yes, my
20 that's my understanding.
21 Q And on page 2 did you write that this decision to use the
22 written multiple choice test as a screening device was
23 administered on the strong recommendation of the Bigby counsel
24 because of the fact that multiple choice examinations are
25 likely to have adverse impact?
190
Joyce - redirect
1 MR. ROCKS: Objection, it's not impeaching. It's
2 consistent with what he testified to.
3 THE COURT: Do you have a copy I can see?
4 (Document tendered.)
5 THE COURT: What paragraph are you referring to?
6 MR. FLAXMAN: Page 2, top of the page -- paragraph 3.
7 It's the third sentence.
8 THE COURT: He doesn't have to answer the question.
9 He's already said he signed the affidavit. I'll sustain the
10 objection.
11 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
12 Q Is it a fact today, as it was back when you signed the
13 affidavit, that multiple choice examinations are likely to have
14 an adverse impact?
15 A Yes. I think the -- I think where you believe that I'm
16 being inconsistent is a misinterpretation.
17 MR. FLAXMAN: I move to strike that as nonresponsive.
18 THE COURT: So moved -- it's so ordered.
19 MR. FLAXMAN: Thank you.
20 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
21 Q Now, in your work for the City with Dr. Barrett and his
22 test, were you involved at all with Dr. Barrett in the work
23 that he did?
24 A No.
25 Q Were you involved in the decision of how the three parts
191
Joyce - redirect
1 of the test would be weighted?
2 A No.
3 Q What was the involvement of the City of Chicago in the
4 work that Dr. Barrett did? Was he given carte blanche to go
5 out and develop a test?
6 A The City of Chicago worked with Dr. Barrett to conduct a
7 job analysis, worked with him to provide subject matter
8 expertise and test development, worked with him in the
9 recommendations as to the weighting, worked with him as to
10 scoring recommendations and utilization of test score results.
11 Q How did you work with Dr. Barrett on the recommendations
12 for the weighting?
13 A Well, your question was the City of Chicago.
14 Q How did the City of Chicago work with Dr. Barrett for the
15 recommendations of the weighting?
16 A I don't know.
17 Q Do you know who would know?
18 A Ultimately it became a report, recommendation to the
19 Department of Personnel, who adopted the recommendation.
20 Q And that was the recommendation to weight each part
21 equally; is that right?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Were you involved in the decision to adopt that
24 recommendation?
25 A In that I took action to carry it out, I was involved.
192
Joyce - redirect
1 Q Well, did somebody in the department of personnel actually
2 make a decision to adopt that recommendation?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Who actually made that decision?
5 A Probably jointly between myself and Commissioner Carr.
6 Q When you made that decision jointly with Commissioner
7 Carr, did you know that Dr. Barrett had done a computer
8 simulation which showed that if you weighted the test
9 differently, .2, .6 and .2, you would have more minorities
10 being promoted?
11 MR. ROCKS: Objection, assumes a fact not in evidence
12 that the simulation describes an actual state of existence.
13 That is not the testimony of Dr. Barrett.
14 THE COURT: All right. It's a simulation. I think
15 the word simulation advises it was hypothetical.
16 MR. FLAXMAN: It's getting late. I didn't hear you.
17 I'm sorry.
18 THE COURT: I said I think the word simulation
19 defines the question sufficiently.
20 I'll let you answer it. Can you answer it?
21 BY THE WITNESS:
22 A No, I am not aware of that.
23 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
24 Q Now, the decision that the test would be weighted
25 one-third, one-third, one-third, was that made on or about
193
Joyce - redirect
1 April 29th, 1994, when the notice went out?
2 A Somewhat before that obviously.
3 Q Like a week before that or thereabouts?
4 A I can't pinpoint how much longer before that.
5 Q Did you ever become aware up until today that Dr. Barrett
6 had done some computer analysis to evaluate alternate weighting
7 of the three components of the lieutenant's test?
8 A No.
9 Q Did you ever read his report?
10 A The lieutenant's report?
11 Q Yes.
12 A No.
13 MR. FLAXMAN: I have nothing further.
14 MR. ROCKS: Nothing, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
16 (Witness excused.)
17 (Brief recess taken.)
18 THE COURT: All right.
19 MR. FLAXMAN: Subject to formally moving into
20 admission all these documents that we're stipulating to and the
21 statistics that we had in the findings of fact that will be
22 stipulated to, I believe --
23 MR. ROCKS: As soon as we take a look at them.
24 MR. FLAXMAN: We have -- we've completed our case in
25 chief. We'll rest.
194
Klein - direct
1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. ROCKS: Your Honor, we call John Klein.
3 THE COURT: Please raise your right hand.
4 (Witness sworn.)
5 THE COURT: Be seated.
6 JOHN KLEIN, DEFENDANT'S WITNESS, DULY SWORN
7 DIRECT EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. ROCKS:
9 Q Mr. Klein, would you please state your full name and your
10 current position in the Chicago Police Department.
11 A My name is John Klein, K-l-e-i-n. I am assigned as a
12 lieutenant of police with the Chicago Police Department,
13 presently assigned as the coordinator of education and training
14 at our training facility.
15 Q What are generally briefly your duties in the Police
16 Academy?
17 A At the Police Academy we have the division divided into
18 various sections with respect to the various training
19 initiatives that we engage in. It's my responsibility to -- in
20 conjunction with the assistant deputy superintendent to set
21 overall direction and coordinate all the activities that occur
22 there.
23 Q And for the record you're also an attorney?
24 A That's correct.
25 Q When are the -- when does the department plan to have
195
Klein - direct
1 these 18 proposed sergeant's promotions -- when will those
2 people go to the academy? What is the schedule?
3 A The lieutenant's promotions or the sergeant's promotions?
4 Q Lieutenants.
5 A Lieutenants, it's my understanding we intended to promote
6 them on the 16th of February.
7 Q To clarify, is that the day they go to the academy or the
8 day they're going to be promoted?
9 A That's unclear. We have done things many different ways
10 in the past. Generally they would be reported to the academy
11 on that day. There are some preliminary activities,
12 administrative activities that have to occur, such as a drug
13 screen. They would be promoted at sometime after the 16th.
14 Q Were you involved at all in the development of the
15 examination at issue today?
16 A I was involved as a subject matter expert with Chief John
17 Cadogan and Commander Joseph DeLopez and Deputy Chief Shaw in
18 the review of the written portions of the examination.
19 Q And did you go to Akron to Dr. Barrett's office to look at
20 those written portions?
21 A Yes, I did.
22 Q And did you form an opinion as to whether those -- the
23 materials you observed related to the job of police lieutenant
24 in the Chicago Police Department?
25 A After considerable review and discussion with
196
Klein - direct
1 Dr. Barrett's staff, it is my opinion the exam was very well
2 crafted, much better than I had seen in the past, and I believe
3 that all the questions were directly related to the position of
4 police lieutenant.
5 Q Did you in your review reject any items that Dr. Barrett
6 had proposed?
7 A We rejected several items in each of the components of the
8 exam.
9 Q On what basis did you reject items?
10 A On the basis that some were unclear. On the basis that we
11 believed some did not comport with existing Illinois law or our
12 policies and procedures. And also on the basis that we
13 believed some of the questions were -- they were too abstract
14 and were not generally sophisticated enough to relate to the
15 position of -- or the activities of a police lieutenant.
16 Q Did you propose any additional topic areas that you didn't
17 observe in the Barrett materials that you saw?
18 A Yes, we did.
19 Q And was Barrett receptive to your suggestions, both on the
20 rejections and submissions for additional materials?
21 A Dr. Barrett and his staff was very receptive. As I
22 recall, they incorporated all our comments and did not include
23 the questions that we objected to and specifically included
24 questions in the areas that we recommended.
25 Q Were you in the courtroom earlier when the testimony was
197
Klein - cross
1 given regarding busy districts not following the written rules
2 of the department in the same fashion that a less busy district
3 would follow them?
4 A Yes, I was.
5 Q Do you agree with that testimony?
6 A I certainly do not.
7 Q And why is that?
8 A We have a single set of policy and procedures for the
9 entire Chicago Police Department. Whether there is an
10 individual variance in one of the geographical areas of the
11 city, it certainly would not be consistent with what our
12 department policy is that we promulgate for everyone.
13 MR. ROCKS: Thank you.
14 CROSS EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
16 Q What's your present position, sir?
17 A I'm a lieutenant of police assigned as a coordinator at
18 our training academy.
19 Q Is that what's known as an inside job?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q And before being at the training academy did you have
22 another inside job?
23 A Yes, I did.
24 Q What was that?
25 A I was the executive assistant to the superintendent of
198
Klein - cross
1 police.
2 Q And before being executive assistant did you have another
3 inside job?
4 A Yes, I did.
5 Q When's the last time you had an outside job?
6 A In the 1970s.
7 Q And what was that assignment?
8 A I was assigned to the Englewood police district on the
9 south side of the City of Chicago for approximately four and a
10 half years. After that I was assigned to area 1 special
11 operations on high crime missions on the south side of the
12 city, and I was also assigned in -- I believe 1981 to the area
13 1 youth division on the south side of the City.
14 Q And you're familiar with all of the rules and regulations
15 and policies of the City of Chicago?
16 A I believe so, yes.
17 Q There is something called the CAPS program; is that right?
18 A The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy, yes, that's
19 correct.
20 Q That started in 1992?
21 A Approximately.
22 Q When you went to Akron, Ohio, did you go there to job
23 validate the test?
24 A I went there as a subject matter expert to review the
25 questions and determine whether they were consistent and
199
Klein - cross
1 comported with our policies, practices and procedures.
2 Q Did you go there to form an opinion about whether the test
3 was job related?
4 A No, I did not.
5 Q As a matter of fact, all you did was to go there to look
6 at questions and to see if they were correct in terms of what
7 the practices are in Chicago; is that correct?
8 A What practices were and what our orders and directives
9 require.
10 Q Did anybody from Dr. Barrett's organization ever ask you,
11 Mr. Klein, is there anything else besides the things -- the
12 questions on this test that a lieutenant has to know?
13 A They asked us whether -- in the context of whether we
14 believed some questions were appropriate or inappropriate or
15 clear, they asked us whether any additional material should be
16 tested, yes, they did.
17 Q Did you ever -- did anybody from Dr. Barrett's
18 organization ask you to look at a job description and to see if
19 that job description was correct and complete for the position
20 of Chicago police lieutenant?
21 A Not that I recall.
22 Q Is that something that you would have been able to do, to
23 look at a job description to say whether this is complete and
24 correct?
25 A I could --
200
Klein - cross
1 MR. ROCKS: Objection, Your Honor, to the form of the
2 question. Are we talking about a job description or the job
3 analysis by Barrett?
4 THE COURT: Fair objection. Could you rephrase the
5 question?
6 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
7 Q If you looked at a job description of the position of
8 lieutenant of the City of Chicago, would you be able to say
9 this job description is complete or it's incomplete?
10 A I would be able to see in my opinion whether or not I
11 believed the components of the job description fairly and
12 accurately reflected the duties of a police lieutenant.
13 Q Is one of the duties of a police lieutenant to be able to
14 write clearly and concisely?
15 A I don't believe it's a duty of a police lieutenant. I
16 believe it's one of the necessary attributes of a police
17 lieutenant.
18 Q Is that an important part of the job?
19 A I believe it's an important part of any job.
20 Q And is the ability to understand oral communication an
21 important part of the job of police lieutenant?
22 A Yes, it is.
23 Q And do you know whether or not -- as you sit here now do
24 you know whether or not those two attributes, the ability to
25 write clearly and concisely and understand oral communication,
201
Barrett - direct
1 do you know whether or not those were tested in the -- in the
2 current lieutenant's test that's at issue in this case?
3 A I'm not an expert in the construction of examination
4 questions.
5 Q Do you have -- you have a law degree; is that right?
6 A That's right.
7 Q You don't have an industrial psychology degree?
8 MR. FLAXMAN: Thank you. Nothing further.
9 MR. ROCKS: Nothing.
10 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You're excused.
11 (Witness excused.)
12 MS. GLINK: Your Honor, we would like to call
13 Dr. Gerald V. Barrett.
14 THE COURT: Dr. Barrett, you're still under oath.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
16 GERALD V. BARRETT, DEFENDANT'S WITNESS, PREVIOUSLY SWORN
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY MS. GLINK:
19 Q For the sake of brevity and the late hour I'll try to
20 cover your background briefly and just fill in the gaps --
21 THE COURT: Is there a CV?
22 MS. GLINK: We do have a curriculum vitae. It's
23 attached --
24 MR. FLAXMAN: We'll stipulate that the curriculum
25 vitae fully and fairly sets out his background and
202
Barrett - direct
1 accomplishments.
2 THE COURT: If it hasn't been submitted, you may
3 submit it as an exhibit.
4 MS. GLINK: It will be a part of one of the
5 documents. I still would like leave of court to ask a few
6 questions of Dr. Barrett.
7 THE COURT: Sure.
8 BY MS. GLINK:
9 Q Dr. Barrett, you said earlier that you were on the faculty
10 at the University of Akron. What's your position on the
11 faculty?
12 A A professor.
13 Q Do you have any other responsibilities to that department?
14 A No.
15 Q Do you have any other -- other than a Ph.D. in industrial
16 psychology, do you have any other advance degrees above and
17 beyond your master's in industrial psychology?
18 A I have a law degree.
19 Q And why did you get your law degree?
20 A To assist me in teaching my Ph.D. graduate courses. What
21 occurred was that until the Title VII was passed in 1964, legal
22 issues were not part of our field. It was never considered.
23 After that date it became very important.
24 So I decided to obtain a degree to understand the
25 legal concepts and assess me in my teaching and research.
203
Barrett - direct
1 Q Your teaching, is it specialized in any particular area?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And what area is that?
4 A It's testing, personnel selection.
5 Q How long have you been teaching courses on personnel
6 selection?
7 A Since 1968.
8 Q You testified earlier today that you have also published
9 at least 130 articles in your field; is that correct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And have those articles been in peer review journals?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And what does that mean?
14 A That means that your -- there is an editorial board of
15 people in industrial psychology or in psychology, whatever
16 field it might be, submitted to. They review the article and
17 make comments and it's accepted or rejected based upon the peer
18 review process.
19 Q Have any of those articles dealt with personnel selection
20 or performance tests?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And can you give me an estimate of how many of those
23 published articles involve examination development?
24 A Well, in terms of broad issues of personnel selection, I
25 would say 30 or 40 probably do.
204
Barrett - direct
1 Q You also testified that you were a member of many
2 professional organizations; is that correct?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Are you on the board of directors of any of these
5 organizations?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And which organizations are you on the board of directors?
8 A The American Board of Professional Psychology for --
9 Industrial Organizational Psychology, which is a diplomate in
10 paraprofessional practice. That's the only one.
11 Q And what does it mean to be a diplomate?
12 A That means that you have achieved a degree of excellence
13 in professional practice in the field.
14 Q Are you also a fellow of any organizations?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And what does that mean?
17 A Again it is -- you have been selected by your peers for
18 outstanding achievement in your field, usually in terms of
19 research and service. In the American Pyschological
20 Association, I'm a fellow in that organization.
21 Q I'll turn to your test development process and let -- your
22 test development experience and let the rest of your curriculum
23 vitae stand for itself.
24 You mentioned earlier that you were a principal of a
25 consulting firm named Barrett & Associates; is that correct?
205
Barrett - direct
1 A Yes.
2 Q What does Barrett & Associates specialize in?
3 A We specialize in human resource consulting activities.
4 Q As part of the Barrett & Associates -- or is Barrett &
5 Associates involved in the development and selection --
6 development of selection and promotional examinations?
7 A Yes.
8 Q How long have you personally been developing selection and
9 promotional examinations?
10 A Since 1960.
11 Q And how long has Barrett & Associates been in the business
12 of developing promotional and selection examinations?
13 A 1973.
14 Q During your course of your career and as the principal of
15 Barrett & Associates can you estimate how many examinations you
16 have developed?
17 A It would be hundreds. I don't know the exact number.
18 Often we'll do 20 or 30 at least a year of tests we'll develop.
19 Q And have you developed examinations in the safety force
20 field?
21 A Yes, since 1973.
22 Q And when I say safety force field, I'm implying fire and
23 police departments.
24 A Yes.
25 Q Is that your understanding?
206
Barrett - direct
1 A Yes.
2 Q Have you ever developed fire and police examinations for
3 municipalities?
4 A Yes.
5 Q How many municipalities have you developed such
6 examinations?
7 A I guess a dozen.
8 Q Can you give me an example of a few of the municipalities
9 that you developed police and fire examinations?
10 MR. FLAXMAN: Judge, I would like to interpose an
11 objection that this is probably not probative and certainly --
12 we are not disputing anything about his background, and it's
13 late and probably there is more relevant things to move on to.
14 THE COURT: Are you weary? Is that what you're
15 saying?
16 MR. FLAXMAN: Well, there is a rule about -- I forgot
17 what the rule is.
18 THE COURT: It's called gilding the lily.
19 How much of this do you have? I mean if this is all
20 in his CV, you can be assured that I will take it into account.
21 Dr. Barrett seems highly qualified. Do you agree?
22 MR. FLAXMAN: We've never challenged his
23 qualification.
24 MS. GLINK: I would like to just touch briefly, Your
25 Honor, on his past -- the past litigation experience he's had
207
Barrett - direct
1 involving his examinations he's developed.
2 THE COURT: Go ahead. Do you have any witnesses
3 after Dr. Barrett?
4 MS. GLINK: No, we do not, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Okay. I have one question that I meant
6 to ask Mr. Klein. So don't leave, Mr. Klein.
7 MS. GLINK: Would you like to do so now?
8 THE COURT: No, no. Go ahead. Finish Dr. Barrett
9 up while he's here.
10 MS. GLINK: He's gone.
11 THE COURT: Oh, he's gone. Well, maybe I can ask
12 somebody else. I could probably ask somebody else.
13 BY MS. GLINK:
14 Q Dr. Barrett, have any of the police and fire promotional
15 exams that you have developed for other municipalities other
16 than the City of Chicago been challenged under Title VII?
17 MR. FLAXMAN: Objection. That's not relevant.
18 MS. GLINK: Your Honor, I believe it goes to --
19 THE COURT: Overruled. I'll let him answer.
20 BY THE WITNESS:
21 A Yes.
22 BY MS. GLINK:
23 Q What kind of examination -- can you give me an example of
24 one of your examinations that's been challenged?
25 A I have been in police and fire since 1973 in Akron, in the
208
Barrett - direct
1 city of Columbus, for example, two examples.
2 Q What was the basis for the challenge to these
3 examinations?
4 A That it was alleged adverse impact and it was alleged the
5 tests were not -- not job related.
6 Q And when you say job related, would you say job related is
7 synonymous with valid?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And were any of these examinations that have been
10 challenged found to be not job related?
11 A No.
12 Q Let's move on to your experience with the City of Chicago.
13 At some point in time did the City of Chicago
14 approach you to develop a lieutenant -- police lieutenant
15 promotional examination?
16 A Yes.
17 Q What, if anything, did you agree to do on behalf of the
18 City of Chicago?
19 A We agreed to develop a valid nondiscriminatory test
20 battery for the City of Chicago.
21 Q What do you mean by valid?
22 A Valid means it's job relevant. It's a term of art in our
23 field. I proposed to develop a content valid test battery for
24 Chicago police lieutenant.
25 Q And why did you choose to employ content valid strategy in
209
Barrett - direct
1 developing your examination?
2 A Basically in the modern police departments with the
3 history of litigation, it's impossible to use any sort of
4 criterion-related validation process.
5 Q Let me stop there. What is criterion-related process?
6 A That's where you test a group of individuals -- say it's a
7 concurrent study. You would test a group of present
8 lieutenants on test battery, and then you would obtain at the
9 same time some measure of job performance, and then you
10 correlate the test scores with the job performance to see if
11 empirically there is a relationship between the test scores and
12 the job performance.
13 Q And you said that it was impossible to do such a study.
14 Why -- in your professional opinion why do you say that?
15 A Well, there's at least two reasons. One is that once you
16 gave a test battery in the City of Chicago with the present
17 Chicago lieutenants, every item would be exposed. In other
18 words, it would no longer be a secret. They would reproduce
19 that test battery.
20 The second reason is from my experience people are
21 reluctant now to give good performance appraisals of other
22 officers because of fear of being called biased or charges of
23 discrimination might be lodged against a person who in effect
24 did a performance appraisal of lieutenants.
25 Q And so you decided to -- so you decided to develop a
210
Barrett - direct
1 content valid test?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Is content validity something that's recognized -- let me
4 strike that.
5 Are you familiar with the uniform guidelines in
6 employee selection procedure?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And does the -- do the uniform guidelines set forth
9 various methods in which a test developer can validate his or
10 her examination?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And is the content validity approach one of the types of
13 validation that's recognized by the uniform guidelines?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Do the uniform guidelines specify that any particular type
16 of validation is better than another?
17 A No.
18 Q In your professional experience as a test developer, is
19 there any one method of validating an examination that is
20 better than another?
21 A No.
22 Q You also said that you wanted -- it was your -- that you
23 were going to try to develop a nondiscriminatory examination.
24 What did you mean by that?
25 A Well, an exam which would try to -- which would be
211
Barrett - direct
1 relevant, would be valid, and would not discriminate based upon
2 race or any other factor. There would be no intentional
3 discrimination; and if there was adverse impact, we could show
4 in fact that the testing process was job relevant or valid.
5 Q Could you briefly describe for me the stages of the test
6 development process for the development of the police
7 lieutenant examination.
8 A The -- we can make it simple and talk about two main
9 stages.
10 The first stage is the job analysis stage. And in
11 this stage we go through and we interview the police
12 lieutenant's supervisors.
13 Now, in this situation we had an advantage. We had
14 two advantages. One, we had just completed a project with
15 police sergeants where we had also interviewed police
16 lieutenants. So we had some idea of not only the job duties
17 and responsibilities of the sergeants, but also we had
18 interviewed the lieutenants who were the sergeants'
19 supervisors. So we had a good idea of how the two jobs
20 articulated.
21 We also had a second advantage.
22 Q Go ahead.
23 A And that is we had a document put out by H.R. Strategies
24 who had previously performed a job analysis and documented it a
25 few months before we started the project. So we had that
212
Barrett - direct
1 information also.
2 Q And a job -- how would you define a job analysis?
3 A A job analysis is a systematic way of collecting
4 information about the job, and the goal is to create a job
5 description which contains the major work behaviors; and from
6 each major work behavior you can determine what knowledge or
7 skills or abilities are required to perform that major work
8 behavior.
9 Q Are there guidelines, professional guidelines or standards
10 that are established which tell you how a job analysis should
11 be conducted?
12 A Well, in the field there are many different ways to do a
13 job analysis, and there is no one standard that says here's the
14 way it must be done. The approach we used was an interview
15 approach.
16 Q Other than -- you already mentioned that you had some
17 information about the job of lieutenant from both the H.R.
18 Strategies report and from your -- the information you had
19 gained from the job analysis process for the job of sergeant;
20 is that correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q If you had a job analysis that was conducted by H.R.
23 Strategies, why did you go on and conduct your own job
24 analysis?
25 A I wanted to obtain more detail about the job so we could
213
Barrett - direct
1 construct the appropriate content valid test. The test
2 development process, which is the second part of the process,
3 relies upon detailed knowledge about the job of police
4 lieutenant. So we would concentrate, for example, in learning
5 about various aspects of the police lieutenant job in our
6 interview process in order to help us construct the content
7 valid relevant test.
8 Q You have said you conducted interviews as part of your job
9 analysis. Let's talk briefly about that.
10 How many lieutenants and supervisory personnel, if
11 any, did you interview during this process?
12 A We interviewed over 50 people, as I recall.
13 Q I'm going to -- for sake of ease I'm going to hand you a
14 copy of the test report that you submitted.
15 MS. GLINK: Do you want a copy, Your Honor?
16 THE COURT: Eventually.
17 MR. FLAXMAN: Judge, you already have a copy in the
18 summary judgment.
19 MS. GLINK: It's part of the summary judgment
20 package.
21 THE COURT: Do I need it, do you think?
22 Well, give it to me.
23 (Document tendered.)
24 BY MS. GLINK:
25 Q Dr. Barrett, is that the report that you submitted to the
214
Barrett - direct
1 City of Chicago?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And does that report generally set out the stages and
4 steps that you took in developing the examination?
5 A Yes.
6 Q You said that you interviewed 53 lieutenants -- I'm sorry.
7 You said you interviewed at least 50 lieutenants -- or 50
8 lieutenants and supervisory personnel.
9 Can you tell me -- can you break down for me the
10 supervisory ranks that you interviewed as part of your job
11 analysis?
12 A As I recall, we interviewed mostly lieutenants. We also
13 interviewed some captains and I believe a commander.
14 Q Why did you interview the commander?
15 A I believe it was Commander Wedgebury. To get a general
16 overview of the job of lieutenant.
17 Q Why did you deem it important to include captains in the
18 interview process?
19 A Because they are the supervisors and they also have
20 knowledge of how the lieutenants work and how -- again how the
21 two jobs interrelate.
22 Q And do you recall out of the 50 or so that you interviewed
23 how many lieutenants were in that group?
24 A I believe it was around 51, as I recall.
25 Q Are the names contained in your report?
215
Barrett - direct
1 A Yes, they're all contained in the report.
2 Q For the ease of the court and the rest of us, can you tell
3 us where if we were to look you could find them?
4 A No. I have to look.
5 It would -- on page 81 it starts to describe the
6 results of the job analysis. So it would be in that section
7 probably, and there's probably an appendix which contains that
8 information.
9 Q Okay. Of the lieutenants that you interviewed, did you
10 draw a representative sample of lieutenants in the Chicago
11 Police Department; and when I say representative, I mean across
12 the district?
13 A Yes, we targeted that and a -- cross groups also of
14 individuals.
15 Q When you say groups, are you referring to racial
16 composition?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And why was it important to you to interview people from
19 all parts of the Chicago Police Department?
20 A Get all different types of perspectives of what the job
21 really entails.
22 Q And what was the purpose for you in ensuring that there
23 was a representative sample in terms of racial composition?
24 A Again, if there's any differences, we could detect those
25 differences perhaps and see if there's differences in terms of
216
Barrett - direct
1 how the major work behaviors were performed.
2 Q What type of interview did you conduct with the
3 individuals that you met with?
4 A It's a semi-structured interview process we used.
5 Q Can you explain what that means?
6 A We basically have a set list of questions which we can go
7 off from those questions and explore different issues. Now,
8 not everyone received the same interview process. In other
9 words, if we didn't understand a certain part of the job, the
10 job analysis would focus on that part. The arrest report, for
11 example, if we didn't quite understand what the role of the
12 lieutenant was, we would focus on that.
13 Q Other than the semi-structured interview, did you have any
14 other documents with you at the time that you conducted these
15 interviews?
16 A Yes. Very early on we were able to generate -- as early
17 as May 3rd -- a draft job description. We also obtained from
18 the police department all the reports they generated, all of
19 the types of materials they used. We had all that sort of
20 material.
21 Also we had the general orders and the special orders
22 and the other documentation which was important to that job.
23 Q And how did you come about collecting all of this
24 information, special orders, general orders and the other
25 source material?
217
Barrett - direct
1 A Well, we had much of it in our file from the job analysis
2 we had performed for sergeant, but we requested the additional
3 information from the police department itself.
4 Q And how did you utilize the job description and this
5 information during the job analysis process?
6 A Well, often we would have people review a draft job
7 description and see if it was in fact complete, see if they had
8 any suggestions in terms of what else should be added, any
9 corrections they might have.
10 Q And how were you able to put this initial draft
11 description -- a job description, does that include the work
12 behaviors that you've identified as being important on this
13 job?
14 A Yes, the major work behaviors.
15 Q And how were you able to put a draft together?
16 A Well, from our interview process and from our past job
17 analyses of the sergeants and from the H.R. Strategies report.
18 Q As your process went on with the interviewing, how did
19 that affect your master job description?
20 A Well, again, it adds and we verify and we add materials as
21 we go along.
22 Q Other than the interviews that you conducted, did you --
23 did your job analysis involve any other parts?
24 A Yes. We also had job analysts who did so-called ride-
25 along, observations of lieutenants on the job, that sort of
218
Barrett - direct
1 activity, yes.
2 Q What's a ride-along?
3 A You would ride with a lieutenant in a patrol car.
4 Q What was the purpose of the ride-alongs?
5 A Again, to understand the job of lieutenant.
6 Q And an observation, can you just describe for me what that
7 would be?
8 A Well, you actually observe what they're doing on the job.
9 Q And the culmination of your interviews and your
10 observations and your ride-along was what, Dr. Barrett?
11 A Again, we generated -- and it's in this report -- what's
12 called a master job description.
13 Q At some point in time did you also identify the knowledge,
14 skills and abilities that are necessary to perform the work
15 behaviors that are in the master job description?
16 A Yes. As we went along in our job analysis process, we
17 were able to ask often -- for example, you made a decision
18 here. You reviewed this arrest report. What did you rely
19 upon? What did you have to know? What was the underlying
20 documentation?
21 So as we went along the job analysis process, we were
22 also getting a good idea of the knowledge and the skills and
23 the abilities which were required to perform each of the major
24 work behaviors, and we also got very concrete suggestions
25 about, well, this is goal No. 7 we use. We use the Illinois
219
Barrett - direct
1 Code, for example. This is important. The statute is
2 important. Whatever information was important to that
3 decision-making process.
4 As it went along also we tried to map out here's the
5 source of decisions a lieutenant has to make and here's the
6 knowledge or the skills, the abilities which the lieutenant
7 must have to make these important decisions.
8 Q And then did you make -- once you had them mapped out,
9 what did you do then?
10 A Well, what we did, as you'll find in this report, a chart
11 showing major work behaviors and the associated knowledge,
12 skills and abilities, and you'll also find a chart showing for
13 each of these how we tested each of these using each of the
14 three tests we designed. So everything linked together.
15 I guess the point I want to make of content validity,
16 you're linking the major work behaviors, the knowledges and the
17 actual test items together, so you can go and look at the test
18 item, see what knowledge it's tapping and see how it relates to
19 the major work behaviors.
20 So it is a representation of what is done on the job.
21 It's actual content of the job that was being tested.
22 Q Did you also have an occasion to measure the importance or
23 frequency of a work behavior?
24 A Yes. Part of the process involves asking the individuals
25 what is the most important work behaviors and some estimate of
220
Barrett - direct
1 frequency also.
2 Q When you finally had your master job description
3 completed, did you have anybody review the master job
4 description?
5 A Yes, we did.
6 Q And who did you have review it?
7 A We have had -- again had lieutenants review the final
8 form.
9 Q When you say lieutenants review, are you referring to
10 subject matter experts from the police department?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Do you recall how many individuals you had review the
13 master job description?
14 A Either five or eight. I've forgotten which one.
15 Q What was the purpose of this review?
16 A Again to see if it's accurate, if it's complete, if
17 there's anything which is missing. It's -- part of what I
18 always do on a job analysis procedure is I always ask, well, is
19 there any part of your job we haven't discussed? And so as far
20 as our standard procedure, this final review is just a final
21 check that we have covered the major issues.
22 Q Do you recall the racial composition of the five or eight
23 subject matter experts you had review the items that you -- or
24 the master job description?
25 A No, I don't.
221
Barrett - direct
1 Q Did you also have an occasion to synthesize the source
2 materials that you collected at the beginning and create a
3 source list?
4 A Yes. We had a actual panel go through and review -- I
5 believe Dr. Cellar conducted that -- looking at each of the
6 suggested source materials, have a panel review that material
7 and make a decision that yes, this is or is not relevant for
8 the job of police lieutenant.
9 Q And who was on this panel that was reviewing your source
10 list of relevant information?
11 A Again, I believe it was Commander Wedgebury and a panel of
12 lieutenants, as I recall.
13 Q Again subject matter experts from the Chicago Police
14 Department?
15 A Yes, these were all subject matter experts.
16 Q And did you ask these individuals as well if there was any
17 source material that they deemed was missing from the list?
18 A Yes. That's part of the process.
19 Q Did they make any suggestions to you as to any source
20 materials that either were -- should be included or should not
21 be included?
22 A Yes. I recall, yes, they did.
23 Q Do you -- and did you follow the recommendations?
24 A Yes. I think again it's documented in our report of what
25 specifically was included and not included in terms of that
222
Barrett - direct
1 issue.
2 Q Was there any materials on your list that involved the
3 CAPS program?
4 A There was one document as I recall.
5 Q Do you know why this was included in the source list?
6 A Well, again from our job analysis interviews, from talking
7 with the police officials, that this was a program which was
8 being initiated in the Chicago Police Department and it was
9 deemed important that the lieutenants, the future lieutenants
10 have some awareness of this program.
11 Q In your professional opinion was the job analysis that you
12 conducted for the job of lieutenant comprehensive?
13 A Yes.
14 Q In your professional opinion did the job analysis that you
15 conducted in conjunction with the other information that you
16 have tap all the important aspects of the job of lieutenant?
17 A Yes.
18 Q In your opinion did the job analysis that you conducted
19 conform with uniform guidelines --
20 A Yes.
21 Q -- the selection procedure?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Once you had your master job description and you had
24 identified the important knowledge, skills and abilities and
25 source materials, what's the next step of your test development
223
Barrett - direct
1 process?
2 A Well, from our analysis it appeared there were three main
3 components, the job knowledge component, the oral component and
4 administrative component.
5 Q How did you reach this conclusion?
6 A By analysis of the actual major work behaviors.
7 Q Can you -- let's turn then to the first of the three
8 components that you mentioned.
9 You said that you had a written job knowledge test;
10 is that correct?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And why did you choose to include a written job knowledge
13 test in your examination?
14 A Well, there are a number of reasons. The first reason is
15 that many people believe, people in the safety force, that
16 knowledge is the most important aspect of the job for a
17 supervisor, because this knowledge is -- underlies everything
18 they do. They have to review documents. They have to give
19 advice. They have to do it very quickly. Some jurisdictions,
20 as a matter of fact, some safety forces only use a job
21 knowledge test.
22 Also our professional literature indicates that job
23 knowledge is probably the best predictor of job performance
24 across a wide range of jobs.
25 And certainly our job analysis indicated very
224
Barrett - direct
1 strongly that in fact job knowledge was extremely important to
2 being a functioning effective Chicago police lieutenant.
3 Q Did the job analysis that was conducted by H.R. Strategies
4 that you reviewed reach a similar conclusion?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Were there any other reasons why you chose to include a
7 written job knowledge test on the examination?
8 A I can't think of any right now.
9 Q Can you describe for me the -- how many items there were
10 on the test?
11 A As I recall, there were 150.
12 Q And earlier today someone spoke -- actually read one of
13 those questions out loud and explained that there were five
14 potential answers; is that correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And how did you go about validating the written job
17 knowledge test that you developed?
18 A Well, we linked -- first, we should say it was reviewed as
19 Chief Cadogan and Lieutenant Klein said. It was reviewed --
20 every item was reviewed. We would go through an extensive item
21 by item process to be sure that each item is relevant, and it
22 was verified by the fact that the expert panel we had also
23 verified each and every item was relevant job knowledge for a
24 lieutenant, and then we linked each item to actual work
25 behavior.
225
Barrett - direct
1 Q Do you recall the individuals who reviewed the items on
2 the job knowledge test?
3 A I have mentioned two already. It would be also Chief Shaw
4 and Commander DeLopez, I believe.
5 Q Do you know the races of these individuals -- or national
6 orgins, I should say?
7 A Hispanic and black and Caucasian or two.
8 Q And when these individuals reviewed the job items, did
9 they make any suggestions to you about changing items?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Did you accept those recommendations?
12 A Yes. My -- what I did was I told my people -- we sat down
13 with each one individually, one of my staff people, each one of
14 the experts, and went over item by item each one and we took
15 notes, and any changes they said we made. If they didn't like
16 an item, we'd take it out, if they have an addition, a better
17 idea. And they were extremely helpful because they gave us
18 extremely good ideas in terms of how to improve the test and
19 make the items very much -- I would even say face valid in
20 terms of here's what's required for the police lieutenant. So
21 it was a very helpful process for us.
22 Q In your opinion is the job of lieutenant a complex job?
23 A Yes, it is.
24 Q Is the complexity of the job related in any way to job
25 knowledge?
226
Barrett - direct
1 A Yes, there is a great deal of job knowledge which is
2 required for a lieutenant to understand and have at his and her
3 fingertips.
4 Q Is there a correlation between the two, as the complexity
5 of the job increases the more job knowledge that you need?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And is that based on your years of experience in the
8 development and selection of testing devices?
9 A Yes.
10 Q In your opinion is the knowledge test -- is the knowledge
11 that's tested on the written job knowledge test that you
12 developed knowledge that a lieutenant must know in order to be
13 effective on his or her job?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And is the information that the -- that's contained -- or
16 is the knowledge that's tested on the written job knowledge
17 test knowledge that a lieutenant must know on the first day on
18 the job?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Earlier today there was some testimony about the in-basket
21 component. Can you describe for me the in-basket simulation
22 that you conducted.
23 A We used the actual forms which -- and materials from the
24 Chicago Police Department, and we had various number of
25 situations which would be encountered by a police lieutenant.
227
Barrett - direct
1 This is again from the job analysis and it was verified by the
2 expert panel I mentioned before.
3 So we had situations where you have a group of --
4 information in a hypothetical in-basket and you have to go
5 through, organize it -- I believe we gave them two and a half
6 hours to do this -- look at various problems, make decisions.
7 Then they're giving an extra hour and a half to answer 60
8 questions about this material. In fact, they had to make
9 decisions which were decisions having to do with problems they
10 would face as a police lieutenant.
11 Q And the forms that you used, are these forms that were
12 identified to you during your job analysis process as forms
13 that a lieutenant would be filling out on the job?
14 A Or reviewing also, yes.
15 Q You have said the forms were similarly reviewed by a panel
16 of subject matter experts?
17 A Yes. And every item was reviewed also, of course.
18 Q Why did you choose to include such an in-basket simulation
19 as part of your testing process?
20 A It was clear to us the administrative component of the job
21 was very important for a police lieutenant. The police
22 lieutenant had to review a great deal of material and again do
23 it fairly quickly. So it was an important part of the job.
24 Q What was the in-basket simulation designed to measure?
25 What types of skills?
228
Barrett - direct
1 A Well, it's things like analysis, can you analyze things?
2 Can you actually organize and make decisions? Can you make
3 good decisions about these things? Can you do things such as
4 scheduling, for example? Can you actually perform these
5 activities?
6 Q Are you -- in your opinion are these skills that were
7 important to the job of lieutenant?
8 A Yes.
9 Q You mentioned, as we have spoken already, a little bit
10 about the review of the simulation.
11 When the subject matter experts reviewed the
12 simulation and forms and items that you had developed, did they
13 make any -- suggest any changes?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And did you make any changes to the simulation, either the
16 forms or the items, as a result of the subject matter experts'
17 review?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And did you ask the subject matter experts whether or not
20 they felt that the simulation was -- tested skills that were
21 necessary for a lieutenant?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Did you ask -- have the occasion to ask any of the subject
24 matter experts whether or not the simulation was missing
25 anything that they thought was important?
229
Barrett - direct
1 A Yes.
2 Q And what response did you get?
3 A In general the responses tapped very well on what was
4 required on the administrative side, yes.
5 Q Did you also have the opportunity to ask the subject
6 matter experts when they were reviewing the written job
7 knowledge test whether there was any part of -- or any
8 knowledge that was not being tested, that they felt should have
9 been tested?
10 A Yes.
11 Q What response did you get?
12 A Again we got the same response.
13 MR. FLAXMAN: Objection. This kind of stuff probably
14 should have more foundation, who, what, when, where, rather
15 than just a summary.
16 THE COURT: Well, he's right technically. I mean
17 nobody has been doing it all day. Why don't you just lay a
18 little bit better foundation.
19 MS. GLINK: I also believe the information is
20 contained in the report. So I can point the court in that
21 direction.
22 BY MS. GLINK:
23 Q Dr. Barrett, do you recall who came to review the -- you
24 mentioned earlier that Commander DeLopez, Commander Shaw,
25 Commander Cadogan and Commander Klein came to review the
230
Barrett - direct
1 written job knowledge test; is that correct?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q When did they come to review the items that you had
4 prepared on the written job knowledge test?
5 A I don't recall the exact date. I do know it was two
6 different dates, because they came the first time -- we thought
7 we could accomplish the task in two days as I recall.
8 Q And --
9 A Actually they came back a week later for a second review
10 because we couldn't accomplish all the review we wanted to
11 accomplish in that time period.
12 Q And are the dates in which these individuals came to you
13 at Barrett & Associates contained somewhere in your report?
14 A Yes, it's in the report.
15 Q And did these same four individuals come -- have an
16 occasion to come to Barrett & Associates in Akron to review the
17 items that you had developed and the forms you had chosen for
18 the in-basket simulation?
19 A That's the same time frame as I recall. They reviewed
20 both the job knowledge test and the in-basket at the time. The
21 oral was done before that and that was done only by Chief
22 Cadogan and Lieutenant Klein. So there was a difference in
23 that regard.
24 Q Describe for me briefly the general process of the review
25 so that we can establish exactly what kind of interaction there
231
Barrett - direct
1 was between the people at Barrett & Associates and the subject
2 matter experts.
3 A Again, as I probably described it before, we came in and
4 we described our general process, and one of my staff people
5 took each one of the subject matter experts individually and
6 went through individually each item on both tests. And we had
7 source materials, and if they suggested a change, they would
8 type the change up right away.
9 We have a somewhat complex procedure. We have an
10 example in our report of how we do it. For each and every item
11 we make comments. Go down, find the item. For each
12 alternative, we say why is this right, why is this wrong, why
13 is the correct answer correct, and we key it back to the job
14 description, to the major work behaviors. So it's all on that
15 form, and so you'll see two or three pages for review of one
16 item.
17 That was part of the process and we would document
18 what they were doing and telling us. And if they said we
19 shouldn't use an article, we wouldn't use it.
20 Q At the end of the process of reviewing these items, did
21 you ask the subject matter experts any further questions about
22 the process?
23 A As I recall, at the very end I asked them how they have
24 thought -- what they thought about the process of total test
25 battery, and they said it was one of the best they had ever
232
Barrett - direct
1 seen, as I recall. They were very complimentary about our
2 coverage and the relevance of the test battery.
3 Q Would you say that it was the response to both the written
4 job knowledge test that we've discussed and the in-basket
5 simulation that you developed?
6 A Yes. I recall more specifically when all four were there
7 at the very end of the process, the last day. I recall that.
8 Q In your opinion does the in-basket test for knowledge,
9 skills and abilities a lieutenant must have to be effective on
10 a job?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Are these knowledge skills and abilities in your opinion
13 knowledge skills and abilities that a lieutenant must know on
14 the first day of the job?
15 A Yes.
16 Q The third part of the test was an oral briefing exercise.
17 Can you describe briefly what the oral briefing exercise was.
18 A Yes. The oral briefing exercise was a simulation of
19 giving information at a roll call. It's an exemplar of oral
20 communication skills, and what -- what was required was they
21 were given information about a gang basically, and they were to
22 organize this, analyze it, and then give a talk of between five
23 and seven minutes, there was a maximum of ten minutes, and then
24 they would be rated by train raters on their analysis,
25 organization and oral communication skills.
233
Barrett - direct
1 They spoke into three microphones. This was all tape
2 recorded. And there was an attempt to make it very objective
3 and the same process for everyone.
4 Q Why did you choose to use the microphones?
5 A Because we wanted a record where we could have trained
6 raters then rate the tape.
7 Q You mentioned the word objective. Why would you want to
8 have this process be objective?
9 A One, in reviewing the past history of litigation problems
10 in Chicago and in reviewing the results of the Blue Ribbon
11 Panel of 1990, it was clear that there had been charges that
12 the tests were not fair, that they were not objective.
13 So we wanted to make a process which would be
14 objective and perceive to be fair by everyone. Everyone would
15 be treated exactly the same. There would be no disparate
16 treatment of anyone. Everyone had the same opportunity to
17 study, read the materials, perform the exercises, and they all
18 scored the same way without regard to race or sex or any
19 political consideration of any type. So objectivity was
20 extremely important for us.
21 Q And is the Blue Ribbon Panel referenced in your report --
22 the opinions expressed by the Blue Ribbon Panel referenced
23 anywhere in your report?
24 A Yes. I have taken the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations
25 and showed how we attempted to meet those recommendations.
234
Barrett - direct
1 Q And was meeting the recommendations -- did anybody from
2 the City of Chicago ever express to you the importance of
3 meeting the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Why did you --
6 MR. FLAXMAN: Judge, we need a who or something more
7 than just -- we should have that question stricken, did anybody
8 from the City express it. It could be --
9 THE COURT: Did anybody. It means anybody.
10 MR. FLAXMAN: It's not relevant if it's anybody. If
11 there's going to be a follow up that it was a commissioner or
12 somebody --
13 THE COURT: You'll have a chance to follow up.
14 Ask your next question.
15 BY MS. GLINK:
16 Q Dr. Barrett, why did you choose to include an oral
17 component in your testing process?
18 A Because oral communication is an important component of
19 the job.
20 Q And in what ways did the oral briefing exercise that you
21 developed tap the ability to communicate orally?
22 A Well, it clearly tapped the ability for someone to
23 communicate information to someone else. And it was designed
24 to do that, and it was an exemplar of that sort of ability to
25 do that. We used the role call as something concrete which was
235
Barrett - direct
1 familiar to the sergeants.
2 Q You said it was designed to test for oral communication.
3 How was it designed to test for oral communication?
4 A Well, because they had to analyze material, look at
5 material and report in a logical way, understandable way to
6 someone else, in a simulated roll call, so in effect could the
7 person give the relevant information in a logical format and be
8 understood. It's that simple. That was the main weighting
9 factors.
10 Q And did the oral briefing exercise require the applicant
11 to synthesize certain information?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And what information was that?
14 A It was about a hypothetical gang in terms of operating in
15 a territory and information that the patrol officer should know
16 about this gang.
17 Q Was the oral briefing exercise reviewed in a similar
18 manner as the written job knowledge and in-basket simulation?
19 A Yes, it was.
20 Q Did the same four individuals have the occasion to come to
21 Akron to review those items?
22 A No.
23 Q Who came to review?
24 A As I said before, it was Chief Cadogan and Lieutenant
25 Klein, as I recall, were the only two who reviewed the oral.
236
Barrett - direct
1 Q And did Chief Cadogan and Chief Klein come to Akron to do
2 that review?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And when they completed their review, did you ask them any
5 -- did they make any suggestions during the review process?
6 A Yes, they did.
7 Q And did you accept those suggestions?
8 A Yes, I did.
9 Q Did they ask you to exclude any information that was
10 included in the oral briefing exercise?
11 A I don't recall the exact details, but usually it's fine
12 tuning, as I recall, in that exercise. They thought it was a
13 good exercise, it was very realistic and very timely for
14 Chicago.
15 Q At the end of the review process did you ask them any
16 follow-up questions about the -- about the comprehensiveness of
17 the oral exercise?
18 A I don't recall about -- asking questions about being
19 comprehensive, no.
20 Q Did you ask them if it missed any of the skills -- if
21 there were any skills that were important to the job of
22 lieutenant that they -- that the oral briefing exercise was not
23 tapping?
24 A Well, they thought it was tapping the relevant oral
25 communication skills. Beyond that I don't know. I don't
237
Barrett - direct
1 recall any specific questions.
2 Q In your opinion does the oral briefing exercise test for
3 knowledge, skills and abilities that a lieutenant has to know
4 to be effective on the job?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And are these skills and abilities that the oral briefing
7 exercise was designed to tap skills and abilities that a
8 lieutenant needs to have on the first day of the job?
9 A Yes.
10 Q You mentioned earlier that you linked the test content to
11 the job analysis and job description. Can you explain briefly
12 the purpose for conducting such a linkage.
13 A Well, this just demonstrates in a graphic form that each
14 item does relate to a major work behavior. That's the essence
15 of content validity.
16 You don't have to do this, but we do it just to
17 demonstrate that each and every item we use is related to some
18 major work behavior, that it's just not something which is not
19 relevant. It is a relevant part of the job.
20 Q Were you able to link all of your test items to major work
21 behaviors and knowledge, skills and abilities?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Is that set forth somewhere in your report?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Do you recall where?
238
Barrett - direct
1 A No.
2 Q In your professional opinion did the three components of
3 the test that you developed test for an applicant's ability to
4 speak clearly and coherently?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And did the lieutenant's exam you developed in your
7 professional opinion test for an applicant's ability to
8 synthesize and understand information that was given to him?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you recall testifying earlier today that the
11 examination -- in response to a question by Mr. Flaxman that
12 the examination that you developed did not test for an
13 applicant's ability to write clearly and concisely?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q And why did you choose not to test for this skill?
16 A There are probably several reasons. One is the fact that
17 there is an issue about the reliability of trying to rate essay
18 type questions.
19 Q And why is that?
20 What do you mean by reliability?
21 A In other words, when you have two raters rating an essay
22 type of question, you have an issue of what is the correct
23 standard and will you get the same rating. In the academic
24 world it's well known and there's many studies to show that
25 attempts to do this results in relatively low reliability.
239
Barrett - direct
1 When you have low reliability, what you have to do is
2 dramatically increase the number of items or in this case how
3 many reports would they have to write. You have to increase
4 the number to make it a more valid -- to make it a valid
5 examination. So that's one concern.
6 And also it's a very time-consuming process to have
7 raters rate individual type essay questions. So that was --
8 one of my concerns in that area.
9 Also, we knew that sergeants also wrote reports and
10 they were evaluated on that, and probably any gross problems
11 would have come out in the probation area and we wouldn't see
12 that as probably an area that would differentiate very much
13 between the sergeants.
14 Q In your professional experience, if an examination is
15 unreliable, can it be valid?
16 A No.
17 Q Is there any reported studies or are you aware of any
18 research in your field which shows whether written examinations
19 like essay examinations tend to have a disparate effect on any
20 racial group?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Can you explain that?
23 A There have been studies or a belief at one point in time
24 that you could have reduced adverse impact if you used essay
25 type examinations, often called constructed response type
240
Barrett - direct
1 tests.
2 Q What's a constructed -- for our understanding --
3 A That means like an essay. I'm giving you -- an essay is
4 an exemplar of a constructed type exam as opposed to a very
5 structured type, approach such as a multiple choice test. And
6 the folklore would be, at least 10 years ago, well, the
7 multiple choice test is the one which has the most adverse
8 impact.
9 If you give an essay examination, for example, and
10 let somebody do free form writing, that will reduce adverse
11 impact, and in fact this research does not support that point
12 of view.
13 So there is no advantage from my point of view in
14 terms of potential reduction of adverse impact by using an
15 essay type approach.
16 Q Do you recall Mr. Flaxman asking you earlier today whether
17 your examination tested for listening skills?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Do you recall testifying in response to that question that
20 listening skills were not measured directly?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And what did you mean by not measured directly? Were they
23 measured at all?
24 A Well, what's interesting about listening skills is again
25 research in the field indicates that reading comprehension or
241
Barrett - direct
1 listening comprehension are very highly related in the same
2 individual. In other words, if you can comprehend written
3 material, you can also comprehend oral material. In other
4 words, we have a central processor in the head called our brain
5 and whether it acts through an auditory channel or a -- through
6 the visual channel, it doesn't matter too much. The important
7 idea is how it is organized and how is it used and processed in
8 the brain.
9 So we -- our research indicates they're very similar.
10 There is also the issue -- that's basically why I'm
11 saying it wasn't measured directly.
12 Q Did your examination test for reading comprehension?
13 A Yes. You have to -- all of our examination questions are
14 ones which you have to have a certain amount of reading
15 comprehension to in effect understand the questions. If you
16 couldn't read and comprehend the material, you couldn't
17 understand the question.
18 Q Is there any other reason why you chose not to include a
19 listening comprehension test?
20 A Well, there is the practical aspect. I have had a great
21 deal of experience actually with auditory tests. You will find
22 in my vitae a test called the auditory selective attention
23 test, and I developed the test and validated it empirically to
24 predict accident involvement, in other words, how auto drivers
25 have accidents. We can predict from this test, but it's
242
Barrett - direct
1 validated only for predicting accidents of truck drivers or
2 taxicab drivers and so forth. It's not validated for
3 predicting the performance of police lieutenants.
4 Beyond that there is an issue also of how practical
5 it is. The auditory selective attention test I developed takes
6 one half hour and special equipment, earphones on your ears,
7 and it's individually administered. In other words, it would
8 taken an enormous amount of time to use a test like that for a
9 selection to police lieutenant?
10 Q In your opinion do the three test components collectively
11 that you developed for the lieutenant's test test for a
12 significant portion of the job domain of lieutenant?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And in your opinion as a professional in the field of
15 industrial psychology and test development, is the fact that
16 certain skills were not directly tested on your examination in
17 any way change your opinion as to whether or not the exam
18 tested for a significant portion of the job domain for
19 lieutenant?
20 A No.
21 Q In your opinion do you believe that the test that you
22 developed conforms in -- with the uniform guidelines on
23 selection procedures and professional standards in the field?
24 A Yes.
25 Q What, if anything, did you do to confirm that the test
243
Barrett - direct
1 development process that you went through complied with the
2 EEOC guidelines in employee selection procedure?
3 A Well, you find again in the report, I go point by point
4 though the EEOC guidelines and how our test battery meets those
5 guidelines.
6 Q That's documented in your report?
7 A That's in our report.
8 Q After the test was administered, Dr. Barrett, was there
9 any mechanism by which an applicant could challenge the items
10 on any of the three test components?
11 A Yes, there was.
12 Q Can you describe the challenge procedure to me.
13 A Basically there was a hotline maintained by Arthur
14 Andersen where anyone could call in and appeal any item,
15 anything on the test process. They could say the item is not
16 relevant. It's a mistake. They could do whatever they wanted
17 to.
18 Q And did you receive any challenges to any of the test
19 items on your written job knowledge test?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And do you recall how many?
22 A I believe there were four challenges.
23 Q And do you recall how many people took the test?
24 A 765, I believe.
25 Q And what, if any, is your opinion about the number of
244
Barrett - direct
1 challenges you received on the written job knowledge test?
2 A That was the most extraordinary experience I've ever had.
3 Usually we have many, many challenges to a job knowledge test
4 in terms of saying this is wrong, this is wrong. Say you would
5 often have over half of the items challenged.
6 So we had a very, very low rate of challenge on the
7 job knowledge test.
8 Q And did you receive any challenges to any portion of the
9 in-basket simulation?
10 A I recall we had one challenge.
11 Q And in your -- did you, if any, form an opinion about the
12 number of challenges you received on that examination?
13 A Again, it's extraordinarily low compared to the number of
14 people who took the examination.
15 Q And did you receive any challenges to the oral briefing
16 exercise that you gave as part of the 1994 lieutenant's exam?
17 A The only challenges received there were to the
18 administration procedures, some sort of -- something to do with
19 how it was administered.
20 Q And did you form an opinion, if any, as to the number of
21 challenges you received on that examination?
22 A Very small number.
23 Q And how were the few challenges that you did receive
24 handled?
25 A A panel was convened with Commander Wedgebury, as I
245
Barrett - direct
1 recall, Dr. Cellar, our group experts, and they looked at each
2 of the challenges and made an appropriate decision on those
3 challenges.
4 Q The group of experts, were they members of the Chicago
5 Police Department?
6 A Yes, they were.
7 Q Of the four items that were challenged on the written job
8 knowledge test, do you recall what action, if any, was taken as
9 a result of these challenges?
10 A I think two were modified and two were rejected, as I
11 recall.
12 Q And when you say rejected, does that mean the item was
13 thrown out?
14 A No, no. The challenge was rejected.
15 Q And when you said modified, what do you mean by that?
16 A I believe -- again I'm going from memory. You can get
17 this in my report as I recall. We might score two answers as
18 correct, for example -- two responses as correct instead of
19 one.
20 Q Did you take any steps during the development at any phase
21 of the development process to minimize adverse impact?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Can you briefly describe for me some of the steps that you
24 took.
25 A Well, every step in the process was designed to try to
246
Barrett - direct
1 reduce adverse impact, and the most basic thing is that you do
2 a good job analysis, you try to make everything relevant --
3 everything in the test is relevant.
4 We used minority job analysts. We interviewed
5 sergeants and lieutenants who -- and supervisors who were
6 minority members. We had a review process which involved
7 minorities. We had a reading level which was below that -- the
8 actual source of material. In other words, our test's reading
9 level was lower than the source materials that lieutenant --
10 that the sergeants had to read to prepare for the examination.
11 So every step of the process was one where we
12 attempted to reduce any potential adverse impact.
13 We had a training program for item writers, for
14 example. We had Dr. Wasp come in from DePaul University to
15 give diversity training to all of our staff in terms of what to
16 look for to potentially reduce adverse impact.
17 What I'm saying is we used -- followed a number of
18 different steps to do that.
19 Q Do you recall testifying earlier today that you weighted
20 the three examination components equally?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And how did you reach the decision to weight the three
23 components of the test equally?
24 A Well, first we had a continual literature review of the
25 general relationship of pyschometrics on weighting, and that --
247
Barrett - direct
1 Q Can you stop right there. The term psychometrics is a new
2 term and can you just briefly define what that is.
3 A That's measurement of -- psychological measurement
4 basically. It is called statistical procedures used to study
5 tests, responses.
6 Q And you said you conducted a literature review?
7 A Yes.
8 Q What was the purpose of this literature review?
9 A Again to see what the professional literature said.
10 Professional literature in effect said equal weighting was
11 usually your optimum way to go, to give the test.
12 Q Why is that the general consensus of the literature?
13 MR. FLAXMAN: Objection. It's beyond his competence
14 to tell us why the literature is the consensus.
15 THE COURT: It probably is. I'll let him answer if
16 you can. What is your opinion about why the literature has
17 this consensus?
18 BY THE WITNESS:
19 A Because there is a lot of error when you try to weight and
20 the regression equations are such that when you look at
21 regression weighted versus unit weighted, we find that your
22 optimum prediction will vary -- with many different samples
23 it's best with unit weighting.
24 BY MS. GLINK:
25 Q And unit weighting, is that equal weighting?
248
Barrett - direct
1 A Yes, it's equal weighting.
2 Q Other than the literature review which in your
3 understanding supported unit weighting, did you -- is there any
4 other reason why you decided to weight the examination equally?
5 A Yes. We had the results of the job analysis and we could
6 see that it appeared from the job analysis that equal weighting
7 would be the most appropriate technique to use.
8 Q How did you decide that by looking at your job analysis?
9 A You look at the importance of the various areas and see
10 what in fact is most important and how -- what each component
11 of the test does tap and how it relates to the work behavior.
12 And again we verified that I believe in some documents we
13 submitted to the court concerning that.
14 Q I'm going to show you what's been marked at Defendant's
15 Exhibit 22.
16 Dr. Barrett, is that the report in which you document
17 the bases for how you determine the weighting of the
18 examination?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And does that document set forth the literature review
21 that you conducted?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Does it also set forth the bases of equal weighting based
24 on the job analysis that you conducted?
25 A Yes.
249
Barrett - direct
1 Q Other than the job analysis that you conducted and the
2 literature review, were there any other bases for why you
3 decided to weight the three examination components equally?
4 A We also reviewed the H.R. Strategies job analysis report
5 and came to the same conclusion that this was appropriate based
6 upon the test we developed -- we devised.
7 Q How did you determine this by looking at the H.R.
8 Strategies report?
9 A Again looking at the actual linkages and again Dr. Cellar
10 and this report verify that.
11 Q Is that the report that Mr. Flaxman showed you earlier
12 today?
13 A Yes, correct.
14 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 40, and is that report
15 contained in your -- in the report that's in front of you
16 that's marked as Defendant's Exhibit 2?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And does that report -- is that report an appendix to
19 Defendant's -- the report that you submitted that's been marked
20 Defendant's Exhibit 2?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And you testified earlier that Dr. Cellar works for you
23 and that you rely on his opinions and feel he is a good
24 industrial psychologist; is that correct?
25 A Yes.
250
Barrett - direct
1 Q And what conclusions, if any, did Dr. Cellar reach as to
2 how H.R. Strategies job analysis -- or what weights would be
3 supported by the H.R. Strategies job analysis?
4 A Again, it verified equal weighting approach.
5 Q Other than the four or the three bases that you just
6 described, the two job analyses and the literature review, you
7 testified earlier today that you then went on to conduct a
8 computer simulation. Is that correct?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q In very simple terms, can you describe the simulation to
11 us.
12 A It's hard to do in simple terms, but basically what you're
13 doing, you're trying to construct hypothetical people in the
14 computer and you add random error to it. You give them various
15 characteristics and you draw from a population -- in this case
16 we use 8,000 individuals. You randomly draw and you see what
17 might have occurred hypothetically if your parameters were
18 correct. And each time you do a simulation you get a different
19 result because it is a simulation.
20 And so it's an attempt to say all right, what if we
21 put in other factors. We know as a predicate that all the
22 evidence indicates that it should be equal weighting. Is there
23 enough other evidence from this simulation which might make us
24 change our mind based upon this our approach.
25 Q Why would you choose to conduct the simulation after you
251
Barrett - direct
1 had already looked at the job analysis and made your decision
2 about equal weighting?
3 A Basically because we were going to try to take into
4 account potential adverse impact and see if we could
5 potentially have some other approach which would give us the
6 same type of validity, but less adverse impact.
7 Q Was this the first time that you had conducted this
8 simulation?
9 A Yes. We did it for the sergeant for the very first time.
10 Q Was the technique that you were attempting to utilize in
11 your opinion relatively new?
12 A It was brand-new. It's a brand-new approach.
13 Q And can you explain the results of this simulation?
14 A Well, basically we found that as we ran through the
15 simulation, you get various results, and from my perspective
16 looking at the total simulation and what was learned, that it
17 did not change the opinion that we should equal weight the
18 lieutenant's test.
19 Q Why in your opinion did it not change your decision that
20 you should weight the test equally?
21 A Well, we had very concrete job analysis information from
22 two job analyses. We had the general literature. And this in
23 one simulation might show, gee, maybe we could get something
24 different hypothetically. This is all hypothetical. Because,
25 for example, I've run a different simulation and we expect the
252
Barrett - direct
1 oral exam, for example, to have -- to give you the best result.
2 The more you weight the oral, the better your result.
3 In fact, one simulation we ran we found it gave us
4 the worst result.
5 So what we're talking about is a simulation just
6 hypothetical and theoretical, and I don't have enough
7 confidence in it -- I didn't at that point in time at least --
8 to say yes, we should change our decision based on the
9 simulation.
10 Q When you say confidence, is this confidence based on your
11 30 plus years of experience in the field?
12 A Yes, and the review of the professional literature and my
13 knowledge of simulations.
14 Q You testified earlier today that you did not inform the
15 City of the results of this simulation at the time that you
16 conducted it, that it was contained in your technical report,
17 but you did not inform them earlier. Do you remember this
18 testimony?
19 A Yes, I do.
20 Q Why didn't you tell the City about the simulation earlier?
21 A It wasn't relevant to what we were doing. We had made a
22 decision based upon all the evidence and we've conveyed that to
23 the City.
24 Q Why did you determine that the simulation wasn't relevant?
25 A No, I did not say it was not relevant. But I took all the
253
Barrett - direct
1 information together, evidence, made a decision. Okay. I
2 didn't inform the City about a lot of things in terms of what
3 we did. We said here's our recommendation based on all the
4 evidence.
5 Q In your professional opinions were the results that you
6 achieved on the basis of this one simulation reliable?
7 A No.
8 Q And if you had never conducted the simulation, how would
9 you have weighted the examination?
10 A Equal weighted the examination.
11 Q Dr. Barrett, does your job analysis support weighting the
12 oral component 60 percent, the in-basket simulation 20 percent
13 and the written job knowledge test 20 percent?
14 A No.
15 Q In your professional opinion and your review of the H.R.
16 Strategies report, would that job analysis support weighting
17 the oral component 60 percent, the in-basket component 20 and
18 the written job knowledge test 20 percent?
19 A No.
20 Q Do you have a professional opinion about whether altering
21 the weight after the examination has been administered and the
22 results have been received is a good idea?
23 A Yes.
24 Q What opinion do you have?
25 A In my opinion I tell all my clients you should make a
254
Barrett - direct
1 decision and tell the people who are being tested, the
2 applicants or the candidates, ahead of time what the weights
3 are going to be, and from a professional point of view you
4 cannot change the weights based upon your results.
5 Every candidate has a right to know how the weights
6 are going to be used ahead of time. And beyond that the Blue
7 Ribbon Panel specifically talked about that issue, that people
8 should know ahead of time what the test components are and how
9 they're going to be weighted.
10 Q In your professional was the decision to weight the three
11 -- in your professional opinion was the decision to weight the
12 three components equally a valid decision?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Was it based on professional standards and guidelines?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And was it supported by your years of experience in the
17 field of testing and development?
18 A Yes.
19 MS. GLINK: Can you give me one second, Your Honor?
20 (Brief pause.)
21 MS. GLINK: Your Honor, I have no further questions.
22 MR. FLAXMAN: I don't want to go too long, but --
23 THE COURT: How long do you have?
24 MR. FLAXMAN: I'll try and do it in 15 minutes.
25 RECROSS EXAMINATION
255
Barrett - cross
1 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
2 Q Right at the end of the your direct examination you said I
3 tell my clients they should make a decision. Do you remember
4 making that statement?
5 A No.
6 Q You were talking about weighting, and you were being asked
7 about is it a good idea or a bad idea to change the weights of
8 a test after it's been announced. Do you remember that line of
9 questioning?
10 A Yes, I do.
11 Q And do you remember you gave an answer that I tell my
12 clients they should make a decision early on.
13 A That's correct.
14 Q Did you tell anybody at the City of Chicago that they
15 should make a decision to weight each part of the test equally
16 before April 29th, 1994, when the test was announced?
17 A That's when the recommendation would come out, yes, on
18 that date.
19 MS. GLINK: Your Honor, I object to the extent
20 plaintiff's counsel has mischaracterized the testimony.
21 THE COURT: Overruled.
22 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
23 Q Did you tell anybody at the City of Chicago that they had
24 to make a decision about how the test should be weighted?
25 Yes or no?
256
Barrett - cross
1 A No. You're asking did I specifically say to someone you
2 have to make a decision, but it was implicit in terms of what
3 we sent to the City, yes.
4 Q Did you tell the City that you should make a decision
5 about how to weight the test or did you make a decision
6 yourself?
7 A We always make recommendations to any client. They can
8 always change the recommendations. We don't have the power to
9 force typically any client to do anything.
10 Q Did you make a recommendation to the City that the test
11 should be weighted equally?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And was that recommendation made before April 29, 1994,
14 when the test was announced?
15 A I would say it was the same time basically, yes.
16 Q And to whom at the City did you make the recommendation
17 that the test should be weighted -- that each component of the
18 test should be weighted equally?
19 A Well, it was contained on the posting notice.
20 Q Well, did you tell anybody at the City the three
21 components of the test should be weighted equally?
22 A It was contained in the posting notice. It was contained
23 exactly what we planned to do in the notice.
24 Q Other than what's in the notice did you tell anyone -- you
25 -- you're making a decision about how the test should be
257
Barrett - cross
1 weighted and we recommend it be weighted equally, but it's your
2 decision?
3 Did you ever communicate those --
4 A I don't think in those exact words we would have
5 communicated like that, no.
6 Q Did you tell anybody at the City that there was a decision
7 that had to be made by someone about how the test should be
8 weighted?
9 A Again, we gave the posting notice, as I recall a draft, in
10 terms of our recommendation in our notice, and that's what we
11 conveyed to the City.
12 Q When you conveyed that to the City, that was after you had
13 done your computer simulations; is that right?
14 A We had done the computer simulations before that, yes, I
15 assume that we had done some.
16 Q When you told the City that the test should be weighted
17 one-third, one-third, one-third, was that -- that was before
18 you did the job analysis for lieutenant, wasn't it?
19 A No. It was a concurrent one, as a matter of fact.
20 Q Well, you have that report in front of you, don't you? I
21 think it's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 2. Is that your
22 report about the presentation of the lieutenant's test?
23 A Yes. Exhibit 1, you mean?
24 Q Is Exhibit 1 your report?
25 A It appears to be.
258
Barrett - cross
1 Q And in Exhibit 1 there is a document -- there is an
2 appendix called Appendix E, Project Time Line. Could you see
3 if you could find that for us, please?
4 A Sure.
5 Q This report was intended to thoroughly and clearly
6 document the work that you did for the City of Chicago, is that
7 right, in preparing the lieutenant's test?
8 A There is nothing behind this.
9 Q You have an incomplete document in front of you, Doctor?
10 A I think so.
11 (Brief pause.)
12 MR. FLAXMAN: It appears, Judge, that the -- it's
13 Bates stamped page 230 and it was apparently inadvertently
14 omitted by the defense.
15 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
16 Q Let me show you a document that's been Bates stamped 230
17 and labeled E 1. Is that page E 1 of appendix E of your report
18 on the lieutenant's test?
19 A Yes, it is.
20 Q And is that the project time line?
21 A Yes, it is.
22 Q And the project time line, that's a list of significant
23 events from the Chicago police lieutenant promotion project; is
24 that right?
25 A That's correct.
259
Barrett - cross
1 Q That shows the date when events occur; is that right?
2 A That's right.
3 Q Could you tell -- tell us what date does that show for
4 when the job analysis took place?
5 A We went to --
6 Q Could you answer my question, Doctor?
7 A I'm trying to answer your question.
8 Q Well, Doctor, doesn't it show that the job analysis
9 started on April 29, 1994, and concluded on August 10, 1994?
10 A That's what it says, yes.
11 Q And that's after that one-third, one-third, one-third
12 weighting decision was made; isn't that right, Doctor?
13 A If you're implying that the --
14 Q Doctor, I am not implying anything. I would like you to
15 answer my question.
16 A All right.
17 Q Is that after April 29th?
18 A Are you -- if you're just saying the dates, yes. 8/10/94
19 is after 4/29/94, that's correct.
20 Q Now, you told us also that the professional literature
21 supports equal weighting of test components; is that right?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q When you prepared your lieutenant's report, you made
24 references to professional literature; is that right?
25 A That's correct.
260
Barrett - cross
1 Q Anywhere -- isn't it true that nowhere in that
2 lieutenant's report, Exhibit 1, did you make any reference to
3 professional literature that supports equal weighting?
4 A I don't -- I probably did not. That's true.
5 Q Now, Exhibit 2, that document does make reference to
6 technical literature that supports equal weighting; is that
7 right?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q Exhibit 2 was something prepared in connection with this
10 litigation; is that right?
11 A That's correct.
12 Q That was prepared in response to a report that had been
13 prepared by plaintiff's expert; is that right?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And Exhibit 2, that was dated February 1st, 1996; is that
16 right?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q Now, in Exhibit 1, the report you did about the time you
19 prepared the test, there is appendix Q, the one we talked about
20 before called weight regression now report; is that right?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q And in that report there's a literature review; is that
23 right?
24 A For the computer simulation, that's correct.
25 Q And you looked at literature that was found in referee
261
Barrett - cross
1 journals; is that right?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q You looked at published articles?
4 A Uh-hum.
5 Q Is that right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And you cited articles that you believed had been
8 professionally done and were accurate research; is that right?
9 A We reviewed the literature, yes.
10 Q Okay. And one of the documents that you reviewed or that
11 you cited in your report -- and I would like to direct you to
12 page Q 10 -- is an article by A. Tziner, T-z-i-n-e-r, and S.
13 Dolan, 1982, called "Validity of an Assessment Center for
14 Identifying Future Female Officials in the Military." Is that
15 right?
16 A There is a reference -- yes, by that time, yes.
17 Q Now, this simulation you did for the lieutenants, the
18 report you did for the lieutenants was the simulation that was
19 similar to the simulation done and the work you did for the
20 sergeants?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q Is that right?
23 And in the sergeant's literature study for the
24 weighting study, you had cited a different article by Tziner
25 and Dolan; is that right?
262
Barrett - cross
1 A Yes. I recall there was an error made as I think we
2 corrected in terms of the citation, the same name, the same
3 date, but a different journal.
4 Q Is it correct that Tziner and Dolan are respected
5 industrial psychologists?
6 A I don't know either one of them by reputation.
7 Q Excuse me?
8 A I don't know either one of them by reputation.
9 Q Is the Journal of Occupational Psychology a acceptable
10 journal for publishing scholarly work, scholarly research?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Did you ever -- before you made this correction in the
13 lieutenant's report about the reference to the Tziner and Dolan
14 article, did you learn that you had miscited the Tziner and
15 Dolan article in the sergeant's report?
16 A I certainly had at some point in time, yes.
17 Q Did you ever get a chance to look at the Tziner and Dolan
18 article that had been cited in the sergeant's report?
19 A At some point in time I'm sure I did.
20 Q And when you looked at that article, did you see that the
21 Tziner and Dolan report studies would show that equal weighting
22 of test scores is not as good as differential weighting of test
23 scores?
24 A I'm not sure they even studied that issue in terms of a
25 comprehensive study. They may have found that now in one
263
Barrett - cross
1 sample, but I don't think it was the focal of their study.
2 Q Do you remember that they found in their study that a
3 differentially weighted composite of the predictors was
4 superior to an equally weighted composite?
5 A In one study they certainly could have found that.
6 Q And when you read that study, did you see that they cited
7 another study which supported that conclusion?
8 A I don't know if they did or not. I don't recall.
9 Q You talked about how in your opinion listening skills
10 related to written comprehension. Is that what you told us
11 about?
12 A I'm sorry. I thought I said reading comprehension.
13 Q That reading comprehension is a measure of how well
14 someone can understand oral communication; is that right?
15 A Yes. I said there have been studies conducted and
16 particularly back in the 1970s, I believe, which you did tests
17 which were oral that would reduce adverse impact. In fact,
18 they found it was not true, that the ordinary reading
19 comprehension test related very well to listening tests and in
20 fact did not reduce the adverse impact.
21 Q My question, Doctor, is are you telling us that a test of
22 reading comprehension measures how well you could understand
23 what somebody says to you?
24 A I'm saying that statistically they're related. In other
25 words, what I said -- I thought I said was it doesn't matter if
264
Barrett - cross
1 it's the auditory channel or the visual channel. It's the
2 processing. Information processing goes on in the brain which
3 is critical. And that's the reason, for example, my auditory
4 selective attention test which I have used predicts accident
5 involvement where driving is purely -- not purely, but mostly a
6 visual channel. So you're talking about how people process
7 information, is the real issue.
8 Q You talked about ability to write clearly and concisely.
9 Do you know that there is a test that measures that that's used
10 for promotions to detective in the Chicago Police Department?
11 A No, I don't.
12 MR. ROCKS: Objection, foundation.
13 THE COURT: Excuse me?
14 MR. ROCKS: Objection.
15 THE COURT: First of all, this isn't your witness.
16 One lawyer at a time.
17 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
18 Q Do you know that?
19 A No, I don't.
20 Q Do you know that there are other ways of measuring the
21 ability to write clearly and concisely than an essay exam?
22 A I haven't seen any published research on that issue.
23 Q Have you seen any published research on the question of
24 whether somebody, a police sergeant who scores higher on a
25 written test of job knowledge is going to perform better as a
265
Barrett - cross
1 police lieutenant than a police sergeant who doesn't perform --
2 scores high on a written test of job knowledge?
3 A I don't know of any specific study like that, no.
4 Q As a matter of fact, there is no empirical evidence to
5 show that a police sergeant who scores higher on a written test
6 of job knowledge will do better as a police lieutenant than a
7 police sergeant who does not score as high; isn't that true?
8 A I don't know any study in the Chicago Police Department
9 which shows that a job knowledge test for lieutenant will relat
10 to job performance. No, I don't -- that's true.
11 Q Isn't it true, Doctor, that you don't know of any study of
12 any police department which provides empirical evidence that a
13 higher score on a written test of job knowledge will be
14 reflected in better performance when promoted?
15 A No, I don't know that any -- at this point any sort of
16 (unintelligible) study like that.
17 Q I ask you the same question about scores on an in-basket
18 test of the type that were part of the Chicago police
19 lieutenant's test. Would you say the same thing, that there is
20 no empirical data of which you're aware that shows that someone
21 who gets a higher score than -- a sergeant who gets a higher
22 score on that type of in-basket test will do better as a police
23 lieutenant than a sergeant who does not get as high a score?
24 A I am interpreting your word empirical to mean criterion-
25 related validation study, and you're correct, I don't know of
266
Barrett - redirect
1 any study like that.
2 Q Now, that oral examination component of the lieutenant's
3 test, that was somebody talking into a tape recorder; is that
4 right?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q It took some amount of time to grade that, didn't it?
7 A Yes, it did.
8 Q And is there any data, any empirical study which shows
9 that someone, a police sergeant who receives a higher score on
10 that type of oral examination will do better as a police
11 lieutenant than someone who receives a lower score?
12 A Again, I'm interpreting empirical to mean criterion
13 related validity study. I don't know any such study like that,
14 that's correct.
15 MR. FLAXMAN: Just one second.
16 (Brief pause.)
17 MR. FLAXMAN: I have nothing further. Thank you.
18 MS. GLINK: I only have a few questions, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Good.
20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MS. GLINK:
22 Q You mentioned a moment ago that you conducted -- you made
23 the decision to weight the three test components -- strike
24 that.
25 At what point in your process did you make the
267
Barrett - redirect
1 decision to recommend equal weighting?
2 A We had -- it was basically -- the final decision was made
3 on 4/29/94 after we had completed our first day's job analysis
4 in the City of Chicago.
5 Q And at the time that you made -- do you recall how many
6 interviews you conducted on that day?
7 A I believe it was five or six interviews we had.
8 Q And at that time did you have any other information
9 regarding the job of lieutenant?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And what information did you have?
12 A We had the H.R. Strategies job analysis report which had
13 interviewed I would estimate around 60 lieutenants. We also
14 had our own job analysis process and procedure which we had
15 used for sergeants, and so we had a good idea -- we knew what
16 the sergeants were -- job behaviors were, and also we had
17 interviewed lieutenants and we determined how they interacted
18 with sergeants. So we had a good idea what the sergeants were
19 doing also.
20 Also we had, I should say, we had all the forms,
21 materials, the general orders, the special orders, all of those
22 had been for the sergeant's project. So all the ordinary
23 documentation which you gather at the start of a job analysis,
24 we had two weeks before we even started. So it was all
25 available to us.
268
Barrett - redirect
1 Q For brevity's sake, are the articles that you reviewed
2 that support equal unit weighting or unit weighting set forth
3 in what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 2?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Dr. Barrett, let me ask you whether you need to have
6 empirical evidence to validate an examination.
7 MR. FLAXMAN: Objection. That calls for a conclusion
8 of law.
9 THE COURT: Overruled.
10 BY THE WITNESS:
11 A No, you don't need to have a criterion-related study to
12 have a valid test.
13 BY MS. GLINK:
14 Q What's the basis of that opinion?
15 A It's based on several things. One is of course
16 professional standards which indicates a content validity is of
17 equal value and equal evidence compared to other types of
18 validation designs. It's also based on the EEOC guidelines or
19 uniform guidelines of 1978 and actually 1979 also, where it
20 says that the content validity approach is equal to other
21 approaches including the criterion related or you would term it
22 empirical approach.
23 Q Dr. Barrett, do you know it to be true based on all of
24 your years of experience in developing and giving examinations
25 and seeing the results that there is a correlation between job
269
Barrett - recross
1 knowledge tests and performance?
2 A Yes.
3 Q I'm going to direct you to page 6 of your report which has
4 been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 1.
5 You make a statement towards the bottom of the
6 paragraph under the heading Construct Content Validity -- you
7 say -- after your citation to the uniform guidelines, you say,
8 quote, "It is now generally accepted that empirical evidence,
9 (i.e., a correlation between test scores and job performance)
10 is not required when content valid tests are developed and
11 used."
12 Does that accurately -- have I accurately portrayed
13 what is written in that report?
14 A Yes, you have.
15 Q Can you explain that statement.
16 A Well, again, historically there was a belief that the
17 courts would only accept criterion-related validation studies.
18 But as the time went on and the court decisions and
19 professional practice grew, it was clear that the content
20 validity had equal status and gave you a test which is as job
21 relevant and perhaps at times more job relevant than other
22 types of tests.
23 MS. GLINK: I have nothing further.
24 RECROSS EXAMINATION
25 BY MR. FLAXMAN:
270
Barrett - recross
1 Q Page 6 and page 7 of your report, there is a reference
2 given for that statement that it is now generally accepted that
3 empirical validation is not required when content valid tests
4 are developed and used, and then you have another sentence and
5 then you have a reference. Do you see that?
6 A No.
7 Q Excuse me?
8 A No. I'm sorry. At this point I don't see quite where we
9 are.
10 Q Well, bottom of page 6.
11 A Okay.
12 Q Do you see where it says it is now generally accepted?
13 A Okay. I got you.
14 Q Then there is another sentence after that, and then there
15 is a reference given for the source of that generally-accepted
16 belief. Do you see that, Doctor?
17 A Yes, I do. That's the next page you're talking about.
18 Q Could you tell the court who are you citing for that
19 generally-accepted proposition?
20 A I'm citing my review of the literature which was published
21 in peer review journals, I recall.
22 Q You're the person who generally accepts that you don't
23 need empirical evidence; is that right?
24 A No. I'm just saying that's my citation.
25 Q And you're citing yourself for that authority; is that
271
Barrett - further redirect
1 right?
2 A At that point I did, yes.
3 Q That's, you testified -- strike that.
4 When you reviewed this challenge to unit weighting --
5 MR. FLAXMAN: Strike that.
6 I have nothing further.
7 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Glink, do you have anything
8 further?
9 MR. FORTI: One second, Your Honor.
10 MS. GLINK: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I didn't hear
11 you.
12 THE COURT: Do you have anything further?
13 MS. GLINK: I just have one question.
14 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
15 BY MS. GLINK:
16 Q I would like to know what was the subject of the article
17 -- the subject of this article that is cited on this page, the
18 one that --
19 A I would like to go back and look at the reference, but as
20 I recall, it was an invited address which I made to a paper
21 about construct validity, issues about validity.
22 Q And it was -- that article was submitted to your peers and
23 your peers accepted the work that was contained in that
24 article?
25 A Yes.
272
Barrett - by the Court
1 MS. GLINK: I have nothing further.
2 THE COURT: I have a couple brief questions.
3 You testified that you got an extraordinary low
4 number of challenges to the test. Do you remember that?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
6 THE COURT: Did you ever try to determine why you got
7 so few challenges?
8 THE WITNESS: No, I did not. I didn't -- I was told
9 by a number of people it was an extremely good test,
10 volunteerly, people who were taking the test.
11 THE COURT: Might it have indicated to you that
12 people didn't know about the challenge procedure?
13 THE WITNESS: I guess it's a possibility.
14 THE COURT: You heard one witness today say that he
15 didn't know about it. Did you ever do anything to determine
16 whether or not the challenge procedure was properly
17 communicated?
18 THE WITNESS: No, I never did an independent
19 investigation of that.
20 THE COURT: Do you know if anybody else did?
21 THE WITNESS: The challenge procedure was handled by
22 Arthur Andersen, not myself, in terms of the outline. So I
23 didn't have an independent knowledge of how it operated.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Do you agree with the proposition
25 that the multiple choice tests have a greater disparate impact
273
Barrett - by the Court
1 than essay type tests?
2 THE WITNESS: No, I do not.
3 THE COURT: How do you account for the disappointing
4 results? I guess we all agree they were disappointing, right?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 THE COURT: How do you account for the disappointing
7 results on this test? After all the work you did, after all
8 the goodwill that seems to be almost unchallenged here, how did
9 this happen?
10 THE WITNESS: I have never -- I have not done an
11 analysis, but I can tell you this. In my reviews and my
12 opinion that when you have a large difference between two
13 groups, it's not because of race or color; it's because of
14 other characteristics.
15 The most obvious one is education. For example, I
16 have -- I have reviewed other test batteries I have given where
17 I have then equated the group's education, for example, and I
18 find a drop in half in the difference between the groups.
19 I can take one variable like the amount of education
20 which differs between groups and account for a large difference
21 in the test score results. So what my best belief is is that
22 as you equate the groups of candidates, if they were identical
23 in terms of education, experience, quality of education, et
24 cetera, you would find virtually no differences in our test
25 battery between blacks and whites.
274
Barrett - by the Court
1 THE COURT: But you haven't done that?
2 THE WITNESS: No, I have not done that.
3 THE COURT: Do you know if anybody plans to do that?
4 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
5 THE COURT: Or if anybody has done that other than
6 you? Do you know that?
7 Do you know whether anybody besides yourself might
8 have done that analysis?
9 THE WITNESS: For the Chicago lieutenants?
10 THE COURT: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: No, I don't know any -- I have no
12 personal knowledge who has done what.
13 THE COURT: Would it be important in developing the
14 next test to do that type of analysis?
15 THE WITNESS: Well, it -- I have got to answer it in
16 two ways. If your candidates, for example, still differ
17 greatly in education, you're still going to get a difference on
18 the test, for example.
19 You can do these analysis and we have been doing them
20 for over 25 -- over -- almost 25 years. We go back often when
21 we can and look at individual items, why was there was a
22 difference between say blacks and whites on this item. And you
23 cannot really find a difference.
24 There is something called the golden rule. Let's
25 take items which have a large difference between blacks and
275
Barrett - by the Court
1 whites, take another test. Well, you'd think that might help.
2 Very often it does not help.
3 We have been working on this problem for over 30
4 years in trying to reduce adverse impact and there has been
5 literally hundreds of studies and there has never been a
6 solution except what I have just said. If you properly match
7 individuals in two groups, you're going to get very close on
8 the same results on the same set of tests.
9 THE COURT: All right. You have agreed that the
10 results were disappointing. This is my last question. Would
11 you do anything differently today if you had to do it over
12 again?
13 THE WITNESS: Well, you made a very good point. If I
14 were to do it over again, I would take the results and I would
15 analyze the results and hope I can find something. But it
16 would be based upon the exact thing -- maybe something in terms
17 of -- I'll just give you a hypothetical. Maybe for some reason
18 Hispanic individuals have a difficulty with a certain part of
19 the job knowledge having to do with certain Illinois codes.
20 Now, if that were true, then you could say to people
21 be sure and concentrate on this, here is a problem, and perhaps
22 it's a language problem. Perhaps. I don't know what it might
23 be. There's some research indicates perhaps there is some
24 confusion over certain words. That's a possibility.
25 So yes, you're correct, if we could go back and do an
276
Barrett - by the Court
1 analysis, maybe we would find something which would improve our
2 process.
3 THE COURT: Would you weight it differently? Are you
4 convinced that your equal weighting it was absolutely proper?
5 THE WITNESS: I think it was absolutely proper at the
6 time.
7 THE COURT: I mean if you had to do it again.
8 THE WITNESS: Now what I can say is I now have more
9 information. Now I have the exact intercorrelations among all
10 the tests, which I didn't have before for the lieutenants. I
11 have a lot more information, so I can go back and look again,
12 look at the issue again, and we have tried to improve our
13 techniques in terms of both job analysis and computer
14 simulation in this area, so we can make a finer distinction.
15 But yes, we keep trying various approaches. We're continually
16 doing that.
17 THE COURT: All right, folks. Anything else based on
18 what I have asked? I know I've asked some questions you
19 couldn't have gotten away with. I know what you're thinking.
20 All right, Doctor. You are excused. Thank you very
21 much.
22 (Witness excused.)
23 THE COURT: Let's schedule here and then let's go
24 home. It's after 6.
25 MR. ROCKS: Judge, if I could clarify something.
277
1 THE COURT: I do have a question I want to ask you
2 folks, too. Maybe I should ask it first. I'm still not clear
3 from what Mr. Klein testified about as to when these actual
4 promotions are going to be done.
5 MR. ROCKS: That's precisely what I want to clarify.
6 The class for these lieutenants begins on Friday the
7 16th of February and runs through to March 8. The promotion
8 will either occur March 8th or March 11th. I don't know
9 precisely which day as I stand here, but it is not going to be
10 before the 8th.
11 THE COURT: Well, that's helpful. So entering the
12 academy, you're representing to me and you're making a judicial
13 representation here, that entering the academy is not the
14 equivalent of a promotion.
15 MR. ROCKS: That's correct. In the past it was
16 sometimes the practice to promote early in the academy course,
17 but the City has adopted a practice of not doing that until the
18 end. And that would apply in this case.
19 THE COURT: All right.
20 MR. FLAXMAN: Well --
21 THE COURT: Now, how much time do you think you would
22 like to put your proposed findings together?
23 MR. FLAXMAN: Are you looking --
24 THE COURT: I'm looking at both of you, all of you.
25 MR. FLAXMAN: I have proven my findings.
278
1 THE COURT: You're going to stand on your findings?
2 MR. FLAXMAN: I would like to give you a memo. I
3 think my findings are pretty accurate.
4 THE COURT: Now you've got a record.
5 How about you?
6 MR. ROCK: We need to respond to what he gave us last
7 night. What is reasonable for Your Honor in terms of getting
8 the submissions?
9 THE COURT: Well, I have a matter set for trial
10 Friday the 1st, which there is a motion to continue which I'm
11 probably going to grant, so -- I mean I'm doing everything on
12 Fridays. That's my problem.
13 Why don't we set it for the -- to come back here the
14 afternoon of March 1st. That will give us a week before
15 anything is supposed to happen. It won't -- there is no way
16 that we could prevent them going to the academy. They'll just
17 be better -- if you win, Mr. Flaxman, there will be very highly
18 educated sergeants out there. That's all.
19 MR. FORTI: Your Honor, I believe the problem that I
20 think Mr. Flaxman and I and others -- maybe not Mr. Rocks --
21 have on the 1st is we have scheduled before Judge Nordberg the
22 preliminary injunction hearing with respect to sergeants, and
23 that's scheduled for Thursday the 29th and Friday the 1st.
24 MR. FLAXMAN: We've started this one first and we
25 know you only have Fridays. We will come here on the 1st and
279
1 Judge Nordberg will do what we can do.
2 THE COURT: Well, I mean I could call Judge Nordberg
3 and ask him, if you would like, to just explain where I'm at.
4 But if you're starting that on the day before, that's going to
5 be tougher.
6 MR. FLAXMAN: It's the right timing --
7 THE COURT: It's really for ruling more than anything
8 else. Do you know what his hours are?
9 MR. FLAXMAN: Oh, he told us we would have half a day
10 actually.
11 MS. GLINK: The 29th we have the morning and then
12 he's off -- we don't have any hearing in the afternoon, and on
13 the -- we have the whole day on March 1st, but perhaps Judge
14 Nordberg would be willing to start later in the day
15 THE COURT: I was thinking of 1:00.
16 MR. FORTI: I think we can arrange that.
17 THE COURT: Now, let's work backwards from there.
18 When do you want to get me something? Because you've got to
19 give me time to work on this. I would like to have everything
20 in here within a week or ten days.
21 MR. FLAXMAN: I need to get it to you within a week
22 because I have other things to turn to. But a week from today.
23 THE COURT: Can you all get in what you have
24 simultaneously?
25 MS. GLINK: By February 16th?
280
1 THE COURT: Just say any post-hearing material,
2 briefs, proposed findings or whatever by February 16th.
3 MR. FLAXMAN: We have been very sloppy -- not the
4 right word, informal with documents because we have all agreed
5 that -- so I think probably you should be keeping proofs open
6 for the brief submission of stipulations and stipulated
7 exhibits.
8 THE COURT: Well, I don't want any of these exhibits.
9 I am going to give them all back to you and you can give me a
10 book. Okay. It will be a lot easier. You can put them all in
11 one book or maybe you need two because this is so big.
12 MR. FORTI: Your Honor, if I understand you correctly
13 and I think wisely, we will submit everything that is
14 appropriate by that date, both sides.
15 THE COURT: Right. Submit me the exhibits in an easy
16 to read form, just one copy of the exhibits. Two copies of any
17 briefs or any proposed findings. Oh, yes, if you can give us
18 disks with the findings, too.
19 MR. ROCKS: Fine.
20 THE LAW CLERK: Word Perfect.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
22 (WHICH WERE ALL OF THE PROCEEDINGS HAD AT THE HEARING OF
THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE ON THE DAY AND DATE AFORESAID.)
23
24
25
281
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript from the report of proceedings in the above-entitled
3 cause.
4 _____________________________
WANDA L. BARNES, CSR, RPR
5 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
7 DATED: ______________________
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
See the written test
Main