When we last checked in on the fate of Chicago's ShotSpotter crime-fighting technology, there were some signs that a deal might be on the table that could see Mayor Brandon Johnson's efforts to remove the system from the city reversed. But I included an important caveat with the idea: maybe. A strong majority of the Aldermen on the City Council were in favor of a plan that would allow the Police Administrator to negotiate a new contract with ShotSpotter and a group of local business owners had offered to kick in $2.5 million to gain an extension to the contract. A headline this week in CBS News Chicago seemed to offer more hope, claiming that Johnson had agreed not to veto the new contract. But that turned out to be less than met the eye and the Mayor still plans to sink the deal. 

Mayor Brandon Johnson will not veto an ordinance that would have allowed the city's top cop to negotiate a new deal to revive Chicago's controversial gunshot detection program.

While Johnson said last month that he had "no choice" but to veto the ordinance that sought to reinstate the city's ShotSpotter program, a spokesman for the mayor's office said in an email Tuesday night that it was later "deemed unnecessary" to do so because the ordinance cannot be enforced.

"An attempt by the legislative body to compel the executive branch to enter into a contract with a specific contractor would violate the separation of powers. The authority to enter and administer contracts lies with the executive branch," a mayoral spokesperson said. "While the legislative branch has legislative authority, it cannot obligate the executive branch to execute a contract and certainly not under specific terms. The executive branch must retain discretion over matters such as contract terms, remuneration, and the duration of the agreement."

In other words, the Mayor plans to sink the plan using what amounts to a pocket veto. He will allow the Aldermen to vote on the new contract and allow it to go into place. But then he will simply choose not to honor the contract by claiming that the authority to establish such a contract and fund the agreement lies with the executive branch. There does not appear to be a clear path to challenge such a ruling, so ShotSpotter will remain shut down for the foreseeable future. Johnson claims to be looking at alternative technology to replace it, but no viable competitors have been identified with the same capabilities.

This is one of the most polite games of "chicken" you are likely to ever see play out in Chicago politics. Johnson has been given every imaginable opportunity to walk away from this terrible decision while saving face. He has rebuked his potential saviors at every turn. Johnson knows that ShotSpotter works and that it saves lives while decreasing response times to 911 calls. The City Council knows it. The data is all out there in black and white proving this to be true. Even some of Johnson's most loyal supporters on the Council have opposed him on this issue (politely) and yet he refuses to back down.

The real question is why? He campaigned on a pledge to remove ShotSpotter, but it was a race that he was winning easily anyway. The citizens of Chicago support the technology and many have come forward to testify about the lives it has saved. Even if a replacement technology were identified, money would still be required to pay for it. It's simply a question of who would be signing the checks. This seems like a very narrow-minded approach to an eminently solvable problem. Yet the technology remains offline and the body count continues to rise. Is it too farfetched to ask whether someone with ShotSpotter or some aldermen who support it have gotten on Johnson's bad side? This is Chicago we're talking about here, so everything is on the table as far as I'm concerned.