Page 21 - November 2018

tion Act requests with the City, seeking the release of all disci- plinary records dating back over 50 years — which should have been destroyed after five years. Despite initially obtaining an injunction from Circuit Court Judge Flynn to prohibit the dis- closure of such records, the Illinois Appellate Court thereafter vacated the injunction and directed the City to release the files that should have been destroyed. Sadly, had Section 8.4 been enforced, many of the documents sought in the FOIA requests would not exist.
After two postponements obtained by the City, Arbitra- tor Roumell heard both the 2011 and 2012 grievances in the summer of 2015. Not surprising, at the arbitration hearing, the City produced no evidence that the Lodge ever knew or accepted the City’s unilateral decision to cease destroying files as required by Section 8.4. In a series of decisions issued be- tween January and May of 2016, Arbitrator Roumell upheld the language of Section 8.4 but found that the “records hold” placed upon the Chicago Police Department by the then-on- going United States Department of Labor investigation pre- cluded the destruction of any records until such time that the United States Department of Labor investigation and possible consequences thereof “no longer exists.” These multiple de- cisions were due, in part, to a similar case filed by the PBPA under their contract around this same time. In that case, the City convinced the PBPA Arbitrator to reverse his initial ruling in favor of the PBPA and find that public policy mandates the retention of files.
The City, capitalizing on the current anti-police climate, as well as the reports issued by the Mayor’s “Task Force” (filled with handpicked, anecdotal data) and the United States De- partment of Justice (filled with even more handpicked, anec- dotal data), filed its request in the Cook County Circuit Court
seeking to vacate Arbitrator Roumell’s award. Had this case been heard at any time before the current political climate, be- fore the DOJ concluded its pattern or practice investigation, before issuance of the Task Force and DOJ Reports, the court quickly would have ruled in the Lodge’s favor based on the law. Delay clearly favored the City’s position.
One needs to look no further than the last few lines of the court’s decision to know that politics, and not the law, decided this case. Specifically, Judge Tailor offered his two cents in the ongoing false narrative:
If the City is to be responsive to its citizenry, it must have access to historical police disciplinary and inves- tigative records to make better-informed decisions on policing, a point echoed in the DOJ and task force re- ports. Otherwise, policy makers are condemned to re- peat the failings of the past, like the “Thin Blue Line” or “Code of Silence” that Mayor Emanuel declared was a problem “at the heart of the policing profes- sion” in his address to the Chicago City Council on Dec. 9, 2015.
Really? A “code of silence?” The “Thin Blue Line?” Buzzwords ripped from today’s headlines. The only “thin blue line” most law enforcement officers are aware is the line that protects law and order. A mantra echoed by the Lodge president.
The Lodge will be appealing Judge Tailor’s decision to the Illinois Appellate Court, where we will ask that the Appellate Court Justices apply the law fairly and not bow to the political whims of the current anti-police climate. We will continue to keep the membership apprised as the case progresses. d
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ NOVEMBER 2017 21