Page 19 - August 2016 Newsletter

Appellate Court vacates Judge Flynn’s orders
PAT
PAT
FIORETTO
FIORETTO
On July 8, less than one month after enter- taining oral arguments, in a unanimous deci- sion, the Illinois Appellate Court vacated Judge Flynn’s preliminary injunctions issued in De- cember 2014 and May 2015, which prohibited the city from releasing certain information pur- suant to various FOIA requests. Needless to say, we are disappointed with the ruling.
In other words, since the documents existed at the time both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times made the requests for the documents, all the information must be turned over. It did not matter to the Appellate Court that the documents should not have been there in the first place (since they should have been destroyed pursuant to Sec- tion 8.4 of the parties’ CBA). Rather, it opined that the city
As I have written over the past few months, Flynn previously entered two preliminary injunctions. In so doing, he precluded the city from releasing information more than four years old
FOP
Lab Rep t
could not be ordered by an arbitrator to destroy doc- uments which existed at the time the FOIA requests were made. Therefore, Flynn had no legal basis to “enjoin (the city) from releasing the requested re- cords in order to allow (the FOP) to pursue a legally
unenforceable remedy at arbitration.”
contained in lists regarding police officers, as well
as the underlying CR files themselves generated by
the city, until Arbitrator Roumell resolved the grievances, pursuant to the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
In its opinion, the Court categorically rejected all of the Lodge arguments. Instead, the Court found:
“In conclusion, as a matter of law, neither the (Illinois Public Records) Review Act nor the pendency of the par- ties’ arbitration under the CBA interfere with the (city’s) obligation to disclose the requested records in their pos- session under the FOIA, where, as here, no exemptions ap- ply. The preliminary injunctions must be vacated because they prevent the (city) from complying with the disclosure requirements of the FOIA.”
The Appellate Court reiterated its position articulated in two earlier cases, Watkins v. McCarthy decided in 2012, and Kalven v. City of Chicago decided in 2014. Specifically, the Appellate Court reaffirmed that CR files are not personnel files, under either the Freedom of Information Act or the Illinois Public Records Review Act, because they relate to the “initiation, investigation and resolution of complaints of misconduct made by the public against police officers.” As such, given the policy which underlies the Freedom of Information Act (“to promote open governmental records to the light of public scrutiny”), disclosure of information, such as CR files (no matter how old), that bears on the pub-
CONTINUED ON PAGE 20
BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS
Available to Practice In:
Labor Relations Law ● Employee Welfare & Pension Benefit Law Worker’s Compensation Law ● Personal Injury Law Construction Related Injuries
JAMES M. NEUMAN PASQUALE A. FIORETTO CATHERINE M. CHAPMAN STEPHEN J. ROSENBLAT
BRIAN C. HLAVIN LAURA M. FINNEGAN PATRICK N. RYAN CECILIA M. SCANLON
200 W. ADAMS STREET, SUITE 2200 CHICAGO, IL 60606
(312) 236-4316 WWW.BAUMSIGMAN.COM
18 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ AUGUST 2016