<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"<p>The city of Chicago has asked a judge to step in to block\nthe destruction of old police discipline records, which the union representing\nChicago\u2019s police officers has said should be destroyed, per a five-year time\nlimit the union has said is spelled out in provisions in the officers\u2019 collective\nbargaining agreement governing the disciplinary records.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>On July 26 in Cook County Circuit Court, the city filed a\npetition to vacate an arbitration award that would have allowed Fraternal Order\nof Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, to begin destroying police discipline records\ndating back more than five years.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>On April 28, arbitrator George T. Roumell issued an opinion\nin a dispute between the two sides, further clarifying the matter with a\nsupplemental decision June 21.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>In the lawsuit filed on behalf of the city, Chief Labor\nNegotiator Joseph P. Martinico argued \u201Cthe award should be vacated because the\narbitrator exceeded his authority,\u201D adding the decision \u201Cviolates the\nwell-defined and unequivocal\u201D state public records policy.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>The city said the Illinois Appellate Court, in a \u201Cclosely\nrelated matter, involving the same parties and records,\u201D supports the city\u2019s\nposition in this particular petition. That opinion was issued July 8.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>In his petition, Martinico detailed the city\u2019s physical and\nelectronic systems for preserving records of complaints against police officers\nand the utility of such data when dealing with lawsuits involving police\nofficers. At the time of the filing, Martinico wrote, \u201Cthe city\u2019s Law\nDepartment has approximately 480 active police misconduct lawsuits ending,\u201D\nroughly 90 percent of which are in federal court.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Often, Martinico contends, discovery obligations and court\norders compel the city to produce records detailing the full careers of large\nnumbers of officers, and \u201Cif such files have been destroyed, the city runs the\nrisk of sanctions.\u201D Such records also used to defend officers, \u201Csuch as prior\ninconsistent statements and/or admissions of plaintiffs or witnesses made\nduring the course of an investigation, and to counter allegations of collusion\nor cover-up in the investigative and disciplinary processes.\u201D&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Martinico cited the March 10, 2014, First District Appellate\nCourt ruling in <i>Kalven v. City of Chicago</i>,\nwhich held certain police misconduct records were not exempt from Freedom of\nInformation Act disclosure rules. As the city complied with that order, the\nunion filed a grievance regarding \u201Cdisciplinary records that should have been\ndestroyed after five years\u201D pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>According to Martinico, Roumell\u2019s clarification reiterated\nthat his ruling relied entirely on federal investigation timelines and not\npublic policy considerations. He contrasted that with the Appellate Court\ndecision holding that any award ordering destruction of disciplinary files\n\u201Cwould violate the FOIA as well as the public policy underlying the General\nAssembly\u2019s adoption of the Act.\u201D&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>Martinico also cited the Appellate Court\u2019s 1996 opinion in <i>AFSCME v. Department of Central Management\nServices</i> empowering courts to vacate arbitration awards drawn from union\ncontracts if they violate public policy. &nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>That\u2019s exactly the flaw with Roumell\u2019s award and\nclarification, Martinico argued, as established public policy has \u201Cclear and unequivocal\u201D\nproof that such records should be preserved to ensure \u201Cgovernment business is\nbeing conducted in the public interest\u201D and to permit the public to use such\ndata for public good.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>\u201CThat is especially true where police misconduct, and in\nparticular the used of excessive force by police, is alleged,\u201D he said.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>As there is only one exception to the statute of limitations\nfor prosecuting police misconduct in Illinois, allowing destruction of records\nthat could be used as data could inhibit future legal action, Martinico\ncontended.&nbsp;</p>\n\n<p>In addition to an order vacating Roumell\u2019s award, the city asked\nthe court to remand the issue back to Roumell with an order he deny the union\u2019s\ngrievances and compel the city and union to negotiate a substitute contract\nprovision that complies with public policy.</p>\n\n\n\n\n\n"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/510983699-chicago-city-hall-asks-judge-to-block-union-backed-order-to-ok-destruction-of-police-disciplinary-records>