At Issue: Public Complaint Records
This piece was originally published as part of The View From The Ground May 17, 2016 newsletter. Click here to sign up for the weekly newsletter.
Even as federal investigators begin digging into patterns of police misconduct in Chicago, unions representing police officers and supervisors are seeking the destruction of records of civilian complaints, adding urgency to a legislative effort to preserve those records.
Legislation: Legislation now under consideration in Springfield would amendthe Local Records Act by adding this sentence: “All records related to complaints, investigations, and adjudications of police misconduct shall be permanently retained and may not be destroyed.”
Two identical bills in the House and Senate consisting of that language–sponsored by State Sen. Patricia Van Pelt and State Rep. LaShawn Ford — are currently stalled in committee.
In the media: “State lawmakers should act quickly to pass [the] legislation,” theChicago Tribune editorialized recently. “Police misconduct records must be preserved so they can be released to their rightful owner: the public.”
The Tribune cited the analysis of police records by the Citizens Police Data Project, which has revealed the very low level of sustained complaints as well as racial disparities in the handling of complaints.
On the other hand, the blog Second City Cop filed its report on the proposed legislation under “dumb ideas” and argued for some time limit on retaining complaint records: “There’s nothing from 1967 that should even exist right now. Everyone is retired, pensioned or dead. What possible purpose is served by these files?
“It was a different time, under different rules, evaluated by different standards and morals.”
In court: The fight over complaint records came to a head after the Illinois Appellate Court ruled in 2014 that they are subject to the state’s Freedom of Information Act. When the city then moved to respond to FOIA requests, police unions challenged them in court and filed grievances demanding enforcement of their contracts, which call for destruction of complaint records after five years.
While that contest plays out in court, the legislature has an important role to play, said civil rights attorney Samantha Liskow, who helped win the 2014 ruling as well as the release of records compiled in civil rights cases over the past decade (now housed at the Invisible Institute).
Advocates: “Illinois case law recognizes an exception to sections of union contracts that violate public policy.” Liskow said. “Cities and police departments can’t bargain away important rights belonging to the people.” But the public policy exception is a “high bar,” Liskow said, which a state law would help meet.
“The state needs to weigh in about what public policy is, in order to make sure court decisions take into account this very powerful public interest in preserving these records,” said Judy Stevens of the Better Government Association.
The records give the city “the ability to designate training or take other administrative actions to prevent the kind of police misconduct that has been costing the city of Chicago hundreds of millions of dollars,” Stevens said. BGA has issued an action alert on the issue.
Complications: Liskow was concerned that confusion could result from an arbitrator’s ruling in one of the union grievances last month. Arbitrator George Roumell Jr. ruled that complaints dating back to 1967 must be maintained whilethe U.S. Department of Justice investigates the Chicago Police Department.
“This is completely temporary,” Liskow said. Roumell merely suspended his earlier ruling that police misconduct files that are over five years old (and not subject to litigation) must be destroyed under the city’s contract with the Fraternal Order of Police. Once the DOJ investigation ends, the ruling mandating destruction will be in effect.
Task Force: Last month Mayor Emanuel’s Police Accountability Task Forcesaid contract provisions requiring the destruction of records should be eliminated in upcoming negotiations with police unions.
“Expunging records contradicts best practice, impedes the development of early intervention systems and deprives the public of information that’s rightfully theirs” — and could also “deprive wrongfully convicted persons of exonerating information,” according to the task force report.
“Our longstanding position is that these records have an administrative and legal purpose that warrants preservation,” the city said in a statement followingthe arbitrator’s January ruling.
Deadline: Advocates are pressing for the legislature to consider the bills before the end of the current session, scheduled for May 31.
