Disciplinary cases before the Chicago Police Board could be halted even longer amid a court battle over whether the most serious cases can be heard in private, a judge acknowledged Wednesday.
During a hearing, Judge Michael T. Mullen set a court date on the matter for next week — a day after an existing stay on board proceedings expires.
While acknowledging it’s “very early on in the case,” the no-nonsense Mullen set an expedited schedule for the city and the Fraternal Order of Police to submit filings on the union’s request for a ruling on whether cops facing dismissal and suspensions of more than a year can choose to bypass the police board and go directly to arbitration.
Mullen said he would approve a joint request by the parties to effectively shut down the police board until he rules on the FOP’s motion for summary judgment.
The battle over police discipline stems from arbitrator Edwin Benn’s finding that state labor law affords the union’s rank-and-file members the right to seek “final and binding arbitration,” like other public sector employees.
Benn was tapped to rule on the unresolved issue as the FOP hammered out its latest contract with the city.
But advocates and city officials, including Mayor Brandon Johnson, have warned that moving disciplinary cases behind closed doors undercuts transparency and risks further undermining public trust in the Chicago Police Department.
The City Council has now voted down two separate decisions issued by Benn that came to the same conclusion, leaving it up to the courts to decide the matter.
The current stay shutting down the police board is slated to expire Sunday. At a court hearing the next day, the union is expected to present a motion to extend the stay, and the city will detail its response.
A hearing on the FOP’s motion for summary judgment is set for March 15 — after the city and union have an opportunity to file responses to each other’s claims.
While an FOP lawyer pushed for a limited briefing schedule and insisted that “time is of the essence,” Mullen took a measured approach and cited the great public interest in the proceedings.
“It’s an important case to the community,” the judge said matter of factly, “and I recognize that.”
