Judge could rule this week whether serious police misconduct cases can be heard in private

A Cook County judge says he expects to rule this week on whether the most serious Chicago police disciplinary cases can be heard in private — a decision that will likely lead to an appeal.

Judge Michael Mullen heard lengthy oral arguments Tuesday from attorneys for the city and its largest police union, which has sued to enforce an independent arbitrator’s finding that cops facing dismissal or suspensions for over a year can have their cases decided through closed-door arbitration.

Mullen said a written decision would likely come down Thursday morning.

The handling of serious police misconduct cases emerged as the most enduring dispute in yearslong contract negotiations between the city and the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police.

Independent arbitrator Edwin Benn was tapped to break the gridlock.

Benn concluded that state labor law affords the union’s rank-and-file members the right to bypass public proceedings before the Chicago Police Board and seek “final and binding arbitration.”

His finding set off a political firestorm, with city officials and activists warning it undercuts transparency and accountability and threatens to further erode public trust in the Chicago Police Department.

Mayor Brandon Johnson, a defendant in the lawsuit before Mullen, echoed those concerns and urged his colleagues to vote down the ruling.

The City Council ultimately rejected Benn’s decision on Feb. 15, reaffirming its initial vote in December.

A day later, the FOP filed a motion seeking a summary judgment in a case it had brought between the two votes. The union urged Mullen to adopt Benn’s decision, arguing that city officials failed to formally contest it within a 90-day period that ended on Jan. 17.

Matt Pierce, an FOP lawyer, said vacating Benn’s order “would send this entire process back to square one,” with both parties being “sent back to negotiate the terms” of the contract.

In that case, Pierce said a new arbitrator would likely come to the same conclusions as Benn.

“It’s safe to assume that we would wind up back in court — whether it’s a year from now, three years from now or six years from now,” he added. “This type of endless delay and starting the whole process over is not in anyone’s interest.”

The sides spent much of their arguments hammering on their differing views of how to resolve key sticking points.

That included debating whether the cases should be heard in private, whether officers should retroactively be able to seek arbitration and whether cops should remain on the payroll while their disciplinary cases are pending.

Benn found that cases dating back to September 2022, when he was appointed, can be taken to an arbitrator. In court, Pierce argued the “status quo” from past agreements affords officers the right to seek closed-door arbitration and continue being paid.

But city lawyer Jim Franczek pushed back on those claims, noting that the arbitrator’s decision upends a disciplinary system that’s been in place for six decades.

“If the arbitrator had maintained the status quo — made no changes with respect to transparency, with respect to pay status, with respect to retroactivity — we wouldn’t be here today,” Franczek said. “The officers would have been able to avail themselves to arbitration for months, if not a year.”

Judge Mullen ended the hearing by ensuring both parties he would make a “considered” decision in “an important case for our community.”

Then he acknowledged that his ruling would likely be just another step in the acrimonious fight. “Is this the end of it?” he said. “I don’t think so.”