Chicago police union, city lawyers continue to spar over public access to disciplinary cases

The yearslong battle over how to handle the Chicago Police Department's most serious misconduct cases continued Tuesday with attorneys for the city's largest police union urging an appellate court panel to overturn a ruling requiring disciplinary hearings to be held in public.

The fight over police discipline erupted during union contract negotiations and stretched from the City Council floor to the courtroom of Cook County Judge Michael Mullen, who ruled that cops can choose to have their cases heard by an arbitrator instead of the Chicago Police Board.

But Mullen also found that arbitration shouldn't be held behind closed doors, pushing the union to appeal.

Matt Pierce, a lawyer for the Fraternal Order of Police, reiterated an arbitrator's findings on Tuesday that it was an established practice to hold arbitration hearings in private, arguing that doing so doesn't violate any established public policy. Appellate Judge Mary Mikva pushed back, citing a 60-year history of public disciplinary hearings.

“Are you saying we ignore that status quo?” Mikva asked.

Pierce said the decision to hear cases publicly before the police board had been mutually agreed upon by both the city and the union, which is now opting out. Appellate Judge Sharon Johnson pressed Pierce about what it would mean to have disciplinary cases heard behind closed doors.

“How do you suggest that the public is able to hold CPD accountable ... if they don’t have access, if they don’t know what to ask for, if they don’t know that the proceedings took place?” Johnson asked.

Pierce said the final findings would be made available to the public, similar to the way less serious disciplinary cases are currently handled.

City attorney Aya Barnea said the public has a right to monitor serious disciplinary hearings and that access was crucial to enhancing the “legitimacy” of the police department.

“There’s always been a dividing line between the most serious and less serious allegations,” Barnea said. “Having public access has been critical for the effective function of the police department. ... Having after-the-fact access is not enough.”

Leaving court Tuesday, FOP President John Catanzara said the city only wants hearings held publicly “to make it a circus and to intimidate the arbitrator.”

“The contract has always given us the option to opt out of this. Why my predecessors have never chosen to exercise that option, I can't explain,” Catanzara said. “It has become so egregious, the discipline has become so one-sided that we just said enough was enough. It was our right all along, so I don't know how the court can get away from that simple reality.”

Handling serious police disciplinary cases became a sticking point in the union's lengthy contract negotiations. Independent arbitrator Edwin Benn was brought in to try and move the process along. He found that state labor law granted union members the right to bypass public hearings before the police board and seek “final and binding arbitration.”

The City Council voted to reject the ruling twice, leading to dueling motions for summary judgment from the union and city.

In March 2024, Judge Mullen found that Benn’s decision ran contrary to “a dominant and well-defined public policy” and would violate a federal order demanding extensive reforms, specifically a requirement to increase transparency. Mullen's ruling allowed for public arbitration and also rolled back Benn’s finding that cops should remain on the payroll while their disciplinary cases are pending.

Neither party was pleased, and the police union filed an appeal about a month later, setting up Tuesday's arguments.

While both parties spent most their time battling over whether to allow public access to arbitration hearings, they also sparred over whether to allow embattled cops to keep earning a paycheck.

Pierce again claimed it was the “status quo” to pay officers while their cases were pending. But the city argued that Mullen was right to vacate that order, insisting that paying officers who aren't working is “a poor use of public resources.”

The appellate court panel hasn't ruled in the case.