illinois state police report on springfield shredding incident

I-CASE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTDiv Of Internal Investigation

DII Investigators

Report ID: 457739

(This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the agency listed above. It and its contents are not to be disseminated outside your agency.)

Printed By: "" Annette McCarthy (DIIMCCARTA )"" - "02/05/2015 12:52" Page 1 of 2

I-CASE No. IL13AA09938 Case Status: Case Active 30 Days Report Status: Approved

Case Title No. Of Suspects No. Of Victims Caution Codes? Gang Related? Domestic Related?

Chief Robert Williams, Springfield Po liceDepartment

0 0 No No No

Last Offense Classification/Re-Classification Inchoate CodeInternal Investigations - Case Type - Special Investigation (Southern Command) Offense As CitedInternal Investigations - Administrative Codes - 6317 - Special Investigation Offense As CitedInternal Investigations - Offense Codes - 3920- Official Misconduct Offense As CitedInternal Investigations - Offense Codes - 6005- Referral From- Assistance To Other Government Agency Offense As CitedInternal Investigations - Offense Codes - 5000- All Other Criminal Offenses Offense As Cited

INCIDENT INFORMATIONAddress of Occurrence (No., Street, City, Township, County, State, Zip, Country)

527 E Capitol Ave, Springfield, Sangamon, Illinois, United States of America (USA)Location Type Date and Time of Occurrence

Police Department / 04/25/2013 12:00Officer Arrives / Case Open Date Reported

04/26/2013 12:00Action Date

Incident Assigned By

ASSISTANCE REQUESTED BYAgency Requesting Officer Officer Title Officer Contact Number

REPORTING OFFICER/APPROVING SUPERVISOR/PRIMARY INVESTIGATORRole Name Date and Time Last Submitted/Approved

Officer GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators) Submitted - 07/02/2013 17:24Supervisor WEYFORTH, Stuart Star # 4258 (DII Investigators) Approved - 07/08/2013 15:34Investigator GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators)

REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 1, Anonymous complaint provided to Lt. Colonel Kim Cochran, 4/26/13

NARRATIVE SECTION

On May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police (ISP) Division of Internal Investigation (DII) was requestedby the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a SpringfieldPolice Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers' personnelfiles. On April 26, 2013, DII had anonymously been provided documents that described an incidentin 2008, which resulted in the arrest of SPD Commander Clifford Buscher by the Taney CountySheriff's Department in Missouri. The incident was subsequently investigated by SPD resulting in thesuspension and demotion of Buscher. The internal investigative reports generated by the investigationof Buscher were alleged to have been included in the personnel files that were shredded.

Page 1

I-CASE No: IL13AA09938Report ID: 457739


NARRATIVE SECTIONAttached to this report is a memorandum written by Lieutenant Colonel JoAnn D. Gumz describing howDII obtained the anonymous documents and her contact with FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC), DaveHarmon. An email correspondence from Lieutenant Colonel JoAnn D. Gumz to Colonel Agnes Kindred-Johnson. Also attached is a copy of a text received by Lieutenant Colonel Kimberly Cochran from"Doug" which is believed to be Daryle Douglas Willamson. The text content stated, "They shreddedthe IA case file last night to avoid it being released under foia thanks Doug". The last item attachedis the anonymous documents describing an incident in Taney County Missouri and computer copiesof the court disposition.

Attachment 1, the memorandum consists of two pages, Attachment 2, the email correspondence and3, the text message, consists of one page each and Attachment 4, the anonymouscorrespondence consists of 9 pages for a total of 13 pages.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Anonymous LetterFile Name : Anonymous Letter, Memo.pdf

Page 2

��

�Page 3

��

�Page 4

Attachment 2 IL13AA09938

1Page 5


1Page 6


1Page 7


2Page 8


3Page 9


4Page 10


5Page 11


6Page 12


7Page 13


8Page 14


9Page 15


DII Investigators

Report ID: 457751






0 0 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date




Officer GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators) Submitted - 07/09/2013 16:35Supervisor WATKINS, Scott Star # 5593 (DII Investigators) Approved - 07/09/2013 16:43Investigator GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators)

REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN-2 Spfld Mayor, A.G., App Pros, & ISP Letters of acceptance

NARRATIVE SECTIONOn June 6, 2013, Illinois State Police (ISP) legal counsel, John Hosteny, provided me, Master SergeantScott Gaffner, a copy of a letter from Springfield Mayor J. Michael Houston dated May 6, 2013, writtento Attorney General, Lisa Madigan. Also attached was a copy of the memorandum of understanding(MOU) between the City of Springfield and Police Benevolence and Protective Association (PBPA). In the letter, Mayor Houston requested the Attorney General to determine if any "wrong doing" hadoccurred surrounding the implementation of a reduced time period on retaining police disciplinaryrecords. Also attached is a copy of the response from Chief Deputy Attorney General, Brent D.Stratton dated May 21, 2013. In the response, Stratton declined to comment on the legality of theretention of the records as it may be a violation of criminal law and should be referred to the SangamonCounty State's Attorney's office. The third attachment is a copy of the request from the State's

Page 16



NARRATIVE SECTIONAttorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick Delfino for the ISP to investigate the allegations ofSpringfield Police Department shredding police officer's personnel files. The last document is a copyof the letter from the ISP Director, Hiram Grau to Director Delfino accepting the investigation anddirecting the Division of Internal Investigation (DII) to conduct the investigation. The above documentsproceeded the alleged shredding of police officers' personnel files by Springfield Police DepartmentOfficials on or about April 25, 2013.

Attachments:

Attachment 1:Letter from Mayor Houston, consisting of three pages.Attachment 2: Letter from the Attorney General consisting of one page.Attachment 3: State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor letter consisting of one page.Attachment 4: ISP acceptance response consisting of one page for a total of 6 pages.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Mayor Houstons letter of requestFile Name : Spfld Mayor, A.G., App Pros, ISP letters.pdf

Page 17

��

�Page 18

��

�Page 19

��

�Page 20


1Page 21


1Page 22


1Page 23


DII Investigators

Report ID: 459329






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 3 Document Taney County Sheriff's Dept. Reports, 6/7/13

Suspect : Robert WILLIAMSDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Robert WILLIAMSMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: Black / Not Of Hispanic OriginDOB

Marital Status: UnknownAlias(s)/DOB(s):

Height/Weight: /Build:Eye Color:Facial Hair:Complexion:Hair Color:Hair Length/Style:Dominant Hand:Citizenship:Place of Birth:

Physical Description:

No Photo

Page 24



Suspect : Robert WILLIAMSRESIDENCE INFORMATION

Address Name Address, City, Township, County, State, Zip, Country

CONTACT INFORMATION

Contact Name Contact Type Number

Telephone

Victim: SocietyPeople of Illinois

NARRATIVE SECTIONOn June 7, 2013, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner requested copies of the Taney County MissouriSheriff's Department reports from an incident that occured on March 23, 2008, which resulted in thearrest of Springfield Police Officer, Clifford R. Buscher. The purpose of obtaining the documentsresulted from a request on May 30, 2013, where the Illinois State Police (ISP) Division of InternalInvestigation (DII) was requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, PatrickJ. Delfino, to investigate Springfield Police Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving theshredding of police officers' personnel files. The internal investigative reports generated by theinvestigation of Buscher's Taney County incident were alleged to have been included in the personnelfiles that were shredded. This investigative report reflects obtaining Taney County Missouri officialreports from records clerk Vickie Rogers computer files and for the paper file stored in long termstorage.

Attachments:Attachment 1: Request for Taney County reports, consisting of 1 page.Attachment 2: Taney County reports from the computer file, consisting of 6 pages.Attachment 3: Taney County reports from the paper file, consisting of 19 pages, for a total of 26 pages.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Buscher Taney County ReportsFile Name : Buscher Taney County Rpts.pdf

Page 25

��

�Page 26


1Page 27


2Page 28


3Page 29


4Page 30


5Page 31


6Page 32


1Page 33


2Page 34


3Page 35


4Page 36


5Page 37


6Page 38


7Page 39


8Page 40


9Page 41


10Page 42


11Page 43


12Page 44


13Page 45


14Page 46


15Page 47


16Page 48


17Page 49


18Page 50


19Page 51


DII Investigators

Report ID: 459359






0 0 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date




Officer WEYFORTH, Stuart Star # 4258 (DII Investigators) Submitted - 08/07/2013 15:43Supervisor GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators) Approved - 08/07/2013 15:49Investigator

REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN:04 Interview of Retired SPD Commander Daryle Douglas Williamson

NARRATIVE SECTIONThis investigative report reflects information obtained during the interview of former Springfield Police Department (SPD)Commander Daryle Douglas Williamson (M/W, DOB: ). The interview was conducted on June 18, 2013, at 2 p.m. atthe Illinois State Police (ISP) Central Headquarters, office of the Division of Internal Investigation (DII). The interview wasconducted by DII Acting Investigative Commander, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner, and myself, DII Southern CommanderLieutenant Stuart Weyforth. Also present in the interview was ISP Legal Counsel John Hosteny. The interview wasconducted pursuant to a request by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigatean allegation of the shredding of a disciplinary file of current SPD Deputy Chief Clifford Buscher. On April 26, 2013, DII hadbeen provided documents that described an incident in 2008, which resulted in the arrest of Buscher by the Taney CountySheriff's Department in Missouri. The incident was subsequently investigated by SPD resulting in the suspension anddemotion of Buscher. DII received information that Williamson was the person who provided the documents anonymously

Page 52



NARRATIVE SECTIONto the ISP. At the onset of the interview of Williamson, he provided consent to audio record the interview. The followinginformation was provided by Williamson which is in summary, and not verbatim.

Williamson began his career with the SPD in December of 1982. Williamson had performed various functions whileemployed by the SPD; including being a crime analyst, a sworn patrol officer and a detective. He was promoted up theranks to sergeant, lieutenant and eventually promoted to deputy chief in 2007. Williamson was demoted to commanderin November of 2010 for use of sick time. Williamson resigned from the SPD on October 1, 2011. Williamson resignedfrom SPD as a result of health reasons and has been on duty related disability. Williamson is currently working part-timesecurity for the Springfield Sliders Baseball at Robbin Roberts Staduim and has been attending Springfield city hearingsconcerning his pension. Williamson admitted he was the person who provided the ISP with an envelope containinginformation pertaining to a 2008 incident in which Cliff Buscher was arrested in Taney County Missouri for discharging aweapon (See TN:01). Williamson relayed the envelope to the ISP Central Headquarters, addressed to Lieutenant ColonelKim Cochran, on April 18, 2013. The envelope contained a synopsis of events occurring on March 22 and 23, 2008 inTaney County Missouri. Williamson drafted the document which was then reviewed by his brother, SPD Lieutenant GregWilliamson, and SPD Lieutenant Wendell "Kurt" Banks who were each involved in the incident.

In March 2008, Williamson and two of his sons, and participated in a camping trip to Taney County Missourialong with other SPD command officers and their sons. The purpose of the trip was to teach the kids how to be responsible,such as cooking, cleaning and washing dishes by hand. The trip was a yearly event dating back to 1960s. The otherSPD command officers who were present on the trip were then Commander Cliff Buscher, Williamson's brother LieutenantGreg Williamson and Lieutenant Kurt Banks.

On March 22, 2008, the group had fished and later played touch football during the day. Buscher was not present with thegroup, and believed to be in town consuming alcoholic beverages. Buscher was described as a heavy drinker who hadan anger problem. Buscher returned to the campsite and was observed consuming one (1) beer. The group proceededinto the nearby town where they entered a restaurant known as the Frosted Mug, where there is also a bar. The grouptraveled to the restaurant in two vehicles, one of which was operated by Kurt Banks since he does not consume alcoholicbeverages. At the restaurant Buscher was observed consuming three (3) more beers. Williamson believed Buscher hadbeen drinking all day. While in the restaurant, a woman patron verbalized she was offended by a t-shirt being worn byBuscher's son. The t-shirt was of the rabbit from the Trix cereal commercial, and the shirt read' "Silly Fagot, Dick's are forChicks." Buscher became argumentative with the woman who had complained about the t-shirt. Buscher used profanitytowards her. Buscher departed the restaurant with Banks and returned to the campsite.

Banks returned to the restaurant a half hour later and informed Williamson that Buscher had been firing rounds fromhis weapon at the campsite. Williamson, along with his brother and Kurt Banks, proceeded back to the campsite wherehe observed the kids had scattered and they were hiding from Buscher. Williamson observed the kids had jumped outof screened windows. Williamson received information concerning the incident from Banks and his sons. Williamsonlearned that Buscher had retrieved his service weapon (a Sig Sauer P229 .357) from the glove compartment of the truckwhich Buscher and Banks were traveling in. Buscher expressed a desire to return to the Frosted Mug to confront thewoman. Buscher was heard saying he wanted to return to the Frosted Mug and he wanted to "kill the bitch." Buscherhad pointed his weapon at Williamson's son in an attempt to take the van. While at the campsite, Buscher fired hisweapon, striking the ground approximately 5 feet from Williamson's son Buscher was pointing the weapon in alldirections. At one point, Buscher had pointed his weapon at who had his leg on a bench and Buscher washeard saying, "You want to lose that leg mother fucker?"

Page 53



NARRATIVE SECTIONWilliamson arrived back at the campsite and located Buscher inside one of the cabin's where he was observed seatedin a chair. Buscher stood from the chair and Williamson tackled Buscher to the floor. Williamson heard Banks say hehad the gun. While tackling Buscher, the side of his head struck a table in the room and Buscher's head was bleeding.Williamson was angry and he told Buscher her would have him arrested and fired. Williamson called 911 and reportedsomeone was firing rounds and threatening people. Williamson also telephoned SPD Chief Ralph Caldwell to report theincident. Taney County Sheriff's police deputies arrived at the campsite and appeared to be taken aback. The officershad a "powwow" and decided to only take statements from Banks and Williamson felt the incident was beingminimized and those who completed the statements didn't document the entire incident. Williamson had wished Banksand had documented exactly what had happened. Additionally, Buscher reported to the deputies that Williamsonhad punched him in the face. The officers also questioned Williamson regarding if he had punched Buscher. Williamsondenied punching Buscher. Taney County deputies arrested Buscher and he was charged with a felony for discharging hisweapon over the lake. The charge was later pled down to a misdemeanor and he received a 180 suspended sentence.

The SPD immediately conducted an internal investigation into the incident. The investigation was conducted by SPDDeputy Chief Michael Geiger and Lieutenant Stephen Peters assigned to Internal Affairs. Williamson was interviewedby Chief Caldwell and Deputy Chief Geiger. Williamson refused to allow his sons to be interviewed. Williamson recalledthe only juvenile interviewed was who had witnessed the incident and alleged Buscher had pointed theweapon at him and threatened to shoot him. Williamson recalled Buscher's discipline was a 30 day suspension, pendingtermination. The Mayor of Springfield over turned the decision and demoted Buscher to Lieutenant. Williamson himselfreceived a 2 day suspension, which was later reduced to a 1 day suspension, for unbecoming conduct.

Williamson had wished to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the Buscher internal investigation file after hispension hearing had concluded. Williamson was informed by his brother, Greg Williamson, the FOIA end date wasJune 29, 2013. Williamson received information that on April 5, 2013, Banks filed a FOIA request to SPD for the Buscherfile. Williamson was informed by Banks that the FOIA request had been denied. Banks was going to file an appeal, but itwas learned from Greg Williamson that the file had been shredded. Williamson received information the file was shreddedby Lieutenant Chris Mueller, Deputy Chief of Internal Affairs. According to Williamson, in February 2013, SPD legal advisor,Megan Morgan, had advised department senior staff they would have to release Internal Affairs files pursuant to recentcourt decisions.

At the conclusion of the interview, Williamson provided DII with a copy of his SPD Internal Affairs transcribed interview,dated April 8, 2008, containing 35 pages. (See attached) The digitally audio recorded interview of Williamson will betransferred electronically to a compact disc (CD) and will be placed into evidence at a later date.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Doug Williamson TranscriptFile Name : Williamson Transcript 2008.pdf

Page 54

Case #IL13AA09938 TN:04 Attachment 1 1 Page 55


DII Investigators

Report ID: 469753






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 5 Interview Christopher Mueller, 6/19/13






No Photo

Page 90





CONTACT INFORMATIONContact Name Contact Type Number

Telephone


Witness : Christoper S MUELLERDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Christoper S MUELLERMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: White / UnknownDOB

Marital Status:Alias(s)/DOB(s):



No Photo

RESIDENCE INFORMATIONAddress Name Address, City, Township, County, State, Zip, Country


TelephoneCell Phone

IDENTITY DOCUMENTSDocument Type Document Number State Country Expiration DateEmployee Id Lieutenant Illinois United States of America (USA)

EMPLOYMENT INFORMATIONEmployer Address Contacts

Springfield Police DepartmentOccupation: Supervisors, Police And

DetectivesEmployed From: 07/15/1991 to PresentManager Name:

Additional Involved EmployeesAgency Name Unit. Employee Role Employee Name Star # Responding

Vehicle

Page 91



Additional Involved EmployeesDiv Of InternalInvestigation

Case Management Officer GAFFNER, ScottStar # 4222 (DIIInvestigators)

4222

NARRATIVE SECTION

On June 19, 2013, at approximately 9:41 am, Illinois State Police (ISP) legal counsel John Hosteny, Division of InternalInvestigations Southern Commander Stuart Weyforth, #4258 and I, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner, #4222, interviewedSpringfield Police Department Lieutenant Christopher Mueller at the ISP Headquarters located at 801 South Seventh Street,Springfield, Illinois. The purpose of the interview was to assist the State's Attorney Appellate Prosecutors Office with aninvestigation related to Springfield Police Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the premature shredding ofpolice officers' personnel files which occurred April 25, 2013. The following interview was recorded with the consent ofMueller with the original recording retained in the case file. The following report is written in essence and is not verbatim.

Mueller was hired with SPD on July 15, 1991, and is currently a lieutenant in the position of Acting Deputy Chief withInternal Affairs (IA). Mueller had been working IA since 2009 and had previous investigative experience as a detective from2001 until 2007, was promoted to sergeant in 2007 and lieutenant in 2009. Mueller currently works IA with Lieutenant GregWilliamson and Secretary Susan Canny.

Mueller was not with IA when an investigation was conducted from an incident that occurred in Taney County, Missouriduring March 2008 involving Commander Clifford Buscher, Deputy Chief Daryle Douglas Williamson, Lieutenant GregWilliamson and Lieutenant Wendell Kurtis Banks. During 2008, IA Deputy Chief Michael Geiger did not have previousinvestigative experience, but was the case agent due to the rank of the officers being investigated, while IA LieutenantStephen Peters directed the majority of the investigation due to his previous investigative experience. Mueller was not in IAduring 2008 but said he was aware of the investigation through casual conversations with Peters and Geiger when Muellerstarted IA in 2009. Mueller indicated he was made aware of criminal conduct by Clifford Buscher when he dischargedhis weapon and threatened children during the Taney County incident. Mueller believed much of the information was"sanitized" at the time to insulate Buscher from potential consequences.

Mueller said he first became aware of inquiries into Buscher's IA file when Corporation Counsel for SPD, Megan Morgan,inquired about retrieving a document from Buschers file approximately two weeks prior to the file being shredded on April25, 2013. Mueller recalled Morgan wanted a copy of the IA statement from Banks to satisfy a Freedom of Information Actrequest (FOIA), made by Banks. Mueller said Morgan could have signed out and taken the entire case file, but on thisoccasion it remained with Mueller, while a copy of Banks statement was made. The individuals that had access to securedIA files were Mueller, Greg Williamson, Communications Director Mike Madery, Michele Dodson and Chief Williams. ChiefWilliams only had a key which circumvented the secure key pad entry.

Mueller provided a timeline of events that occurred surrounding the eventual shredding of the IA files to include Buscher'sfile. On April 23, the new SPD Assistant Corporation Counsel, Geannette Wittendorf, sent Mueller an email inquiring ifMueller or Greg Williamson would be "around on Thursday morning." Mueller replied that he and Greg Williamson would

Page 92



NARRATIVE SECTIONbe in class that day. Wittendorf then requested Mueller to call her which resulted in a conversation with Wittendorf advisingMueller she needed he or Greg Williamson to be present at the office to shred some files prior to 5 pm on April 25 in orderto "not lie" while responding to a FOIA request. Once Mueller hung up from the call, he had the instant thought that thepending shredding must revolve around the Buscher case and he wanted to provide Wittendorf some background on thecase since she was new to her position. Mueller was at the office when he was preparing to call Wittendorf and advisedGreg Williamson to leave the office in order for him to speak openly with Wittendorf. Mueller advised Wittendorf that hebelieved the push to shred the files revolved around the Buscher IA case and Mueller believed the individuals involvedwith having the IA files shredded may be trying to alleviate issues with promoting Buscher to Chief upon the departureof Chief Williams. Mueller warned Wittendorf that they may use her inexperience with the department if there was fall outfrom shredding the documents. Wittendorf thanked Mueller but did not appear to be concerned with his insight.

Mueller said he was "sick" about the events that were transpiring and when he awoke the next morning of the 24th,requested a meeting with Chief Williams. At approximately 12:15 pm, he met with Chief Williams and requested to speakfreely. Once Chief Williams granted permission to speak freely, Mueller indicated that what was transpiring with thepotential shredding of files "does not pass the smell test." Mueller explained that he believed it was his duty to advise theChief what he believed was a mistake that could become a large scale issue which could disgrace Chief Williams. Muellerdescribed an incident in which an officer had left the department under dishonorable circumstances and had subsequentlypassed away. Chief Williams had denied the honor guards presence at the departed officers funeral due to the mannerhe left the department. Mueller advised Chief Williams he wanted to leave the department with integrity and wanted thehonor guard present at his funeral and hoped Chief Williams wanted the honor guard at his funeral too. Mueller advisedChief Williams that he did not want to be involved with the shredding of files even if Mueller had to be removed as ActingDeputy Chief of IA. Chief Williams indicated he did not plan to remove Mueller from his position and did not appear to beconcerned while stating he had checked with city legal who had approved the pending destruction of the files.

On April 25th, at approximately 11:20 am, Mueller was training in Bloomington and received a text from Wittendorf thatread, "everything is ready to go." Mueller texted back, "So we are going to shred everything over 4 years old?" Wittendorfresponded, "Except pending cases." Mueller said he received an email from Wittendorf that was forwarded from MarkCullen, the lead city attorney, which stated that the "expungement of files subject to that MOU needs to occur immediately."The MOU was in reference to an agreement between the SPD and Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA)which reduced the retention of IA files from five to four years.

Mueller indicated he was attempting to stay above reproach and knew he would need a lawful direct order. Mueller sentan email request to Wittendorf to provide the legal approval of the shred request and an email to Chief Williams to providethe order. Mueller received approval from Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen through email and a phone call from ChiefWilliams giving the order. Mueller indicated he proceeded to shred at 4:15 pm and completed after 10 pm with the Buschercase being destroyed after the 5 pm deadline. Mueller described a call he received from Banks at approximately 9:43 pmasking if the Buscher case had been shredded. Mueller advised him it had been destroyed but was aware that two compactdiscs were still available with one derived from a copy of the paper file that was stored in the vault and one was a copyof the paper file in the internal affairs office. Mueller eventually cut the discs in half with scissors and placed them in abox that contained approximately one years worth of discs that would eventually be taken to a large capacity shredder.Once the shred incident became public, Mueller was later advised to retrieve the discs, labeled them and provided them

Page 93



NARRATIVE SECTIONto city legal where Angela Fyans-Hemenaz took custody of them. Fyans-Hemenaz advised Mueller they would be sent tothe FBI in order to retrieve the data on them.

Mueller described the routine process of preparing files to be shredded. IA secretary Canny reviewed the files monthlyand listed all cases coming up to the five year and one month period and then forwarded to Mueller. Mueller would signoff on the list and then it was sent to city legal for review and granting approval for the files to be shredded. The list wasreturned to Lt. Greg Williamson, who eventually pulled the files returning them to IA for Canny to take apart the binders andeventually shred the documents. Mueller said they had never coordinated obtaining destruction certificates from DonnaBrown during the normal course of shredding documents and were never directed to shred documents immediately. Thefiles would usually be shredded within a couple week period of getting approval from city legal. Attached to this report area copy of the original list of files city legal reviewed and a copy of the list city legal provided hand written notes on priorto returning to IA. On Sunday May 5, Mueller sent an email to Chief Williams, Wittendorf and cc'd the Springfield Mayor,Mike Houston about his concern with the shredding incident. Attached to this report is a copy of the email. On MondayMay 6, Mayor Houston requested a meeting at 11 am with Mueller in which Mueller provided him the same time line andinformation on the shredding incident he had provided the ISP. Mueller indicated that Mayor Houston indicated they werelooking into the incident but did not make any comments about Mueller#s information.

Mueller said he was on the contract negotiations team with the union contract and knew that the change outlined in theMOU was not part of the negotiations the union had requested of the city. Mueller said there was not a doubt in his mind thatthe purpose of the reduced time for shredding was to get rid of Buscher's file and allow him to become the chief. Muelleradvised agents he was aware a family member of Buscher had a fund raiser for the mayor after the files were shredded.

Interview concluded at 11:14 am.

Attachment 1: Timeline of events from Lieutenant Mueller

Attachment 2: Multiple email correspondence from Lieutenant Mueller, Geannette Wittendorf, Donna Brown, RobertWilliams, Mike Houston and the list of internal files sent to legal for approval for shredding and the return list from legalwith notations.

47 pages of attachments

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Mueller time line and email correspondenceFile Name : Mueller timeline, emails.PDF

Page 94

��

�Page 95

��

�Page 96

��

�Page 97

��

�Page 98


5Page 99


6Page 100


7Page 101


8Page 102


9Page 103


10Page 104


11Page 105


12Page 106


13Page 107


14Page 108


15Page 109


16Page 110


17Page 111


18Page 112


19Page 113


20Page 114


21Page 115


22Page 116


23Page 117


24Page 118


25Page 119


26Page 120


27Page 121


28Page 122


29Page 123


30Page 124


31Page 125


32Page 126


33Page 127


34Page 128


35Page 129


36Page 130


37Page 131


38Page 132


39Page 133


40Page 134


41Page 135


42Page 136


43Page 137


44Page 138


45Page 139


46Page 140


47Page 141


DII Investigators

Report ID: 470055






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 6, Michael A Geiger Interview, 6/20/13






No Photo

Page 142






Telephone


Witness : Michael A GEIGERDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Michael A GEIGERMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: White / UnknownDOB




No Photo



Telephone


Vehicle

Div Of InternalInvestigation


4222

NARRATIVE SECTION

On June 20, 2013, at approximately 7:42 am, Illinois State Police (ISP) legal counsel John Hosteny, Division of InternalInvestigations Southern Commander Stuart Weyforth, #4258 and I, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner #4222, interviewedretired Springfield Police Department Commander Michael A. Geiger at the ISP Headquarters located at 801 SouthSeventh Street, Springfield, Illinois. The purpose of the interview was to assist the State's Attorney Appellate ProsecutorsOffice with an investigation related to Springfield Police Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the prematureshredding of police officers' personnel files which occurred April 25, 2013. The following interview was recorded with the

Page 143



NARRATIVE SECTIONconsent of Geiger with the original recording retained in the case file. The following report is written in essence and isnot verbatim.

Geiger began his career June 2, 1980 until he retired on July 16, 2010, and held the positions of Patrol Officer, Sergeant,Lieutenant and Commander. Geiger was the Commander of Internal Affairs (IA) for the last two and a half years of hiscareer. Geiger recalled a case that occurred in Taney County, Missouri during 2008 that involved Commander CliffordBuscher, Deputy Chief Daryle Douglas Williamson, Lieutenant Greg Williamson and Lieutenant Wendell Kurtis Banks.Lieutenant Stephen Peters conducted the investigation with Geiger. SPD conducted their administrative interview priorto the completion of the criminal case. During the case, it was learned that Buscher was intoxicated and discharged hisweapon in the direction of the lake on more than one occasion. Geiger believed that Deputy Chief Williamson "colored"his statement to make himself look better during the investigation and that Lieutenant Williamson and Banks' statementswere "less specific" factually. Geiger did not believe this was an attempt to deceive the investigators, but felt they werevague of the facts. At the conclusion the investigative packet was forwarded to the Chief with the charges and evidence,but did not include a recommendation for discipline.

SPD IA records were taken to SPD headquarters upon completion of an investigation where they were stored for five years.IA sworn and code staff had access to the files at the SPD but Geiger was unsure who else had access to records. Geigersaid the secretary of IA would generate a letter to City Legal after IA records had been retained past the five year period.City Legal would then give authorization to destroy records that did not have pending legal issues and then the secretaryor Lieutenants with IA would shred the files. Geiger said they would be done routinely within a 30 to 60 day period butthere was never a sense of urgency to shred any files immediately.

The interview ended at approximately 8:41 am.

Page 144


DII Investigators

Report ID: 469755






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 7, Interview of Stephen R. Peters, 6/20/13






No Photo

Page 145






Telephone


Witness : Stephen R PETERSDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Stephen R PETERSMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: White / UnknownDOB




No Photo



Cell Phone


Vehicle



4222

NARRATIVE SECTION

On June 20, 2013, at approximately 9:01 am, Illinois State Police (ISP) legal counsel John Hosteny, Division of InternalInvestigations Southern Commander Stuart Weyforth, #4258 and I, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner, #4222 interviewedretired Springfield Police Department (SPD) Lieutenant Stephen Peters at the ISP Headquarters located at 801 SouthSeventh Street, Springfield, Illinois. The purpose of the interview was to assist the State's Attorney Appellate ProsecutorsOffice with an investigation related to Springfield Police Department Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the prematureshredding of police officers' personnel files which occurred April 25, 2013. The following interview was recorded with the

Page 146



NARRATIVE SECTIONconsent of Peters with the original recording retained in the case file. The following report is written in essence and isnot verbatim.

Peters began his career July 1991 until he retired in 2011, and held the positions of Patrol Officer for seven years, drug unitmember for one year, 1999 promoted to Detective, 2002 promoted to patrol Sergeant, narcotics unit member for two years,2007 promoted to patrol Lieutenant, Internal Affairs (IA) during 2007-2009, Patrol in 2010 and briefly back to investigationsin 2011 before he retired.

Peters recalled a case that occurred in Taney County, Missouri during 2008 while he worked IA that involved CommanderClifford Buscher, Deputy Chief Daryle Douglas Williamson, Lieutenant Greg Williamson and Lieutenant Wendell KurtisBanks, their sons and a friend of the boys, Peters was advised of the situation by his supervisor, Deputy ChiefMichael Geiger. Peters recalled the facts of the investigation and described how Buscher had discharged his duty weaponwhile intoxicated at the camp site in Taney County, Missouri. Peters and Geiger responded to the scene arriving the dayafter the incident and learned many of the potential witnesses had already departed. IA was unable to locate any additionalevidence at the scene. IA interviewed the Taney County Deputies who responded to the crime scene and obtained theirreports. Peters learned the incident originally occurred at a bar when a lady was offended by a t-shirt Buscher's son waswearing and an argument ensued. Buscher was taken from the scene by Banks back to the cabin when Buscher retrievedhis departmental weapon and expressed his desire to return to the bar to confront the lady. Banks prevented Buscherfrom returning to the bar but Buscher proceeded to discharge his weapon at the camp site and threatened to shoot the legof Peters said this fact was later learned from when he was interviewed, but Taney County was apparentlyunaware of the threat. Peters said he believed Banks must have been extremely concerned for the safety of the childrento depart the campground while Buscher was still present to retrieve Greg and Douglas Williamson for assistance withthe situation. IA also went to the bar where the initial encounter occurred but they were not as cooperative and it did notproduce any witnesses and IA could not locate the offended lady.

Peters said during the investigation he did not believe the SPD officers involved provided all the factual details of theincident in an attempt to alleviate Buscher from receiving the full consequences of his actions. Peters said he did nothave facts to support this belief, but just had a "feeling." Geiger was assigned the case due to the rank of the SPD officersinvolved but Peters was actively involved due to his knowledge of conducting criminal investigations. The only juvenileinterviewed during the investigation was who was not related to any of the SPD officers.

Peters felt that Buscher should have been terminated, but he did not have input in the recommendation. Once a casewas completed it was taken to a non-union supervisor who reviewed the case, made a recommendation and forwardedup to their command. Peters said because Buscher was a commander and Williamson was his supervisor, he believedthat current Assistant Chief Robert Williams would review the case and forwarded a recommendation. Peters believed thatBuscher received a 30 day suspension and demotion.

Peters described that once a case was completed it was taken to the vault at the main SPD headquarters located in thecorporation counsel's office. Cases were retained for five years, department crash reports were retained for three yearsand written reprimands were retained for one year. Routinely the IA secretary would review case files if they are past the

Page 147



NARRATIVE SECTIONfive year period and forwarded the information to city legal on a letter format. City legal would determine which case wouldbe retained and which could be shredded. Peters would obtain the approved list and retrieve the case files from the vaultand return them to their IA office to prepare to shred. Peters said it would routinely take a couple weeks before the fileswould be shredded. Peters never had been told to shred officer's files in an expeditious manner while he worked for IA.Peters was unaware if SPD Records Manager Donna Brown, had ever been advised about his office shredding documents.Peters had never observed SPD offer anything to the police union without obtaining something in return as he referencedthe reduced period to shred documents.

The interview ended at approximately 9:56 am.

Page 148


DII Investigators

Report ID: 470065






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 8, Interview of Wendell Kurtis Banks, 7/1/13






No Photo

Page 149






Telephone


Witness : Wendell Kurtis BANKSDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Wendell Kurtis BANKSMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: White / UnknownDOB




No Photo



Cell PhoneIDENTITY DOCUMENTS

Document Type Document Number State Country Expiration DateEmployee Id Lieutenant Illinois United States of America (USA)



DetectivesEmployed From: 10/01/1994 to PresentManager Name:


Vehicle



4222

Page 150



Additional Involved Employees

NARRATIVE SECTIONOn June 19, 2013, at approximately 3:46 pm, Illinois State Police (ISP) legal counsel John Hosteny,Division of Internal Investigation Southern Commander Stuart Weyforth, #4258, and I, Master SergeantScott Gaffner, #4222, interviewed Springfield Police Department Lieutenant Wendell Kurtis Banks atthe ISP Headquarters located at 801 South Seventh Street, Springfield, Illinois. The purpose of theinterview was to assist the State's Attorney Appellate Prosecutors Office with an investigation relatedto Springfield Police Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the premature shredding ofpolice officers' personnel files which occurred April 25, 2013. The following interview was recordedwith the consent of Banks with the original recording retained in the case file. The following report iswritten in essence and is not verbatim. For report writing purposes, Greg Williamson will be referredto as Greg and Doug Williamson will be referred to as Williamson.

Banks began his career in October 1994 and had worked in the drug unit, FBI Task force, was promotedto sergeant in the proactive crime unit, worked in the crimes against persons unit, was promoted tolieutenant in 2006 and is currently the watch commander for the day shift in patrol.

Banks was asked to describe what had occurred in Taney County Missouri during a 2008 fatherand son outing involving Commander Clifford Buscher, Deputy Chief Daryle Douglas Williamson,Lieutenant Greg Williamson and Banks, as well as their sons and two friends of the boys, one of whichwas Banks said they had been taking the trip for over 10 years at the Edge Water BeachResort which usually occurred over Father's Day. Banks said the group consisted of more than eightdifferent father and son combinations over the years. Banks was staying in a trailer with Buscherand their children while the Williamsons stayed in a separate cabin with their children. During thestay, they had decided to go to The Frosted Mug in Forsyth, Missouri to eat pizza as a group while afew of the older children went driving through the small town. Banks recalled hearing a disturbancein the bar area and walked toward the area observing Buscher in a verbal argument with a femalepatron. (Banks proceeded to retrieve a copy of his administrative interview to refresh his memory andprovided the copy which is attached to this report.) Buscher was walking toward Banks and indicatedthat the female was mad at him and he was walking away.

Banks retrieved the kids and prepared to take the van and truck back to the camp. Banks hadprearranged to drive Buscher's truck due to Buscher being intoxicated. , the son ofWilliamson, the son of Greg, and the son of Buscher, were present in the back seat ofBuscher's truck. Buscher had already entered his truck in the driver's seat which prompted Banksto convince Buscher to let him drive since Banks had not been drinking. While Buscher was arguingabout driving, Banks observed Buscher had his duty weapon unholstered and in his hand. Banksrepeatedly requested Buscher to put the weapon away with Buscher eventually departing the driver's

Page 151



NARRATIVE SECTIONside for the passenger side. Buscher stated that he wanted to return to the bar and confront thelady because she disrespected and spit in his face while she was yelling during the encounter. Thisdialogue continued during the drive back to the resort as Buscher still had possession of the weaponand was demanding to return to the bar. When they arrived at the resort, Banks was concerned with thesafety of the children and ability to communicate with the Williamson brothers as cell phone coveragein the area was unavailable.

Because of Buscher's irrational behavior, Banks decided to formulate a plan to keep the children outof harms way and get Buscher to his trailer quickly. He was going to have Greg's oldest son, who wasdriving the van, take the kids directly to their cabin. Banks proceeded to escort the kids out of his truckto the van when Buscher exited the truck and entered the passenger seat of the van with his weaponand ordered Greg's son to take him back to the bar. Banks immediately intervened and informedGreg's son to get out of the van and Banks proceeded to enter the van and drive the kids to theircabin. Upon arrival, Banks went to the back of the van and was speaking with some of the older kidswhen he heard a gunshot coming from the front of the van. Banks immediately responded to the frontof the van and observed kids running into the cabin screaming and Buscher stating "that was loud."Banks continued requesting Buscher to give him the weapon with Buscher refusing the requests.Buscher then walked into the cabin where the kids were attempting to exit the cabin quickly with someof them jumping through screens on the open windows. Buscher proceeded to walk through thecabin and out the opposite door and discharged another round outside the cabin. Banks believed thepolice would be responding to the cabin because of the shots fired and was attempting to persuadeBuscher to give Banks his weapon. Buscher refused his requests and exited the front door. Bankslater learned this was when Buscher threatened to shoot in the leg. Buscher proceeded to firemultiple rounds outside the cabin while Banks was providing an escape route for the kids.

Banks was waiting for Buscher to give the gun to him or for Buscher to pass out. Once Buscherpassed out, Banks quickly drove to the bar and retrieved Williamson and Greg. Banks describedwhat occurred and they formulated a plan to get the gun from Buscher. Once they arrived at theresort, Williamson stopped to speak with his son while Banks and Greg walked to the cabin and foundBuscher still passed out. Greg proceeded to retrieve the weapon from Buscher without waking himand Banks made the weapon safe and took it to another room. Banks heard a loud commotion in theroom where they left Buscher and returned hearing Williamson telling them to get the weapon fromBuscher as Williamson had tackled Buscher thinking he still had the weapon. Banks separated themand advised Williamson they had already obtained the weapon.

Williamson proceeded to call the SPD chief and Taney County Sheriff's Department to report theincident. Banks stated he was initially reluctant to provide a statement to the responding officers

Page 152



NARRATIVE SECTIONas Buscher was his supervisor and it would provide a "black eye" for all the officers involved. Thewritten statements provided to the Sheriff's Department were only completed from details they hadbeen asked by the deputies. Banks did not volunteer additional information that may have shownBuscher in a derogatory manner as the reporting deputies had not asked for the information.

Once the SPD officers returned to Springfield, Internal Affairs (IA) conducted their investigationwith Buscher eventually receiving a demotion and 30 day suspension, while Williamson received anunknown disciplinary proceeding. Buscher's criminal case was completed with a reduced charge andan extended probation. Banks conveyed that a couple of months after his probation was served, ChiefWilliams promoted Buscher to Deputy Chief of Investigations.

Banks' relationship with Buscher had diminished since the incident and he believed he wasgetting passed over for opportunities with investigations since Buscher was promoted in charge ofinvestigations. Banks had been advised by Deputy Chief Bob Markovich that a general order had beenwritten to release all IA records to the general public. Banks was waiting for this to be implementedbut realized the IA files from the incident was getting close to being eligible for shredding and decidedto request the documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on April 5. Banks received aresponse on April 8 that indicated part of the request had been approved and part denied, (with a copyof the response attached to this report). Banks wanted the file to prevent Buscher from retaliatingagainst him for the incident that occurred in 2008 even though they attempted to insulate Buscherfrom a severe consequence. Banks believed that Buscher continued to blame the other officers forthe charges from his actions. Banks met with Chief Williams on April 11 and advised him the reasonfor the request. Chief Williams said he was not aware of the FOIA request even though he advisedBanks that he had of copy of Calvin Christians FOIA request that referenced Banks' request. ChiefWilliams facilitated a meeting with Banks and Buscher with Banks explaining why he requested theFOIA. Buscher only responded "I wish they were already shredded," when Banks referenced the IAfile.

On approximately April 18, Banks did not think Springfield Corporation Counsel's response tohis request applied and learned from SPD Lieutenant Bill Neil that Attorney Don Cravens wasknowledgeable about the laws surrounding FOIA. Banks briefly spoke to Cravens who advised him toprovide Cravens with all the documents Banks possessed and he would review them prior to Banksdeciding if he wanted to retain Cravens. Banks said he provided Cravens all the correspondence anddocuments that same day. Cravens called Banks the week of April 22 and advised him of case lawthat Judge Kelly presided over which confirmed the referenced section 7(1)(n) did not apply to FOIAand Banks should have received the requested file. Banks had been corresponding with CorporationCounsel Megan Morgan who had denied his request. Morgan left her position with Corporation

Page 153



NARRATIVE SECTIONCounsel and on April 22 Banks met with Corporation Counsel Geannette Wittendorf. Banks providedthe case law and explained how he believed they were erroneous in their decision. Wittendorf advisedBanks he had a 60 day appeal period and could retain counsel to assist with his appeal. Banksasked Wittendorf what he needed to do in order for the requested documents not to be shredded.Wittendorf again reiterated that he had 60 days to file an appeal. On April 25, Banks was contacted byLieutenant Carl Crawford during the evening and was advised that IA was shredding the files Bankshad requested. Banks called Lieutenant Christopher Mueller with IA who confirmed there was anMOU agreement and he was ordered to destroy the files. Banks then spoke with Deputy Chief RobertMarkovich, and advised him the files had been destroyed. Markovich advised Banks they wouldnot have shredded the files and advised Banks he would determine the validity of the information.Markovich called Banks back and was astounded the files had been shredded.

On April 26, Banks contacted Cravens and advised him he would not be needed since the files had beenshredded. Cravens appeared shocked and also did not believe the files would have been shredded.Within ten minutes of Banks conversation ending with Cravens, Banks received a call from CalvinChristian, who advised Banks he was aware the files had been shredded. Banks did not provideChristian any information and indicated he believed Cravens notified Christian of the shredding whichleft Banks frustrated. Christian later asked Banks if he wanted to join his suit against SPD as Cravenswould represent him "pro bono." Banks advised Christian he was not interested in profiting off hisrequest from SPD. Banks said a news reporter from channel 20 had attempted to speak with him athis house but was unsuccessful.

Banks described his previous relationship with Buscher as being close friends, professionally andpersonally, before the incident in 2008. Banks felt Buscher later became vindictive toward the officerswho attended the retreat when they had attempted to protect him from the full consequences from hisactions. Banks believed Buscher would continue this attitude if Buscher were to become the chiefand Banks was not protected by a union.

Banks indicated he and Greg met with Wittendorf on April 30 in response to an email she had sentindicating there was a FOIA request for memos, statements, emails and other information pertainingto the 2008 incident. Banks said he and Greg had their transcribed IA interviews available and advisedWittendorf they were willing to provide them in order to satisfy the FOIA request. Wittendorf actedas if she did not hear them and continued to advise them that if they could not find them, they wouldnot be required to produce them. Banks and Greg repeatedly advised Wittendorf they possessed thetranscripts, but it appeared Wittendorf did not want them to produce the documents. Banks advisedWittendorf she still should have the documents on her computer too as she had emailed them to Bankspreviously. Wittendorf denied possessing the documents on her computer. Wittendorf then began

Page 154



NARRATIVE SECTIONlecturing Banks and Greg that she believed someone was trying to hurt the department with the FOIArequests. Banks said Wittendorf did not follow up with them again to obtain the IA documents.

Banks said the memorandum of understanding between SPD and Police Benevolent and ProtectiveAssociation(PBPA) which reduced the retention of IA files from five to four years, was written byMarkovich at Chief Williams request. When the agreeent was signed on April 25, Markovich was notat the meeting but union President Don Edwards, Vice President Josh Stuenke, attorney Ron Stoneand SPD Chief Williams, Buscher and Wittendorf were present. Banks denied possessing or havingknowledge of who possessed copies of the Buscher case file.

The interview ended at approximately 5:49 pm.

Attachments:

Attachment 1: FOIA request from Banks and corresponding emails from city legal to Banks consistingof 14 pages.

Attachment 2: IA interview of Banks from 2008 consisting of 36 pages.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Banks FOIA requestFile Name : Banks FOIA.PDF

Page 155

��

�Page 156

��

�Page 157

��

�Page 158

��

�Page 159

��

�Page 160

��

�Page 161

��

�Page 162

��

�Page 163

��

�Page 164

��

��Page 165

��

��Page 166

��

��Page 167

��

��Page 168

��

��Page 169


15Page 170


16Page 171


17Page 172


18Page 173


19Page 174


20Page 175


21Page 176


22Page 177


23Page 178


24Page 179


25Page 180


26Page 181


27Page 182


28Page 183


29Page 184


30Page 185


31Page 186


32Page 187


33Page 188


34Page 189


35Page 190


36Page 191


37Page 192


38Page 193


39Page 194


40Page 195


41Page 196


42Page 197


43Page 198


44Page 199


45Page 200


46Page 201


47Page 202


48Page 203


49Page 204


50Page 205


DII Investigators

Report ID: 474425






1 1 No No No



510 E Allen, Springfield, Sangamon, Illinois, United States of America (USA)Location Type Date and Time of Occurrence


04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 9, Deliver Use Immunity to Chris Mueller, 4/8/13






No Photo

Page 206






Telephone


Witness : Christopher MUELLERDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Christopher MUELLERMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: / Not Of Hispanic OriginDOB


Height/Weight: /Build:Eye Color:Facial Hair:Complexion:Hair Color:Hair Length/Style:Dominant Hand:Citizenship: United States of America (USA)Place of Birth: Illinois


No Photo



Cell PhoneTelephone



DetectivesEmployed From:Manager Name:


Vehicle



4222

Page 207



NARRATIVE SECTIONOn August 8, 2013, at approximately 4:18 pm, I, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner, #4222, of theIllinois State Police (ISP) Division of Internal Investigation, met with Springfield Police Department(SPD) Lieutenant Christopher Mueller at his office, 510 East Allen, Springfield. The purpose of thecommunication with Mueller revolved around a SPD Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the prematureshredding of police officers' personnel files which occurred April 25, 2013, and subsequent requestto have the shredding incident investigated by the ISP.

Mueller had called and requested a copy of his Use Immunity letter from the State's Attorney AppellateProsecutors Office that had been secured for him during a previous interview with him on June 19 (seereport TN 5). Mueller advised me he had been subpoenaed for a deposition on August 22 in referenceto a civil case against the City of Springfield from Calvin Christian, case number 2013-MR-341 andwanted to ensure he had a copy of the Use Immunity for his record. I provided Mueller a copy of theimmunity agreement.

Attachment 1: Use Immunity consisting of 5 pages.Attachment 2: Civil case 2013-MR-341 consisting of 109 pages.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Mueller Use ImmunityFile Name : Mueller use immunity.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Christian Civil Suit 2013-MR-341File Name : Christian Civil Suit.pdf

Page 208

��

�Page 209

��

�Page 210

��

�Page 211

��

�Page 212

��

�Page 213

��

�Page 214

��

�Page 215

��

�Page 216

��

�Page 217

��

��Page 218

��

��Page 219

��

��Page 220

��

��Page 221

��

��Page 222

��

��Page 223

��

��Page 224

��

��Page 225

��

��Page 226

��

��Page 227

��

��Page 228

��

��Page 229

��

��Page 230

��

��Page 231

��

��Page 232

��

��Page 233

��

��Page 234

��

��Page 235

��

��Page 236

��

��Page 237

��

��Page 238

��

��Page 239

��

��Page 240

��

��Page 241

��

��Page 242

��

��Page 243

��

��Page 244

��

��Page 245

��

��Page 246

��

��Page 247

��

��Page 248

��

��Page 249

��

��Page 250

��

��Page 251

��

��Page 252

��

��Page 253

��

��Page 254

��

��Page 255

��

��Page 256

��

��Page 257

��

��Page 258

��

��Page 259

��

��Page 260

��

��Page 261

��

��Page 262

��

��Page 263

��

��Page 264

��

��Page 265

��

��Page 266

��

��Page 267

��

��Page 268

��

��Page 269

��

��Page 270

��

��Page 271

��

��Page 272

��

��Page 273

��

��Page 274

��

��Page 275

��

��Page 276

��

��Page 277

��

��Page 278

��

��Page 279

��

��Page 280

��

��Page 281

��

��Page 282

��

��Page 283

��

��Page 284

��

��Page 285

��

��Page 286

��

��Page 287

��

��Page 288

��

��Page 289

��

��Page 290

��

��Page 291

��

��Page 292

��

��Page 293

��

��Page 294

��

��Page 295

��

��Page 296

��

��Page 297

��

��Page 298

��

��Page 299

��

��Page 300

��

��Page 301

��

��Page 302

��

��Page 303

��

��Page 304

��

��Page 305

��

��Page 306

��

��Page 307

��

��Page 308

��

��Page 309

��

��Page 310

��

��Page 311

��

��Page 312

��

��Page 313

��

��Page 314

��

��Page 315

��

��Page 316

��

��Page 317

��

��Page 318

��

��Page 319

��

��Page 320

��

��Page 321

��

��Page 322

��

��Page 323


DII Investigators

Report ID: 474473






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date




Officer GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators) Submitted - 10/03/2013 11:45Supervisor MCCARTHY, Annette Star # 17418 Approved - 10/03/2013 14:25Investigator GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators)

REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 10, Waiver of Attorney Client Privilege, 8/16/13






No Photo

Page 324






Telephone



Vehicle



4222

NARRATIVE SECTIONOn May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation was requested by the State's Attorneys AppellateProsecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a Springfield Police Department Case # 2013-MR-394, involving theshredding of police officers' personnel files. On July 23, 2013, a letter was written to Springfield Mayor J Michael Houstonfrom Colonel Agnes Kindred-Johnson from the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation requesting a waiverof attorney-client privilege and access to documents related to files being shredded. On August 16, 2013, a responseto the waiver request was answered by Mayor Houston granting a limited waiver of attorney-client privilege and providedthe audio CD of the May 7, 2013, executive session of the Springfield City Council meeting. The audio CD and originalresponse will be retained in the case file.

Attachment 1: Requested waiver of attorney-client privilege consisting of two pages.

Attachment 2: Springfield Mayor Houston's response waiving the attorney-client privilege consisting of three pages.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Waiver of Attorney-Client PrivilegeFile Name : ISP request of waiver atty privilege.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Response to requested Waiver of PrivilegesFile Name : Waiver Atty Prov & audio closed session.PDF

Page 325

��

�Page 326

��

�Page 327

��

�Page 328

��

�Page 329

��

�Page 330


DII Investigators

Report ID: 485889






1 2 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date




Officer GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators) Submitted - 10/04/2013 16:14Supervisor WILLIAMS, Tad Star # 4738 Approved - 10/22/2013 11:53Investigator GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators)

REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN-11, Receipt of 64GB flash drive containing Springfield PD documents, 9/12/13.






No Photo

Page 331






Telephone

Subject : Government - Springfield Police DepartmentName: Springfield Police DepartmentOrganizationType:

Government Department:

ADDRESS INFORMATIONAddress, City, Township, County, State, Zip, Country

800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701, United States of America (USA)CONTACTS

Name: RAHN, Steven C Title: Assistant Corporation CounselAddress: 800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701,

United States of America (USA)Contact onScene?

No

Contacts:

Additional Info:


Person Contacted : Steven C RAHNDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Steven C RAHNMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex:Race/Ethnicity:




No Photo


Vehicle



4222

Page 332



NARRATIVE SECTIONOn May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police, Division of Internal Investigation, was requested by the State's AttorneysAppellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate Springfield Police Department Case # 2013-MR-394,involving the shredding of police officers' personnel files. On July 23, 2013, a letter was written to Springfield Mayor J.Michael Houston from Colonel Agnes Kindred-Johnson from the Illinois State Police, Division of Internal Investigation,requesting a waiver of attorney-client privilege and access to documents related to files being shredded. On August16, 2013, a response to the waiver request was answered by Mayor Houston granting a limited waiver of attorney-clientprivilege.

On August 16, 2013, Mr. Ed Parkinson, Assistant State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, sent a letter to Jon Gray Noll fromthe Noll Law Office who is representing the City of Springfield on case 2013-MR-394. The contents of the letter requestedspecific files and documents to include:

1. Applications for Authority to Dispose of Local Records approved at any time by the Local Records Commission.

2. Any and all policies, rules, or procedures of the City of Springfield pertaining to the retention, expungement, or disposalof City records.

3. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Springfield and the Police Benevolent andProtective Association (PBPA) Unit #5 signed April 25, 2013.

4. A list of any and all files which were expunged or disposed of on April 25, 2013.

5. Any and all documents by or between any of the following list of persons concerning any of the following list of topics,from the period of April 1, 2013, to the present:

List of Persons Whose Documents Must be Produced:

J. Michael Houston, Mayor

Mark Cullen, Corporation Counsel

Megan Morgan, Assistant Corporation Counsel

Geannette Wittendorf, Assistant Corporation Counsel

Robert L. Williams, Jr., Chief of Police

Cliff Buscher, Deputy Chief

Robert Markovich, Deputy Chief

Christopher Mueller, Lieutanant

Greg Willaimson, Lieutenant

Donna Brown, Records Manager and FOIA Coordinator

Susan Canny

Don Edwards

List of Topics within Documents Which Must be Produced:

Page 333



NARRATIVE SECTION

1. Negotiation or Execution of the MOU dated April 25, 2013, between the City of Springfield and PBPA Unit #5 concerningthe expungement of discipline.

2. The Expungement of Internal Affairs' Files.

3. Approval by the Local Records Commission or Records Disposal Certificates for the disposal of any internal affairsfiles, or the legal application of the Local Records Act to the disposal of internal affairs files.

4. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request #10907 by Wendell Banks for a copy of the IA investigation against DeputyChief Clifford Buscher concerning an incident in March 2008.

5. FOIA Request #10962 by Calvin Christian for a copy of the IA investigation against Deputy Chief Clifford Buscherconcerning an incident in March 2008.

6. FOIA Request #11048 by Calvin Christian for a copy of IA investigations against every Springfield Police DepartmentOfficer.

7. FOIA Request #11002 by John Myers for record retention/destruction certificates for IA files.

On September 12, 2013, I, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner, #4222, received a letter forwarded from Illinois State PoliceLegal Counsel, John Hosteny, which was addressed to Mr. Ed Parkinson, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor fromSpringfield Assistant Corporation Counsel, Steven C. Rahn, along with a 64 gigabyte universal serial bus (USB) flashdrive containing 23.8 gigabytes of data stored in six primary folders. The data provided was in response to the August16, 2013, request of documents and files from Springfield Police Department. The letter appeared to have been originallydrafted in response to a FOIA request by Calvin Christian and did not completely comply with the requested informationand documents specifically outlined.

The six folders contained:

*Springfield Network email searches: The results of searches conducted by the City's Information Services Division foremails of employees relevant to the Freedom of Information Act requests.

* Files extracted by J. Myers: Collection of files extracted from the email search by Calvin Christian's Attorney, John Myers.

* Internal Affairs Computer Profiles: Results of a file restoration process on Internal Affairs computers after the April 25,2013, shredding.

* Records retention-disposal: Applications and certificates of authority received by Springfield from 2010.

* May 7, 2013, Executive Session of the City Council: The minutes and recording of the May 7, 2013, Executive Session.

* Additional Discovery Documents: Internal Affairs files purged, drafts of the memorandum of understanding and additionaldocuments.

The USB drive will be retained in the case file until all the documents can be reviewed.

Attachment 1: Letter to Jon Gray Noll from the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor consisting of three pages.

Page 334



NARRATIVE SECTIONAttachment 2: Letter to State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor from Assistant Corportaion Counsel Steven Rahnconsisting of one page.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Requested Springfield FilesFile Name : Spd Request of information.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : 64 GB flash drive informationFile Name : 64gb documents SPD.PDF

Page 335


1Page 336


2Page 337


3Page 338


4Page 339


DII Investigators

Report ID: 511431






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 12, Meeting with Steve Rahn & James Sullivan, 11/6/13






No Photo

Page 340






Telephone


Person Contacted : Steven C RAHNDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Steven C RAHNMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex:Race/Ethnicity:




No Photo

Person Interviewed : Steve RAHNDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Steve RAHNMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity:approxim 55 YearsMarital Status: UnknownAlias(s)/DOB(s):



No Photo


800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701, United States of America (USA)EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION

Employer Address Contacts

Springfield Police DepartmentOccupation: Lawyers And JudgesEmployed From:Manager Name:

Page 341



Person Interviewed : Steve RAHNEMPLOYMENT INFORMATION

Person Interviewed : James SULLIVANDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: James SULLIVANMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: White / Not Of Hispanic Originapproxim 47 YearsMarital Status: UnknownAlias(s)/DOB(s):



No Photo


800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701, United States of America (USA)EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION


Springfield CityOccupation: Supervisors, Computer

Equipment OperatorsEmployed From:Manager Name:


Vehicle



4222

NARRATIVE SECTIONOn November 6, 2013, at approximately 2:00 pm, Illinois State Police (ISP) Legal Counsel JohnHosteny, ISP Internal Security Investigator I, Daphne Kennedy and I, Division of Internal Investigation(DII) Lieutenant, Scott Gaffner met with Springfield Assistant Corporation Counsel, Steven Rahn andSpringfield City Water, Light and Power Supervisor of Technical Support, James Sullivan. The meetingwas held at the Springfield Corporation Counsel conference room, 800 East Monroe, Springfield,Illinois. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the 64 gigabyte universal serial bus (USB) flashdrive containing 23.8 gigabytes of data stored in six primary folders that was obtained on September12, 2013, see TN 11. DII became involved in an investigation when on May 30, 2013, the ISP DIIwas requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate

Page 342



NARRATIVE SECTIONa Springfield Police Department Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers'internal investigative files. The following report is written in essence and is not verbatim.

DII advised Rahn that the documents provided did not fully comply with the specific requests senton August 16, 2013, as reported in TN 11. Rahn indicated the six folders were compiled fromsearches from FOIA requests, email and computer searches and the May 7 Executive Session ofthe Springfield City Council, to provide for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission(ARDC) Investigation, Calvin Christian lawsuit and ISP investigation. Sullivan provided insight to howhe searched for the files on their system and individual computers to compile the documents. Atthe conclusion of the meeting, DII requested for the city to review the requested items and forwardall requested documents as well as deposition transcripts from the Calvin Christian litigation. Themeeting ended at 2:45 pm.

On November 29, 2013, a follow up letter was written to Rahn again requesting the documents thathad been discussed on November 6. Attached to this report is the one page letter, attachment 1.

On December 6, 2013, the additional documents were provided to John Hosteny as documented in aone page letter, attachment 2. The letter was dated September 4, 2013, from the Office of CorporationCounsel, but was received on December 6.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : December 6 Corp Counsel Ltr to ISPFile Name : Dec 6 Corp Counsel Ltr to ISP.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Follow up request of documentsFile Name : Nov SPD follow up request.pdf

Page 343

IL13AA09938 Attachment 2

1Page 344


1Page 345


DII Investigators

Report ID: 506101






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 13, Interview State Archives Director David Joens, 11/20/13






No Photo

Page 346






Telephone


Person Interviewed : David JOENSDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: David JOENSMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity:DOB




No Photo


Telephone

Person Interviewed : Gloria HUSTONDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Gloria HUSTONMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: FemaleRace/Ethnicity: White / Not Of Hispanic Originapproxim 60 YearsMarital Status:Alias(s)/DOB(s):



No Photo

NARRATIVE SECTION

On November 20, 2013, at approximately 1:00 pm, Illinois State Police Legal Counsel John Hostenyand I, Division of Internal Investigation Lieutenant, Scott Gaffner interviewed the Director of the IllinoisState Archives, David Joens and Archival Program Administrator, Gloria Huston. The interview was

Page 347



NARRATIVE SECTIONconducted at the Norton Building in Springfield, Illinois with the purpose of the interview to assist inunderstanding the process involved with the destruction of documents pursuant to the Local RecordsAct. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of InternalInvestigation was requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino,to investigate a Springfield Police Department Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of policeofficers' internal investigative files. The following report is written in essence and is not verbatim.

Huston described the Local Records Act as being established in 1861 with the authority to coverall local public bodies of government in Illinois with regulating the disposal of public documents.Huston provided all documentation of the Springfield Police Department on file with the Local RecordsCommission. This consisted of the Springfield Police Department's original Application for Authorityto Dispose of Local Records in 1978 (78:395, consisting of 5 pages, attachment 1), amendments to thatApplication in 1987 (87:025, consisting of 84 pages, attachment 2) and the most recent one submittedSeptember 5, 2012 (12:235, consisting of 43 pages, attachment 3). The latest application was submittedafter Donna Brown, Springfield Police Department's record disposal coordinator, advised Huston theirprevious applications did not cover internal affairs files, among other documents. Huston statedApplication 12:235 Item 1200, entitled Internal Affairs Investigations (Electronic), would cover bothelectronic and hardcopy records. Huston indicated she has had conversations with Brown on severaloccasions and believes Brown fully understands the Local Records Act but her advice may not havebeen taken during discussions leading up to the destruction of the Springfield Police Departmentfiles. Also provided were copies of every Record Disposal Certificate filed by the Springfield PoliceDepartment under each Application. Once an agency submits the Application for Authority to Disposeof Local Records, and the Application is approved by the Local Records Commission, the agency muststill file a Record Disposal Certificate with the Commission for authority to dispose of records coveredin the Application. The agency must wait 60 days after submitting a Record Disposal Certificate beforedestroying documents, unless denied by the Local Records Commission. The agency is advised theymay not dispose of records if there is pending litigation or a freedom of information request, amongother reasons.

Huston recalled receiving a phone call from Springfield Assistant Corporation Counsel GeannetteWittendorf, on May 1, 2013. The discussion revolved around the memorandum of understandingthe Police Benevolent and Protective Association and Springfield had signed, internal affairs filesand the Personnel Record Review Act. Huston documented the date and conversation she had withWittendorf because this was after Springfield had shredded the internal affair files and the media hadbeen reporting the incident. Huston stated Wittendorf strongly believed she was allowed to destroy theinternal affairs files under the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act. Huston disagreed, and providedWittendorf her interpretation of the act and understanding that all documents to include internal

Page 348



NARRATIVE SECTIONaffair files could not be destroyed prior to submission of an Application for Authority to Dispose ofLocal Records covering the records in question, approval of the Application from the Local RecordsCommission, and then approval of a Record Disposal Certificate covering the specific batch of recordsto be disposed. Huston said an agreement between a municipality and union organization to diminishthe retention time period of documents would not be binding on the Local Records Commission.

Prior to the April 2013, destruction of the internal affair documents, Springfield had not submitted anyRecord Disposal Certificates for the disposal of internal affairs files to the Local Records Commission.The commission received a request from Donna Brown to amend Application 12:235 with respectto the retention period for internal affairs files on May 1, 2013, but per correspondence dated June5, 2013,the Commission declined to act upon the request due to the pending litigation (attachment3). Huston felt Wittendorf believed she had properly followed the Personnel Record Review Act inspite of Huston providing a contradictory interpretation of the law.

Joens recalled a couple municipalities that had minor issues with the Local Records Act and felt therewere many government bodies that did not fully comply, but was unaware of anyone being prosecutedfor violating the act.

After the interview had been completed, Huston forwarded an email correspondance she previouslyhad with Assistant Appellate Prosecutor, Charles Zalar and her document in response. Attached tothis report is the email and letter.

The interview ended at approximately 1:52 pm.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : 12:235File Name : SPD App12-235.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : 78:395File Name : SPD.App78-395.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : 87:025

Page 349



ATTACHMENTSFile Name : Local.Record.Comm.SPD.App87-025.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Huston emailFile Name : Zalar and Huston communication.docx

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Huston Letter to ZalarFile Name : Huston letter to Zalar.doc

Page 350


1Page 351


2Page 352


3Page 353


4Page 354


5Page 355


6Page 356


7Page 357


8Page 358


9Page 359


10Page 360


11Page 361


12Page 362


13Page 363


14Page 364


15Page 365


16Page 366


17Page 367


18Page 368


19Page 369


20Page 370


21Page 371


22Page 372


23Page 373


24Page 374


25Page 375


26Page 376


27Page 377


28Page 378


29Page 379


30Page 380


31Page 381


32Page 382


33Page 383


34Page 384


35Page 385


36Page 386


37Page 387


38Page 388


39Page 389


40Page 390


41Page 391


42Page 392


43Page 393


1Page 394


2Page 395


3Page 396


4Page 397


5Page 398


1Page 399


2Page 400


3Page 401


4Page 402


5Page 403


6Page 404


7Page 405


8Page 406


9Page 407


10Page 408


11Page 409


12Page 410


13Page 411


14Page 412


15Page 413


16Page 414


17Page 415


18Page 416


19Page 417


20Page 418


21Page 419


22Page 420


23Page 421


24Page 422


25Page 423


26Page 424


27Page 425


28Page 426


29Page 427


30Page 428


31Page 429


32Page 430


33Page 431


34Page 432


35Page 433


36Page 434


37Page 435


38Page 436


39Page 437


40Page 438


41Page 439


42Page 440


43Page 441


44Page 442


45Page 443


46Page 444


47Page 445


48Page 446


49Page 447


50Page 448


51Page 449


52Page 450


53Page 451


54Page 452


55Page 453


56Page 454


57Page 455


58Page 456


59Page 457


60Page 458


61Page 459


62Page 460


63Page 461


64Page 462


65Page 463


66Page 464


67Page 465


68Page 466


69Page 467


70Page 468


71Page 469


72Page 470


73Page 471


74Page 472


75Page 473


76Page 474


77Page 475


78Page 476


79Page 477


80Page 478


81Page 479


82Page 480


83Page 481


84Page 482


DII Investigators

Report ID: 513977






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 14, Interview of Megan Morgan, 12/10/13






No Photo

Page 483






Telephone


Person Interviewed : Megan MORGANDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Megan MORGANMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: FemaleRace/Ethnicity: WhiteDOB




No Photo



Cell PhoneEMPLOYMENT INFORMATION


Illinois Secretary of StateOccupation: Secretary of State Inspector

GeneralEmployed From: 04/11/2013 to PresentManager Name:


Name: Megan MORGANMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex:Race/Ethnicity:

Marital Status:

Height/Weight: /Build:Eye Color:Facial Hair:Complexion:Hair Color:

No Photo

Page 484




Alias(s)/DOB(s): Hair Length/Style:Dominant Hand:Citizenship:Place of Birth:



Vehicle



4222

NARRATIVE SECTION

On December 10, 2013, at approximately 1:27 pm, Illinois State Police (ISP) Legal Counsel John Hosteny and I, ISP Divisionof Internal Investigation Lieutenant, Scott Gaffner interviewed former Assistant Corporation Counsel for Springfield PoliceDepartment (SPD), Megan Morgan. The interview was conducted at the ISP Central Headquarters in Springfield. Thepurpose of the interview was to determine Morgan's knowledge of the events that led up to the shredding of SPD internalinvestigative files. The ISP investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Division of Internal Investigation was requestedby the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a SPD Case # 2013-MR-394,involving the shredding of police officers' internal investigative files. The following report is written in essence and is notverbatim. Morgan consented for the interview to be audio recorded with the recording retained in the case file.

Morgan indicated she began as Springfield City Legal with Building Code Enforcement from June 2004 until March2012 when she began working as a Police Legal Advisor. Morgan resigned April 11, 2013 when she began working forthe Secretary of State, Inspector General. Morgan described her primary responsibilities while with Springfield PoliceDepartment was to train officers in regards to legal aspects, respond to FOIA requests and represent officers in federalcourt. Morgan would occasionally work with records division supervisor, Donna Brown and Commander Gregg Williamswith FOIA requests as the police department received more requests than any city agency.

Morgan indicated the Police Benevolence and Protective Association (PBPA) contract and SPD General Orders had a 5year retention period after which time a request was made to dispose of the records. This request was initiated by theInternal Affairs (IA) secretary and forwarded through the IA Lieutenants to SPD legal with Morgan. Morgan would reviewthe cases to determine if pending litigation existed or a valid FOIA existed. The document would be returned to IA afterlegal review with Morgan indicating which cases needed to be saved. Morgan was not aware the city was shredding IAfiles on a routine basis as she did not understand that expungement was interpreted as shred. Morgan thought the citywas expunging the documents by removing the officer's names, not shredding the documents. Towards the end of heremployment with the city, Morgan said she eventually became aware that documents were being destroyed. Morgan had abrief conversation with Angela Fyans-Jimenez, the previous police legal advisor, about discovering the documents werebeing destroyed, but she never followed up on the issue.

Page 485



NARRATIVE SECTION

Morgan described a change in Springfield's manner of releasing documents which occurred January 2013. Springfield hadlost a FOIA lawsuit filed by Calvin Christian to include approximately $17, 000 in attorney fees, and another such lawsuitwas pending. Springfield had made decisions to fully deny FOIA requests prior to January 2013. Morgan explained thecity had the burden to justify not releasing documents under FOIA and departments are discouraged from "wholesale"denials of FOIA. Prior to her departure, with Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen's consent she had been working on a generalorder to presume I/A files were public record and subject to release under a FOIA. Morgan recalled a couple meetings towork on the language for the general order with Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen, PBPA representative Ron Stone, UnionPresident, Don Edwards and Chief Williams. They were attempting to agree upon the language and have it implementedprior to Morgan's departure, but it never was finalized. Morgan recalled Ron Stone requesting to shorten the retentionperiod to retain documents, but he never specified a time period and Morgan did not recommend reducing the retentionperiod, and she did not relay Stone's suggestion to anyone. Morgan was present during the contract negotiations anddid not recall a formal proposal requested from the PBPA to shorten the retention period. Morgan received an email fromBuscher during the discussions indicating he did not like the recommendation to release all IA files but was in agreementwith her work on the general order.

Morgan was not aware of a Memorandum of Understanding which was agreed upon by the PBPA and Springfield whichreduced the file retention period from five to four years. Morgan recalled having a conversation on two occasions withBuscher in which he was suggesting his desire to have the time period to retain IA files shortened. Morgan did not recallthe time period the first conversation occurred, but believed the second conversation occurred between March and Aprilof 2013. Morgan advised Buscher he would have to wait until July, 2013, when his five year retention period would becompleted. Morgan was aware Lieutenant Banks requested Buscher's I/A file in a FOIA prior to her departure and the cityclaiming exemptions against releasing the documents but allowing him to have his IA statements. By Morgan addressingBanks FOIA, she became aware of the date of Buscher's five year period. Morgan did not have a discussion with anyonepressuring her not to release Buscher's files.

Once Morgan departed, Geannette Wittendorf took her position with limited duties, but never asked for Morgan's advice onthe destruction of IA files. Morgan did meet with Wittendorf on one occasion to go over a list of job duties for the position,and during this meeting Morgan gave Wittendorf a copy of the City's Application for Authority to Dispose of Local RecordsNo. 12:235 approved September 5, 2012, and explained it to her. Morgan stated Wittnedorf never approached Morganfor guidance with respect to expungement of IA files. Morgan described Wittendorf's conduct as being contentious withFyans-Jimenez and recalled Cullen speaking with Wittendorf on two occasions about her conduct reference an ongoingchild support issue at the Springfield State's Attorney's office and a confrontation she had at the front door of SPD.

The interview ended at approximately 2:36 p.m.

Page 486


DII Investigators

Report ID: 512991






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 15, Interview of Assistant Attorney General Matt Hartman, 12/10/13






No Photo

Page 487






Telephone


Person Interviewed : Matt HARTMANDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Matt HARTMANMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: Unknown / Unknownapproxim 38 YearsMarital Status: UnknownAlias(s)/DOB(s):



No Photo



TelephoneEMPLOYMENT INFORMATION


Attorney General OfficeOccupation: AttorneyEmployed From:Manager Name:


Vehicle



4222

Page 488



NARRATIVE SECTIONOn December 10, 2013, at approximately 3:06 pm, Illinois State Police Legal Counsel John Hostenyand I, Division of Internal Investigation Lieutenant, Scott Gaffner interviewed Public Access Counselor(PAC)Assistant Attorney General, Matt Hartman. The interview was conducted on a teleconferencewith Attorney General employees Karen McNaught, Bureau Chief of the General Law Bureau, SarahPratt, Public Access Counselor, Brent Stratton, Chief Deputy Attorney General and Michael Luke,Ethics Officer on the teleconference. The purpose of the interview was to determine if Hartman recalleda conversation with Springfield Assistant Corporation Counsel, Geannette Wittendorf on April 25,2013. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of InternalInvestigation was requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino,to investigate a Springfield Police Department Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of policeofficers' internal investigative files. The following report is written in essence and is not verbatim.

Hartman has worked for the PAC since October 1, 2012. The PAC was formed to allow membersof the general public to obtain general guidance about the Freedom of Information Act and OpenMeetings Act. Hartman indicated he did not receive instructions from the Attorney General's Officeon a standard response to questions but would provide general guidance, convey binding opinionsor refer to court cases when responding. Hartman did not keep detailed notes of conversations hehad involving inquiries.

On October 15, 2013, ISP Legal Counsel John Hosteny drafted an electronic email letter to the AttorneyGeneral requesting, under the Freedom of Information Act: "Any and all notes, recordings, data,memoranda, emails, and documentation of a phone call to the Attorney General Public AccessCounselor Hotline, 1/ 877- 299-3642 or other number, from Springfield Assistant Corporation CounselGeannette Wittendorf, on or about April 24, 2013, through Apri126, 2013, inclusive, to any and allemployees of the PAC." On October 22, 2013, the Attorney General drafted a response granting in partand denying in part the request from ISP. Attached to this report are the documents to include a letterdated August 28, 2013, to Ester J. Seitz from Donald M. Craven Law Office, P.C., a page documentingthe date of 4/25/13, time and the number which called the PAC and time period elapsed with the restof the document being redacted, and a note page with four lines of minimal notes with the rest of thedocument redacted, attachment 1.

Hartman had previously been provided his notes from attachment 1 and was asked if he recalledreceiving a call from Wittendorf on April 25, 2013. Hartman believed he did talk with Wittendorfon that date, but did not have specific recall of the conversation. Hartman confirmed that thedocuments contained in Attachment 1 were the only records that exist concerning his conversationwith Wittendorf. Attachment 2 is an interdepartmental memorandum drafted May 1, 2013, to MarkCullen. The memorandum was in response to an email Wittendorf had sent to Cullen documenting

Page 489



NARRATIVE SECTIONa conversation with Hartman by indicating, "I did talk to them about it this morning. They said WEcannot request a PAC opinion, only the FOIA requester can. I asked". Wittendorf's memorandumdocumented the date and time she called Hartman. Hartman indicated during April of 2013, paralegalsanswered the hotline but would forward requests to him they were unable to answer. Hartman hadbeen forwarded this call from a paralegal but did not recall the specific conversation. DII read HartmanWittendorf's email which stated: "What do we do if we receive a FOIA request, but during the responseperiod, before we respond, the records are subject to expungement? Are we mandated to retain thedocuments and tum them over or can we expunge them before we respond as long as its pursuant tovalid expungement?" Wittendorf further stated that Hartman responded with "Go ahead and get rid ofthe files". Hartman denied giving this advise, and said he would not have advised Wittendorf to get ridof files but would have advised her to make copies of the requested documents and provide them to therequester. Hartman stated he would not provide hotline callers with legal advice pertaining to statutesother than the FOIA or Open Meetings Act, but might refer them to the other statutes. Hartman wasalso asked if he received any further communication from anyone after Wittendorf. Hartman said no.

The interview ended at 3:26 pm.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : ISP FOIA to AGFile Name : Oct 15 AG FOIA ISP.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Wittendorf Memo to CullenFile Name : Wittendorf Ltr to Cullen.pdf

Page 490


1Page 491


2Page 492


3Page 493


4Page 494

mccarta

Typewritten Text

mccarta

Sticky Note

PAGES 507-509 WERE ALREADY REDACTED PRIOR TO ISP RECEIVING.


5Page 495

mccarta

Typewritten Text

This was redacted before ISP received.

mccarta

Typewritten Text

mccarta

Typewritten Text


6Page 496


1Page 497


2Page 498


DII Investigators

Report ID: 518323






0 0 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date




Officer COPSEY, Randall E Star # 5908 (DII Investigators) Submitted - 03/19/2014 15:48Supervisor GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators) Approved - 03/19/2014 15:55Investigator

REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 16, Interview of Stephanie Barton

Person Interviewed : Stephanie L. BARTONDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Stephanie L. BARTONMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: FemaleRace/Ethnicity: WhiteDOB




No Photo

Page 499



Person Interviewed : Stephanie L. BARTONRESIDENCE INFORMATION



TelephoneCell Phone

NARRATIVE SECTIONThis investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Labor Relations Manager Stephanie Barton. The interviewwas conducted on January 28, 2014, at 9:57 a.m., and took place at the Illinois State Police (ISP) Central Headquarters,office of the Division of Internal Investigation (DII). The interview was conducted by DII Lieutenant Scott Gaffner #4222,and myself, Special Agent Randall Copsey #5908. Also present in the interview was ISP Legal Counsel John Hosteny. Theinvestigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation was requested by theState's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a Springfield Police Department (SPD)Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers' internal investigative files. DII received information thatBarton's name was on documents related to the above mentioned shredded documents. At the beginning of the interviewBarton gave consent for the interview to be audio recorded, and the following information was provided by Barton, whichis in summary, and not verbatim. The audio recording will be retained in the case file.

Barton had been the Labor Relations Manager since June 11, 2012, and reported to the Director of Human Resources,Melina Tomaras-Collins. As the Labor Relations Manager Barton was the Lead Bargaining Negotiator for twenty fourcollective bargaining agreements. She also addressed grievances before they reached an arbitrator. Departmentscontacted Barton about labor related issues before contacting a union, and she was the Labor Adviser to the Mayor. Beforethis, Barton was with the Central Management Services (CMS) Deputy General Counsel of Labor Relations from November2009, to June 2012. Barton was advised that her name appeared on correspondence with Corporation Counsel Mark Cullenreference a lawsuit by Calvin Christian, in which Cullen asked Barton to review a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)(see attachment #1).

Barton explained that when she began working for the City of Springfield in 2012, a Police Benevolent and ProtectiveAssociation (PBPA) contract was in the middle of negotiations, after having been closed for five years. Barton'spredecessor Jim Gates had reached some tentative agreements, and in August 2012, Barton took over thenegotiations. Barton was assisted in the negotiation by Deputy Chief Cliff Buscher, Deputy Chief Robert Markovic, and Lt.Christopher Mueller, and by December 2012, the contract negotiations were settled. Both parties presented requests formodifications to the contract, but the issue of changing the retention period of files from five years to four years was neverrequested (see attachment #2). Barton also looked into previous contracts, and could not find any requests to change theretention time. Barton indicated that if an issue arose after a contract was closed, and both parties were in agreement,an MOU would be drafted.

On April 23, 2013, SPD Chief Robert Williams called Barton and advised he needed to speak to her concerning laborissues. Barton was not available at the time, and called Chief Williams back. Chief Williams advised he thought they had ittaken care of, and he would call Barton if she needed to be involved. On April 25, 2013, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Bartonspoke to Chief Williams on the phone, and he advised the SPD had come to an agreement with the PBPA. Chief Williamstold Barton it was an issue the PBPA wanted for a long time, and would improve the efficiency of the department. Barton

Page 500



NARRATIVE SECTIONadvised Chief Williams she was not available at the time, but she wanted to discuss the issue and labor impact at a latertime.

On April 26, 2013, at approximately 9 a.m., Barton was in a weekly meeting between Labor Relations and the legaldepartment, which included Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen, Assistant Corporation Counsel Geannette Wittendorf, SteveRahn, and Angela Fyans-Jimenez. This was the first time, Wittendorf was involved in the meeting. Barton previouslyreceived an email from Wittendorf, on April 16, 2013, advising Wittendorf was the new Police Legal Adviser, and Bartonhad requested Wittendorf involve her in all labor issues (see attachment #3). At the meeting, Wittendorf handed Barton acopy of the signed MOU, reducing the retention period of disciplinary files. Barton asked Wittendorf what she attemptedto achieve with the MOU, and Wittendorf stated it modified the contract. Barton asked Wittendorf what authority shehad to modify a contract, and Wittendorf became "huffy." Barton then asked Cullen, "Is this an attempt to destroydocuments?" Barton came to the conclusion that the MOU was an attempt to destroy documents because it indicated anofficer's file was expunged four years from the date of suspension, instead of the previous five. Cullen did not answerthe question, so Barton asked why she was not involved. Cullen said she should have been, and he told Wittendorf sheshould have received something in return for the MOU. Barton stated, "If this is an attempt to destroy documents, youneed to give Chief Williams a direct order right now to not destroy anything." Cullen responded that it was probablyalready done. Wittendorf asked Barton what was wrong with the MOU, and Barton asked if she knew about retentionstatutes. Barton then cited statutes such as Personnel Records Retention and Local Records Commission Statutes, atwhich time Wittendorf took the MOU from Barton's hand, and said she had to be in court and left.

According to Barton, there was no current language in the contract that dealt with the destruction of Internal Affairs (IA)files. The agreement dealt with the expungement of discipline, so a disciplinary record could not be used against anofficer after five years. The agreement was not meant to destroy an officer's entire file. The MOU added language specificto IA files, knowing there was a pending FOIA request. In addition, the MOU included a change to the City's GeneralOrders, so it now covered both union and non-union employees. By doing so, DC Buscher's IA file was included in theagreement for expungement. Barton said her understanding of the term expungement meant to destroy, but no otherbargaining agreement used the term. Barton stated the use of the word expunge in a bargaining agreement was basedon the bargaining parties understating of the word, and past practice. Barton advised her office had nothing to do withthe process of destroying any files.

Barton told the remaining individuals that they needed to put a stop to any expungement. The meeting then ended andBarton walked to Mayor Michael Houston's Office, but he was not in. Barton returned to her office and called Chief Williams,because she was afraid the police department had been given bad advice by Wittendorf. Barton believed Wittendorf'sactions were wrong, and possibly illegal. Barton spoke to Chief Williams and expressed her concerns. She asked ChiefWilliams if this is what he called her about on April 23, 2013, and he stated it was. Chief Williams stated he understoodher concerns, but he received confirmation to go ahead and destroy the files from the legal department. Barton askedChief Williams to include her in any future labor issues. Barton then called Deputy Commander Robert Markovic, whowas involved in the contract negotiation process as a subject matter expert, to learn why she was not involved in the MOUprocess. Markovic had taken the day off after having a disagreement with Chief Williams concerning the MOU. Markovicsaid on April 23, 2013, he was given an order to draft the MOU, which would be subject to negotiation (see attachment#4). Markovic advised Chief Williams there were other issues being dealt with by Barton, and they should all be addressedtogether, to which Chief Williams agreed. Markovic drafted the MOU, and did not hear anything else about it until arepresentative of the PBPA called and advised the MOU was effectuated. Markovic went to Chief Williams' office, and

Page 501



NARRATIVE SECTIONasked why the MOU was signed without his or Barton's involvement, and Chief Williams advised that the legal departmenthandled it.

On this same date, Barton contacted PBPA President Don Edwards. Barton asked about the MOU, and Edwards stated hewas called off his post and ordered to go to city hall immediately. Edwards then called PBPA Attorney Ron Stone, and theywent to Chief Williams' office. While in Chief Williams' Office, Wittendorf entered, introduced herself as the new SPD LegalAdviser, and handed them a piece of paper. Wittendorf said she was giving them a gift as an "olive branch" to her newposition, and she knew it was something the PBPA wanted. Wittendorf also mentioned they needed it due to a pendingFreedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Edwards said it was not his call on whether or not to include Barton. Bartonthen called Stone, who provided more detail about the MOU signing. Stone said when Wittendorf said the MOU was a gift,he told her it was not a gift, and SPD wanted it also. Stone countered and asked for retention to be reduced to three years,but Wittendorf said no, so Stone agreed on four years, and signed the MOU. Stone said they wanted the retention periodreduced for a decade, but it never happened.

On April 27, 2013, Springfield Leaks posted the MOU on-line, along with an email from Edwards celebrating the MOU andexpungement of IA files. Being concerned, Barton emailed Mayor Houston and asked if they should discuss the incident,or wait until the following Monday. Mayor Houston responded that it could wait until Monday (see attachment #5).

On April 29, 2013, Barton arrived at Mayor Houston's Office before his 8:30 a.m. meeting, to let him know what sheknew. Barton brought the MOU posted on-line by Springfield Leaks, since she never received a copy. Barton asked MayorHouston if he had seen the article, but he had not. She told him the website had the MOU signed by Wittendorf, whichmodified the collective bargaining agreement, and expanded on terms never negotiated. It was Baton's understanding thatbased on a pending FOIA request by Christian, documents were destroyed. Barton was concerned because Wittendorfhad alluded to the fact that she had checked with the Attorney General's (AG's) Office prior to destroying the documents,and they authorized it. Her concern was that there would be any indication from the City of Springfield that the AG's Officewas involved in the shredding of documents with a pending FOIA request. Mayor Houston only wished for Barton to havea better day, which led her to believe he did not understand the gravity of the situation.

Mayor Houston and Barton then proceeded to the scheduled meeting. Also present at the meeting was Cullen, Wittendorf,Chief Williams, DC Buscher, DC Markovic, Mayoral Executive Assistant Willis Logan, and Director of CommunicationsNathan Mihelich. At the meeting, Chief Williams expressed the necessity for the MOU for efficiency, due to the high volumeof FOIA requests. Barton stated she was concerned with the legality of the incident, since Wittendorf extended the timeperiod to respond to Christian's FOIA request, and during that time improperly modified the MOU. Wittendorf responded,"As far as FOIA goes, the buck stops here." Wittendorf said she researched the issue, consulted with the AG's Office,and received approval to destroy the documents. Barton explained that Christian's FOIA request stated if the requestwas denied, to maintain the documents until the end of the appeal process. Barton added she also had an issue withWittendorf stating she received approval from the AG's Office to destroy the files. Wittendorf advised she told them therewas a pending FOIA request, and the documents were scheduled for destruction. Barton pointed out that the files wereonly scheduled for destruction because Wittendorf modified the MOU. When questioned concerning her communicationwith the AG's Office, Wittendorf could not provide the full name of the person she spoke with over the phone, and hadnothing in writing from them. When Barton asked Wittendorf about getting disposal certificates from the Local RecordsCommission, Wittendorf stated she checked with local municipalities, who said they did not get disposal certificateseither. Mayor Houston said if the AG's Office did not put it in writing, it did not happen, and that a press conference would

Page 502



NARRATIVE SECTIONbe held to address the issue. Barton and Cullen agreed to look further into the legal issues of the situation, and confirmthe actual number of files destroyed.

Cullen advised, via email, that he and Wittendorf had looked it up, and the MOU was consistent with the Personnel RecordsReview Act. Barton was under the impression that the Corporation Counsel would have also advised the mayor of this,as it was their role to advise him of legal issues. Barton advised Cullen and Wittendorf in person, and in email, that itwas not consistent with the Personnel Records Review Act, and only the Local Records Commission could authorize thedestruction of records.

On this same date, Barton received an email from the Office of Budget and Management Director William McCarty referencea request from Edwards of the PBPA to amend an ordinance, which did not include Barton. Barton responded to Edwards,via e-mail, and asked to be included in any further negotiations which involved the terms and conditions of the PBPAmembers. Edwards replied that he did not know she had to be present at negotiations, since she was not there whenan MOU was fast tracked because of a FOIA deadline. Mayor Houston was included in this email conversation, and onMay 3, 2013, Mayor Houston signed an Executive Order, which stated the Labor Relations Manager would be included inany collective bargaining (see attachment #6).

On April 30, 2013, a City Council Meeting was held to discuss the shredding incident with Cullen producing a memorandum,which Barton reviewed and made suggested changes. Barton corrected a statement that the PBPA requested the MOU,when in fact it was brought up by the SPD. Barton also disagreed with the statement that the SPD and PBPA were involvedin negotiations to resolve differences. Barton's third comment was in regard to the statement that the use of the MOU isconsistent with the Labor Relations Act, City Code, and past practice, which Barton again disagreed. The fourth commentindicated the MOU had the legal effect of altering the collective bargaining agreement and becomes a part of the agreement,but Barton argued the MOU materially altered the collective bargaining agreement. On May 7, 2013, Cullen provided thememorandum at an executive session with some of Barton's corrections. No one at the meeting was allowed to retaina copy of the memorandum.

On May 22, 2013, a meeting was held with Barton and Cullen for the city, and Edwards and Ron Stone for the PBPA. Duringthe meeting, Cullen continued to argue that the MOU was valid. Fyans-Jimenez later provided Barton with notes from themeeting, which she received from Stone via e-mail (see attachment #7).

On October 18, 2013, Barton filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) against the PBPA (see attachment #8). She also provided acopy of an Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission request for investigation, which Barton completed againstWittendorf (see attachment #9).

Barton explained that in 2007, a Springfield Alderman wanted to access an ISP investigation, and the PBPA filed atemporary restraining order against the City of Springfield to block distribution of the file. On April 11, 2013, Stone withdrewthe ULP filed against the case, and on April 17, 2013, Wittendorf emailed an inquiry as to if the injunction had been lifted(see attachment #10). This led Barton to believe Wittendorf was in communication with the PBPA.

Barton believed Wittendorf was the driving force behind the MOU, and did not believe Mayor Houston or Logan hadknowledge of the shredding of documents before it occurred. She also thought Cullen would rely on his attorneysto research laws, and would trust what they said. Cullen probably was under the impression that once the MOU was

Page 503



NARRATIVE SECTIONsigned, it had to be upheld. Barton also had no knowledge of Buscher's involvement in the incident. She felt that shewas intentionally left out of the MOU process, because it would not have been done so quickly, and she would havesaid no. Barton also stated she had no involvement in the shredding of documents, and her office would not havehandled records retention. Barton had nothing further to add, and the interview was concluded at approximately 12:10 p.m.

Attachments:

1. Memorandum, consisting of 3 pages.

2. PBPA contract proposals, consisting of 4 pages.

3. Email, consisting of 1 page.

4. MOU, consisting of 2 pages.

5. Email, consisting of 2 pages.

6. Executive Order, consisting of 4 pages.

7. Meeting notes, consisting of 6 pages.

8. ULP, consisting of 58 pages.

9. Request for investigation, consisting of 2 pages.

10. ULP withdrawal, consisting of 6 pages.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : MemoFile Name : Barton Attch 1.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Contract ProposalsFile Name : Barton Attch 2.pdf

Type : Other Scanned Document

Page 504



ATTACHMENTSName : GW EmailFile Name : Barton Attch 3.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Original MOUFile Name : Barton Attch 4.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Barton EmailFile Name : Barton Attch 5.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Executive OrderFile Name : Barton Attch 6.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Meeting NotesFile Name : Barton Attch 7.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : ULPFile Name : Barton Attch 8.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Req for investigationFile Name : Barton Attch 9.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : ULP withdrawalFile Name : Barton Attch 10.pdf

Page 505

Attachment #1 IL13AA09938 Page #1Page 506


DII Investigators

Report ID: 518585






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 17, Interview of Donna Brown, 1/28/14






No Photo

Page 594






Telephone


Person Interviewed : Donna BROWNDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Donna BROWNMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: FemaleRace/Ethnicity: White / UnknownDOB


Height/Weight: /Build: HeavyEye Color:Facial Hair:Complexion:Hair Color:Hair Length/Style:Dominant Hand:Citizenship:Place of Birth:


No Photo


800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701, United States of America (USA)CONTACT INFORMATION


Telephone (217)788-8337EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION


Springfield Police DepartmentOccupation: Records ManagerEmployed From: 11/17/2003 to Present

800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701,United States of America (USA)

Manager Name: WILLIAMS, Gregg


Vehicle



4222

Page 595



NARRATIVE SECTIONOn January 28, 2014, at approximately 1:43 p.m., Illinois State Police (ISP), Legal Counsel JohnHosteny, ISP, Division of Internal Investigation (DII) Special Agent Randall Copsey, ID# 5908 and I,ISP, DII Lieutenant Scott Gaffner, ID# 4222, interviewed Springfield Police Department (SPD) RecordsManager Donna J. Brown. The interview was conducted at the ISP Central Headquarters in Springfield,Illinois. The purpose of the interview was to determine Brown's knowledge of the events that led upto the shredding of SPD Internal Investigative files. The ISP investigation began on May 30, 2013,when DII was requested by the State's Attorney's Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, toinvestigate SPD case #2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers internal investigativefiles. The following report is written in essence and is not verbatim. Brown provided agents permissionto audio record the conversation with the original recording retained in the case file.

Brown indicated she began working for SPD November 17, 2003 and is currently the records managerwith the Police Records Section. Brown's responsibilities include the storage of police and crashreports, entering reports and tickets into the records management system and providing copies toagencies or the public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Brown indicated FOIA requestscan arrive in numerous manners to include the internet and in person requests. All requests areeventually routed to the city clerk to be logged in with a FOIA number assigned and then forwardedto the appropriate department and section. Brown indicated if a police report is requested she canretrieve the report, redact the information and send it to the person without the police legal advisorinvolved. Brown indicated when FOIA requests are obtained for a police officer's record or IA files,they will routinely go to the police legal adviser who was Geannette Wittendorf but currently is JasonBrokaw. Brown indicated she does not handle photos, videos and IA files as that are outside hersection duties.

Brown provided insight to the manner in which she disposed of police reports. Brown said shewould look through all the reports to determine if the reports comply with the records disposalapplication and statute of limitations. Once a report qualifies to be destroyed, Brown will fill acertificate of disposal and obtain her supervisors' approval before the application being sent to theLocal Records Commission. Brown said she would receive a response back within 30 to 60 days fromthe commission which would routinely approve the requested items to be destroyed. The documentsthen are destroyed by Brown or a representative of the department who witness the documents to bedestroyed. Brown indicated she does not get involved with the destruction of IA files, which wouldbe the responsibility of the Commander of the Internal Affairs Office.

Brown said she had been asked by Lieutenant Gregg Williams to send correspondence to all thedepartmental sections and determine if they needed anything added to the Application for Authorityto Dispose of Local Records. Brown was advised by Lieutenant Mueller to add IA files, which Brown

Page 596



NARRATIVE SECTIONamended the application to add IA files approximately September 2012. Brown indicated she was notaware of any steps the City took to implement a process for disposing of IA files in accordance withthe Local Records Act, after the City's Application was amended.

Brown indicated she received a FOIA request #10962 from Calvin Christian requesting Deputy ChiefBuscher's IA case file, with her providing documents showing it was filed approximately April 11(Attachment 1). Brown said she responded back within the five days indicating that an extension foran additional five days was sought to review the documents requested. Brown indicated she wrote thecorrespondence without seeking advice from Wittendorf but had been advised previously by a formerPolice Legal Advisor that the response was routinely used to extend the time period. Brown said onApril 25, 2013, Wittendorf sent correspondence indicating the Buscher files no longer existed, whichcontradicted Brown's previous correspondence to Christian. Attachment 2 is a FOIA request #11002from John Myers requesting the records destruction policy for SPD and disposal certificates. Brownindicated she forwarded this information to Mueller and Wittendorf asking for guidance. Brownexplained she had contacted Gloria Huston with the State Archives to obtain clarification on theLocal Records Act. Brown said she summarized her interpretation of Huston's comments in aconversation with Wittendorf, which incorrectly indicated they appeared to be properly disposingof IA records. Brown said Huston later called her to clarify Huston's comments after Huston hadtalked with Wittendorf, and Brown then clarified with Wittendorf that IA files are covered under theact. Attachment 3 is FOIA #11048 which requested internal affair files for every Springfield PoliceDepartment officer. Wittendorf advised Brown to return the request and indicate the request was overburdensome and to narrow the scope, which Christian never did.

When Brown became aware of the Memorandum of Understanding between SPD and the PoliceBenevolence and Protective Association reducing the file retention period from five to four years,Brown advised Wittendorf that she thought she should amend the local records application to reflectthe same time periods. After Brown submitted the application and it was denied, Mark Cullen sent anemail to Brown inquiring who gave her the authority to amend the application. Brown advised Cullenshe had initiated the amendment on her own as she thought it was the proper thing to do (Attachment4).

Brown stated she did not advise Wittendorf or Mueller that they could not destroy IA files without firstobtaining approval of the Local Records Commission as she does for her records, because of thefollowing factors: (1) IA files were not under her section of responsibility; (2) her conversation withHuston wherein Huston advised her some agencies destroy IA files in accordance with their collectivebargaining contracts; (3) she was not sure if IA files were different than records under her area of

Page 597



NARRATIVE SECTIONresponsibility because the City had always done it this way; and (4) she was not privy to everythingthat was involved in the decision making process, such as the MOU.

The interview concluded approximately 3:18 p.m.ATTACHMENTS

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Christian FOIAFile Name : Brown 1.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : FOIA 11002File Name : Brown Attch 2.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : FOIA 11048File Name : Brown Attch 3.pdf

Page 598

ILAA1309938 Attachment 1

1Page 599


2Page 600


3Page 601


4Page 602


5Page 603


6Page 604


7Page 605


1Page 606


2Page 607


3Page 608


4Page 609


5Page 610


6Page 611


7Page 612


8Page 613


9Page 614


10Page 615


11Page 616


12Page 617


13Page 618


14Page 619


15Page 620


16Page 621


17Page 622


18Page 623


19Page 624


20Page 625


21Page 626


22Page 627


23Page 628


24Page 629


25Page 630


26Page 631


27Page 632


1Page 633


2Page 634


3Page 635


4Page 636


5Page 637


6Page 638


7Page 639


DII Investigators

Report ID: 523421






0 0 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 18, Interview of Donald Edwards

Person Interviewed : Detective Donald L. EDWARDSDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Detective Donald L. EDWARDSMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: WhiteDOB




No Photo

Page 640



Person Interviewed : Detective Donald L. EDWARDSRESIDENCE INFORMATION


800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701, United States of America (USA)800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701, United States of America (USA)


SPD Extension 370 Telephone (217)788-8345Cell Phone

NARRATIVE SECTIONThis investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Police Department (SPD) Detective (Det.) Donald Edwards. Theinterview was conducted on January 30, 2014, at approximately 10 a.m., and took place at the Illinois State Police (ISP)Central Headquarters, office of the Division of Internal Investigation (DII). The interview was conducted by DII LieutenantScott Gaffner #4222, and myself, Special Agent Randall Copsey #5908. Also present in the interview was ISP Legal CounselJohn Hosteny. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigationwas requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a SpringfieldPolice Department Case #2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers' internal investigative files. DII receivedinformation that Det. Edwards was involved in the union agreement which resulted in the above mentioned shredding ofdocuments. Det. Edwards was accompanied and represented by Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA)Attorney Ronald Stone.

Det. Edwards did not wish to be interviewed without being ordered to do so, but provided several documents which werepreviously submitted to the Labor Board by the PBPA. The documents were sent to the Labor Board in response to the Cityof Springfield#s charge of unfair labor practice (ULP), and were designated by exhibit numbers 1-37. Also provided wasthe ULP charge against the PBPA, made by Springfield Labor Relations Manager Stephanie Barton, the PBPA#s answer tothe city#s charge, and the union statement of position. The documents received consisted of documents already obtained,or not pertinent to this investigation. Stone later provided an index of the exhibits received (see attachment #1). Det.Edwards had nothing further to add, and the attempted interview was concluded at approximately 10:10 a.m. The abovementioned documents will be maintained in this case file.

Attachment:

1. Index of exhibits, consisting of 6 pages.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : IndexFile Name : Stone Index of exhibits.pdf

Page 641

Attachment #1 IL13AA09938 Page #1 of 6Page 642


DII Investigators

Report ID: 523823






0 0 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 19, Interview of Deputy Chief Robert Markovik Jr.

Person Interviewed : Deputy Chief Robert E. MARKOVIC Jr.DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Deputy Chief Robert E. MARKOVICJr.

Maiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: WhiteDOB




No Photo

Page 648



Person Interviewed : Deputy Chief Robert E. MARKOVIC Jr.RESIDENCE INFORMATION


800 E. Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, United States of America (USA)CONTACT INFORMATION


Telephone (217)788-8331

NARRATIVE SECTIONThis investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Police Department (SPD) Deputy Chief Robert Markovic. Theinterview was conducted on January 30, 2014, at approximately 10:40 a.m., and took place at the Illinois State Police (ISP)Central Headquarters, office of the Division of Internal Investigation (DII). The interview was conducted by DII LieutenantScott Gaffner #4222, and myself, Special Agent Randall Copsey #5908. Also present in the interview was ISP Legal CounselJohn Hosteny. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigationwas requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a SpringfieldPolice Department Case #2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers' internal investigative files. DII receivedinformation that Markovic created documents related to the above mentioned shredded documents. At the beginning ofthe interview Markovic gave consent for the interview to be audio recorded, and the following information was providedby Markovic, which is in summary, and not verbatim. The audio recording will be retained in the case file.

Markovic was hired by the SPD in March 1995, and became Deputy Chief in October 2010. Markovic also spent a combinedtotal of six years as Vice President and President of the Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA). As theDeputy Chief of Administrative Services, Markovic supervised the records manager, evidence manager, fleet supervisor,academy sergeant, budget, and personnel officer. He was also the SPD expert on union issues.

On the morning of April 23, 2013, Markovic was called into SPD Chief Robert Williams' Office, where he met SpringfieldAssistant Corporation Council Geannette Wittendorf, and Deputy Chief Cliff Buscher. While there, Chief Williams askedMarkovic to draft a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which would reduce the retention period of Internal Affairs (IA)files from five years, to four years. Chief Williams asked that it be completed that day, and emailed to everyone at themeeting. Markovic completed the MOU the same morning as requested, and emailed it (see attachment #1). Markovic wasnot aware of why the MOU was wanted so quickly. Wittendorf later returned the MOU to Markovic with revisions, and hemet Chief Williams in person to discuss it. Markovic expressed concern that the process was happening too quickly. Atthe time there were other union issues being addressed by Markovic and Springfield Labor Relations Manager StephanieBarton, and from Markovic's experience, union issues should be addressed collectively. Chief William's agreed, soMarkovic did not think anything else about the issue.

On April 25, 2013, at approximately 10 p.m., Markovic received a phone call at home from SPD Lt. Wendell Banks asking ifan MOU was signed, and the department was shredding documents. Markovic said he worked that day, and would havebeen aware if that happened. Markovic then called PBPA President Don Edwards, who confirmed the MOU was in factsigned and put into effect. Markovic could not recall if he called Banks back because he was extremely frustrated withthe situation.

Page 649



NARRATIVE SECTIONThis upset Markovic, so on April 26, 2013, he confronted Chief Williams about the incident. Chief Williams explainedeverything was fine, and the legal department had approved the MOU and shredding of files multiple times. Markovic askedwhy he was not at the signing of the MOU, and felt he was intentionally left out because he would not haveapproved. Markovic believed that Barton was intentionally left out of the meeting on the MOU also. Chief Williamsmaintained that the legal department approved and told him the shredding was to occur immediately. Markovicunderstood the legal department as Corporation Council Mark Cullen, and Wittendorf. He expressed his concern toChief Williams that it would be assumed the shredding occurred to destroy Buscher's IA file, but Chief Williams didnot respond. Markovic understood the union wanted the retention period reduced because it benefited the officer, andin January or February 2013, Edwards had mentioned reducing the retention to four years. Markovic forwarded therecommendation to Chief Williams, who did not agree, and said retention would remain at five years.

After the shredding of documents occurred, Markovic spoke to Buscher, who said he told them not to shred his IAfile, and Markovic was under the impression news departments already had the file anyway. Markovic did not evenconsider Buscher's IA file when creating the MOU, because Buscher was not part of the PBPA. He believed the MOUwas created to include not only the disposition of an IA investigation, but the investigative file itself. Markovic hadbeen under the impression that IA files were maintained and destroyed by IA, and none of his subordinates hadany authority over them. The legal department had final say on whether a file was retained due to litigation or otherfactors. Markovic was aware of the Local Records Act before the shredding incident, and that applications had to be madeto destroy records. Although, he was unaware how IA documents were handled regarding the Local Records Act.

On April 29, 2013, Markovic forwarded an email from Edwards, regarding a labor issue, to Barton. Barton was unhappy fornot being included, so Edwards responded he did not know she had to be at all negotiations, since she was not there theprevious week when an MOU was signed to avoid a FOIA deadline. Markovic had nothing further to add, and the interviewwas concluded at approximately 11:28 a.m.

Attachment:

1. Original MOU, consisting of 1 page.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other PhotoName : MOUFile Name : Markovic MOU.pdf

Page 650

of 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

WHEREAS, the City of Springfield (“City”) and the PBPA Unit #5 have met and

discussed the issues of a change to section 14.9(C) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement as it

relates to the retention of I.A. files; and

WHEREAS, there is a consensus that it is mutually beneficial to reduce the retention

period for some I.A. files and the Early Tracking System found in G.O. Roc #3 Add. #5.

THEREFORE, it is agreed to by the Parties as follows:

1. Any record of discipline greater than a reprimand shall be expunged four (4) years

from the date of suspension, and

2. All files with a finding of Not Sustained, Unfounded or Exonerated shall be

expunged four (4) years from the finding, and

3. The general order regarding Early Tracking (G.O. Roc #3 Add. #5) will be

changed to reflect a retention period of one year for any and all early track files.

AGREED:

FOR THE CITY FOR THE PBPA #5

__________________________________ ____________________________________ Signature Title Signature Title

__________________________________ ____________________________________ Date Date

Page 651


DII Investigators

Report ID: 526707






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date




Officer GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators) Submitted - 03/14/2014 10:48Supervisor JACOBS, Jeffrey Star # 4622 Approved - 03/14/2014 11:21Investigator GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators)

REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 20, Interview of Angela Fyans-Jimenez, 2/3/14






No Photo

Page 652






Telephone


Person Interviewed : Angela FYANS-JIMENEZDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Angela FYANS-JIMENEZMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: FemaleRace/Ethnicity: Unknown / UnknownDOB

Marital Status: MarriedAlias(s)/DOB(s):



No Photo



TelephoneEMPLOYMENT INFORMATION


Springfield, IllinoisOccupation: Assistant Corporation

CounselEmployed From: 11/01/2003 to 10/01/2013Manager Name:


Vehicle



4222

Page 653



NARRATIVE SECTIONThis investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Employment Labor Attorney SeniorLitigation Counsel, Angela Fyans-Jimenez. The interview was conducted on February 3, 2014, at 2:03p.m., and took place on a conference call due to Fyans-Jimenez living in Utah. The interview wasconducted by Lieutenant Scott Gaffner #4222, and ISP Legal Counsel John Hosteny. The investigationbegan when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation (DII) wasrequested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate aSpringfield Police Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers'internal investigative files. DII learned that Fyans-Jimenez may have had knowledge of eventsleading up to the above mentioned shredding of documents. Fyans-Jimenez provided consent forthe interview to be audio recorded, with the original maintained in the case file. The following reportis a summary, and not verbatim.

Fyans-Jimenez began working for Springfield on November 4, 2003 and held the positions ofCode Enforcement Supervisor 2003-05, SPD legal and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) advisor,2005-2011, and then Employment and Labor Attorney for SPD until departing in 2013. Fyans-Jimenezprovided the process in which a valid FOIA request was handled. For regular police reports, thisincluded checking the case status, pending litigation, prosecution or an investigation. Once this wascompleted, Fyans-Jimenez would make the appropriate redactions and then send the redacted copyto the person requesting the file. Internal Affair (IA) files were not released with a valid FOIA whenshe was employed as the FOIA officer.

Fyans-Jimenez then described the process of how IA files were destroyed. IA would forward a monthlymemo to Fyans-Jimenez which indicated the IA files that had passed the 5 year retention period andSPD was seeking approval to destroy them. During a review of the list, documentation would bemade indicating which files could be destroyed and which files would need to be retained for pendinglitigation or arbitration. The memo would then be returned to IA with the deputy chief of IA supervisingthe destruction of the paper and electronic files. Fyans-Jimenez made no mention of complying withthe requirements of the Local Records Act while describing the process for destruction of IA files.

Fyans-Jimenez recalled a brief conversation with Megan Morgan after she had replaced Fyans-Jimenez in her FOIA position and Fyans-Jimenez had been promoted as the Employee LaborAttorney. Morgan asked about reducing the retention period of IA files from 5 years to 4 years. Fyans-Jimenez did not agree with reducing the retention because it diminished the ability to review IA filesif additional disciplinary issues would arise, and make it more difficult to see a pattern of misconductfor arbitration of discipline. Fyans-Jimenez had never been approached about the idea of reducingthe retention period from anyone else while she worked with SPD.

Page 654



NARRATIVE SECTIONFyans-Jimenez recalled a legal/labor relations meeting on April 26, 2013, in which GeannetteWittendorf, Mark Cullen and Stephanie Barton attended when Wittendorf indicated that she hadsigned a Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Benevolence and Protective Associationthat reduced the retention period of police files from 5 to 4 years. This was done while there wasa pending FOIA request and she was going to approve the shredding of files. Wittendorf indicatedshe had contacted the Attorney General's Office Public Access Counselor and they approved oftheir course of action. Barton and Fyans-Jimenez were adamantly against the manner in which theagreement had been negotiated without obtaining the counsel of Barton and Fyans-Jimenez withlabor. Fyans-Jimenez felt it was improper to destroy files which were responsive to a pending FOIArequest. During this meeting neither Cullen nor Wittendorf advised them that files had already beenshredded. Fyans-Jimenez followed up the meeting with an email to Wittendorf advising her to notshred any documents until further review of the agreement. (Attachment 1) Wittendorf sent Fyans-Jimenez a reply to her email, which indicated Wittendorf had done all the research and Fyans-Jimenezshould discuss the matter with Cullen. Fyans-Jimenez discussed Wittendorf's reply with Cullen inhis office later that afternoon, and during this discussion Cullen did not mention that the IA files hadalready been shredded. Fyans-Jimenez learned about the report of the shredding of documents fromStephanie Barton at a later time period, after which Fyans-Jimenez, Krista Appenzeller, and possiblyBarton approached Cullen, and he confirmed to them that the IA files had already been shredded.

Fyans-Jimenez stated she avoided Wittendorf after this incident, although she did hear Wittendorfstate to others within the office that Cullen had authorized all of her actions.

Fyans-Jimenez was question about SPD following the Local Records Act when destroying IAdocuments. As the SPD Legal Advisor she did not handle filings with the Local Records Commissionand was not familiar with the process, and thought Donna Brown was responsible for ensuring properdestruction of records. Fyans-Jimenez indicated Wittendorf never asked her for guidance on any ofthe duties of the SPD Legal Advisor position.

Fyans-Jimenez was not aware of additional information concerning the shredding incident and theinterview ended at 2:53 pm.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Email CorrespondenceFile Name : Fyans-Jimenez.pdf

Page 655


1Page 656


DII Investigators

Report ID: 523825






1 0 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 21, Interview of Chief Robert Williams

Suspect : Robert L. WILLIAMSDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Robert L. WILLIAMSMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: Black / Not Of Hispanic OriginDOB




No Photo

Page 657



Suspect : Robert L. WILLIAMSRESIDENCE INFORMATION



Telephone

NARRATIVE SECTION

This investigative report reflects the interview of retired Springfield Police Department (SPD) Chief Robert L. Williams. Theinterview was conducted on February 7, 2014, at approximately 9:09 a.m., and took place at the Illinois State Police (ISP)Central Headquarters, office of the Division of Internal Investigation (DII). The interview was conducted by DII LieutenantScott Gaffner #4222, and myself, Special Agent Randall Copsey #5908. Also present in the interview was ISP Legal CounselJohn Hosteny. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigationwas requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a SpringfieldPolice Department Case #2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers' internal investigative files. DII receivedinformation that Chief Williams negotiated an agreement that resulted in documents being destroyed. Chief Williamsconsented for the interview to be audio recorded, with the report written in essence and is not verbatim. The audiorecording will be retained in the case file.

Chief Williams started with the SPD on April 9, 1987. In approximately 1997, Chief Williams was promoted to Lieutenant,and was assigned to IA investigations. In 2008, Chief Williams was serving as Assistant Chief at the time of an internalinvestigation involving retired Deputy Chief Cliff Buscher, whose IA file was included in the above mentioned shreddingincident. Chief Williams was not involved in the investigation, but may have reviewed the case as part of Buscher's chainof command. He recalled the incident involved inappropriate conduct, and an arrest of Buscher. Chief Williams waseventually appointed as Chief, and retired on October 25, 2013. Chief Williams had three Deputy Chiefs working for him,Buscher in the Criminal Investigation Division, Robert Markovic in Administrative Services, and Dennis Arnold in FieldOperations. Before retiring, Chief Williams did not speak to Springfield Mayor Michael Houston about the transition, orwho would replace him when he retired.

Chief Williams described his understanding of the process of routine destruction of IA files, which he accomplished whenhe was assigned to IA. On the five year anniversary of an internal investigation, the IA secretary would compile a list offiles eligible for disposal. Once a list of eligible files was created, it would be sent to the Chief to recommend if a fileshould be kept. The list would then be forwarded to the legal department for their review and determination of whichfiles would need to be retained from pending litigation or other circumstances. The approved list would be returned toIA with the files subsequently being destroyed. The process was the same when Williams was the Chief. When ChiefWilliams reviewed the list of files eligible for expungement after the MOU was signed, he highlighted several files includingBuscher's, to recommend that they be retained. The Chief normally did not follow up with Legal on whether they acceptedhis recommendation, it was the Corporation Counsel's decision.

Before the April 25, 2013, shredding incident, the Department and the Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA)were in contract negotiations. Springfield Assistant Corporation Counsel Megan Morgan gave Chief Williams updates,

Page 658



NARRATIVE SECTIONbut he was not actively involved in the negotiations. Chief Williams was later concerned after a request was made bySpringfield Alderman, Sam Cahnman for an IA file. Chief Williams inquired if an IA file could be subject to the Freedomof Information Act (FOIA). According to Chief Williams, the only thing preventing the release of IA files was an UnfairLabor Practice (ULP) filed by the PBPA. Chief Williams decided to create a "united front" consisting of the Departmentand PBPA, to prevent such a release of files. Once the ULP was dropped, Chief Williams believed the files were no longerprotected, which is why there was an urgency to make changes. Morgan knew the PBPA wanted to reduce the retentionperiod of IA files from 5 years to 3 years, so she suggested they concede to appease the union and create the unitedfront. Chief Williams and Morgan eventually agreed to offer a reduction to 4 years, so they could fight the release of fileswith the PBPA. Morgan then began working on changing the general order which governed how the Department releasedfiles. While attempting to change the retention time, Morgan left the legal department, and was replaced by GeannetteWittendorf. The revisions to the general order were never completed.

Because Markovic had previous experience working with the PBPA, Chief Williams asked him to create a Memorandumof Understanding (MOU) between the Department and PBPA to change the retention period of IA files from 5 to 4 years.Chief Williams said he had written MOUs previously and had not included the City Labor Manager, Stephanie Barton orher predecessor Jim Gates with the negotiations. In hindsight, he believed Barton should have been included, but didnot recall Markovic recommending her inclusion.

Before the shredding incident occurred, Lieutenant Wendall Banks advised Chief Williams that he had filed a FOIA requestfor Buscher's IA file. Chief Williams then spoke to either Wittendorf or Morgan, and learned that another FOIA requesthad also been filed for all IA files. Chief Williams met with Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen, Wittendorf, and Buscherconcerning the FOIA requests. Corporation Counsel advised they would respond that the FOIA request for all IA fileswas too burdensome. Chief Williams recommended they call the Attorney General's Office for advice, and Wittendorf wasassigned the task. Wittendorf was to explain to the Attorney General's Office that there was an MOU signed to reducethe retention period, but there were FOIA requests pending for some files set to be shredded. Wittendorf advised shespoke to the Attorney General's Office, and was advised to go ahead and shred the files, despite the FOIA requests. ChiefWilliams said he would not have proceeded with the shredding of files without Corporation Counsel's approval. WhenChief Williams realized Buscher's IA file was eligible for destruction due to the retention change, he met with Wittendorfand advised her why the file should be retained. Chief Williams later told Buscher that he recommended his IA file shouldbe retained. Chief Williams stated that during their meeting with Cullen and Wittendorf, Buscher did not recommend thathis file be shredded.

On April 25, 2013, Chief Williams and the PBPA signed the MOU. Chief Williams took the rest of the day off in order tocoach track. He was later called on that day by IA Lieutenant Chris Mueller, who wanted a direct order to shred the filescovered under the MOU. Chief Williams told Mueller that he was also not comfortable with shedding the documents, soChief Williams again called the legal department and confirmed the file shredding was authorized. Chief Williams thencalled Mueller again and ordered Mueller to destroy the IA files covered under the MOU. Chief Williams did not expectMueller to immediately destroy the files that day.

Before the IA files were shredded, Chief Williams confirmed with Wittendorf and Cullen multiple times that it wasauthorized.He also expressed to Buscher and Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Willis Logan that Buscher's IA file should

Page 659



NARRATIVE SECTIONnot be destroyed, regardless of the change in retention period. Chief Williams did not know when Mayor Houston becameaware of the shredding and he did not advise him previously about the MOU. Chief Williams was also familiar with theLocal Records Act, and that a disposal certificate was to be completed for files maintained by the department before theywere destroyed. He was under the impression that Corporation Counsel applied for the disposal certificate for IA filedestruction. Chief Williams said he had never spoken to Wittendorf or Cullen about the Local Records Act. Chief Williamsstated he did not know the retention periods, and that he felt it was the Deputy Chiefs responsibility to know. He also didnot know that the City amended the retention schedule with the Local Records Commission to include IA files in 2012.

Chief Williams later made a press release explaining the files were shredded to increase efficiency, and he maintained thathis actions were done in the name of efficiency. He was surprised by how fast the shredding occurred after the MOU wassigned, and attributed a new IA software program with the efficiency. He believed he made a bad judgment in reducing theretention period. Chief Williams understood that the incident looked bad, but added that the shredding was not done for thebenefit of one person. Chief Williams said he did not like the idea of having to release the IA files, but would have done soif required by law. Chief Williams had nothing further to add, and the interview was concluded at approximately 11:18 a.m.

Page 660


DII Investigators

Report ID: 523587






0 0 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 22, Interview of Deputy Chief Clifford Buscher Jr.

Person Interviewed : Clifford R. BUSCHER Jr.DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Clifford R. BUSCHER Jr.Maiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: WhiteDOB




No Photo

Page 661



Person Interviewed : Clifford R. BUSCHER Jr.RESIDENCE INFORMATION



Telephone

NARRATIVE SECTION

This investigative report reflects the interview of retired Springfield Police Department Deputy Chief Clifford R.Buscher. The interview was conducted on February 7, 2014, at approximately 1:47 p.m., and took place at the Illinois StatePolice (ISP) Central Headquarters, office of the Division of Internal Investigation (DII). The interview was conducted by DIILieutenant Scott Gaffner #4222, and myself, Special Agent Randall Copsey #5908. Also present in the interview was ISPLegal Counsel John Hosteny. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of InternalInvestigation was requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate aSpringfield Police Department Case #2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers' internal investigative (IA)files on April 25, 2013. DII received information that Buscher's IA file was included in the above mentioned shredding ofdocuments, despite a pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the file. At the beginning of the interview Buschergave consent for the interview to be audio recorded, and the following information was provided by Buscher, which is insummary, and not verbatim. The audio recording will be retained in the case file.

Buscher started with the Springfield Police Department in January of 1989, and by 2007, he was promoted to Commanderof Field Operations. In 2008, Buscher was involved in an off duty incident in Missouri which resulted in him being chargedcriminally and administratively and was subsequently demoted to Lieutenant of Criminal Investigations. By 2012, Buscherwas promoted to Deputy Chief of Criminal Investigations. On January 13, 2014, Buscher retired from the Springfield PoliceDepartment.

Before Buscher retired there was not an assistant chief, so if Chief Robert Williams was gone for an extended time, adeputy chief would assume the role as acting chief. Buscher did not know when Chief Williams planned to retire, but wasunder the impression it would not be until a Mayor was elected in 2015. Approximately six months before the shreddingincident, Chief Williams attempted to place Buscher in the assistant chief position, but Mayor Michael Houston denied therequest. Buscher did not believe he would ever be promoted to chief after the 2008 incident in Missouri and subsequentdenial to be assistant chief.

Prior to April 25, 2013, Corporation Counsel lost a fight to prevent the distribution of requested IA files through the Freedomof Information Act (FOIA) and Assistant Corporation Counsel, Megan Morgan advised she was going to have to startreleasing IA files. The Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA) were made aware of this information, anddiscussions between the PBPA and SPD began on how to prevent the release of IA files. During a staff meeting with ChiefWilliams, Buscher, Deputy Chief Robert Markovic, Deputy Chief Dennis Arnold, and IA Lieutenant Chris Muller, ideas werediscussed on how to address the issue. An idea presented was to reduce the retention time of IA files from 5 years to3 years, or only retain the outcome of the investigation and not the whole file. Chief Williams finally decided to attemptto reduce the retention of IA files to 4 years.

Page 662



NARRATIVE SECTION

A meeting was later held with the PBPA, which included Megan Morgan's replacement as SPD Corporation Counsel,Geannette Wittendorf. The reduction to a four year retention period was presented to the PBPA, who then asked for 3years retention. Ultimately, the Union agreed to accept the reduction to 4 years. Chief Williams then asked Markovicto create a memorandum of understanding (MOU), between the department and the PBPA. Buscher became aware thathis IA file would be eligible for destruction if the retention period was reduced, and told Chief Williams the file should beretained because of multiple pending FOIA requests. He could not recall who was in the room still when he made thiscomment. Buscher said he did not care if his IA file was released, because he believed everyone already knew about it,and the police report was still available in Missouri. Buscher never requested his file to be destroyed or withheld frombeing released through the pending FOIA request.

Buscher was also approached by Lieutenant Wendall Banks, who stated he had submitted a FOIA request for Buscher'sIA file, in order to protect himself. According to Buscher, Banks was involved in the incident in Missouri, and afterwardBuscher did not trust him. Buscher said he did not care where Banks went in his career, but Banks would not work forhim. Buscher believed Banks was under the assumption that Buscher would be appointed to chief.

On April 25, 2013, after the MOU was signed, Buscher and Chief Williams were in a meeting with Corporation Counsel MarkCullen, and Chief Williams stated he felt Buscher's IA file should be retained. In this middle of this meeting ExecutiveAssistant Willis Logan walked in and sat in the back of the room. With multiple FOIA requests pending for Buscher's IAfile, and one for all AI files, Buscher thought the only rush after the MOU was signed would be to meet the deadline forWittendorf to respond to the requests. At some point Wittendorf told Buscher that she contacted the Attorney General'sOffice, and was told regardless of the pending FOIA requests, if the MOU was signed the files could be destroyed.

Several days later, Buscher learned from emails made public by the media that IA Lieutenant Chris Mueller requested tobe ordered to shred the IA files. Mueller approached Buscher and said it was not personal, but he did not agree withwhat was done to make Buscher the chief. Buscher said he did not take it personal, and he was never going to be thechief. Mueller thought Buscher was going to be appointed chief because Chief Williams referred to Buscher as his numbertwo guy, and because Buscher's brother did fund raising for Mayor Houston. Buscher said he had heard the fundraisingrumor before, but stated it was untrue.

Once the MOU was signed, Cullen and Wittendorf were the only ones to push for the files to be destroyed. Buscher alsobelieved the retention period was changed to protect all the officers IA files, not just his. Buscher said he did not find itodd that Labor Relations Manager Stephanie Barton was not present during the signing of the MOU, since neither she,nor her predecessor Jim Gates were present before. He said Wittendorf was new to her position, but she appeared toknow what she was talking about, and had taken all the necessary steps. Buscher stated he was not aware of the LocalRecords Act until after the documents were shredded, and with nothing further to add, the interview was concluded atapproximately 2:22 p.m.

Page 663


DII Investigators

Report ID: 523589






0 0 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 23, Interview of Geannette Wittendorf

Person Interviewed : Geannett S. WITTENDORFDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Geannett S. WITTENDORFMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: FemaleRace/Ethnicity: WhiteDOB




No Photo

Page 664



Person Interviewed : Geannett S. WITTENDORFRESIDENCE INFORMATION


508 S. Broadway, POB 17160, Urbana, Illinois, United States of America (USA)CONTACT INFORMATION


Roger Webber Telephone (217)253-2383

NARRATIVE SECTIONThis investigative report reflects the interview of former Assistant Corporation Counsel Geannette S. Wittendorf. Theinterview was conducted on February 10, 2014, at approximately 1:12 p.m., and took place at the Illinois State Police (ISP)Central Headquarters, office of the Division of Internal Investigation (DII). The interview was conducted by DII LieutenantScott Gaffner #4222, and myself, Special Agent Randall Copsey #5908. Also present in the interview was ISP Legal CounselJohn Hosteny. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigationwas requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a Springfield PoliceDepartment Case #2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers' internal investigative (IA) files on April 25, 2013.DII received information that Wittendorf was involved in the events leading up to the shredding incident. Wittendorf wasaccompanied by her attorney Roger Webber of the Beckett & Webber law firm. At the beginning of the interview Wittendorfgave consent for the interview to be audio recorded, and the following information was provided by Wittendorf, whichis in summary, and not verbatim. The audio recording will be retained in the case file.

Wittendorf graduated from law school at the University of Illinois in 2003, and upon graduation worked for WinnebagoCounty as Assistant State's Attorney. Wittendorf later resigned from Winnebago County after she was held in contemptafter trying a rape case. The contempt was later overturned on appeal. From 2008 to 2010, Wittendorf was a solopractitioner, until moving to Georgia for employment with Human Services. In 2011, she returned to Illinois and wasemployed by Koepke & Hiltabrand in Springfield, and then the Macon County State's Attorney's Office, where part ofher duties included responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, before being hired by Springfield City inMarch 2012. While employed by Springfield, Wittendorf was assigned to the Corporation Counsel's Office for insurancedefense litigation, civil litigation, and risk management. On April 15, 2013, Assistant Corporation Counsel Megan Morganleft, and Wittendorf assumed some of her responsibilities, with the rest divided among two other attorneys in the office.The responsibilities which Wittendorf assumed included police matters, FOIA, and reviewing requests for destruction offiles or records. Wittendorf did not receive any special training for her duties with the City.

Just before leaving, Morgan advised Wittendorf about pending FOIA requests, and several responses previously used todeny them. Wittendorf and Springfield Police Records Clerk Donna Brown were responsible for drafting FOIA responses,and forwarding them to the City Clerk's Office to be sent out. Previous practice was to deny requests for IA files andlitigate the issues later. She was also aware a judge had previously ruled in Calvin Christian's favor for obtaining an IAfile through FOIA. Wittendorf did not know about a previous conversation between Morgan and Corporation Counsel MarkCullen about eventually releasing all of the files. After assuming Morgan's role with FOIA, Wittendorf had to request a fiveday extension for a FOIA request from Christian, because she would not be in her office that week. The extension movedthe response date to April 25, 2013.

On April 23, 2013, Wittendorf first learned about a request to reduce the retention time of files when she was called intoSpringfield Police Chief Robert Williams' office with Deputy Chiefs Robert Markovic, and Cliff Buscher. She was told theDepartment and Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA) had agreed to reduce the retention time of files from

Page 665



NARRATIVE SECTION5 years to 4 years. Markovic was assigned to draft a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and they wanted to know ifit would be effective immediately. Wittendorf said she did not know, and would need to check with Cullen first. She thenwalked to Cullen's office and explained the request. Cullen did not have an issue with the MOU, and said it would apply toall files eligible immediately, not from now on. Wittendorf returned to Chief Williams' office, and relayed the information tohim and Buscher. She later received the MOU draft from Markovic, and made changes (see attachment #1).

Wittendorf returned to her office and decided to call the Attorney General's FOIA hotline for advice on the MOU. She madecontact with an unknown male attorney and said they received a FOIA request, and during the pendency of the requestan expungement period occurs, and asked what they should do. The male told her there was no preservation clause, sothey could proceed with the expungement and respond that there were no documents. Wittendorf did not explain thatdocuments were eligible for destruction because the contract was amended. Wittendorf relayed this information to Cullen,and began doing research on previous case law regarding FOIA. She later wrote a memorandum to Cullen documentingthe call, which she said was dated incorrectly in the memorandum (see attachment #2).

During her research, Wittendorf was unable to find anything specific to FOIA preservation, and Cullen never requesteda legal memorandum about shredding records with a pending FOIA request. She also checked the city ordinances andgeneral orders to see if anything prevented the signing of the MOU, but was unable to find any that did. Wittendorf thendiscussed the next steps with Cullen, and decided to make a list of files eligible for destruction if the retention period waschanged. Once a list was created, they would decide which files were not eligible due to pending litigation. Wittendorf thencontacted Internal Affairs Lieutenant Chris Mueller, and requested the list of IA files, which he did.

On April 24, 2013, Wittendorf cross referenced the IA files with pending legal cases, and made notes as to which filesshould be retained or not (see attachment #3). At some time Wittendorf also text messaged Morgan to determine if therewas anything else she needed to look for to determine if a file was eligible to be destroyed, but Morgan advised there wasnot. Cullen and Chief Williams also reviewed the list and confirmed the eligibility, but an AI file containing an investigationof Buscher was not mentioned by them. She then returned the list to Mueller. That evening Mueller called Wittendorf athome, and told her this was a conspiracy to get rid of Buscher's IA file, and told her to call Morgan. Wittendorf thought hesounded like a disgruntled employee, and that it was a disagreement between employees. She advised Mueller to contactthe chief or mayor if he felt that strongly.

On April 25, 2013, Wittendorf informed Cullen about Mueller's concerns, and he agreed with her assessment. They thenhad a meeting in Cullen's office with Chief Williams, Buscher, and Mayoral Executive Assistant Willis Logan. During themeeting, Chief Williams said they should retain Buscher's IA file, and Buscher said he did not have a problem with that.Cullen responded that they were not going to keep the file, and they were doing nothing wrong.

On this same date, the MOU was signed by the Department and PBPA, but Wittendorf had nothing to do with the scheduling,and was just told to show up. She had previously told Mueller to be available on this date to shred the documents, andshe only pushed for the quick shredding of IA files to answer the pending Christian FOIA request truthfully. She also knewthat the FOIA requested file was still in existence when the MOU was signed. Wittendorf assumed the Clerk's Office sentChristian's FOIA response at the end of the day, and that the files were shredded by the end of the day. From previousconversations with Mueller, Wittendorf believed shreddings happened quickly. If the shredding had not occurred that day,Wittendorf said she would have sent Christian a denial letter citing other reasons.

Page 666



NARRATIVE SECTIONOn April 26, 2013, Wittendorf attended a weekly meeting between the Corporation Counsel and Labor Manager StephanieBarton. Wittendorf recalled giving Barton a copy of the signed MOU, and that Barton was upset. Wittendorf did not knowif it was revealed at that meeting that the files had already been shredded, because she left early for court. After themeeting, Assistant Corporation Counsel Angela Fyans-Jimenez emailed Wittendorf, and said to hold off on shreddingany documents. Wittendorf responded, and said to speak to Cullen, because he made the decisions. She was also askedby someone if the MOU complied with the Personal Record Review Act, and she responded via email to Barton, Fyans-Jimenes, Cullen, and Steve Rahn, that it did.

On April 30, 2013, Springfield Alderman Joe McMenamin asked the Corporation Counsel, via email, if a collective bargainingagreement could be modified without the approval of City Council. Wittendorf responded to the inquiry that approval wasnot necessary unless it involved money or pay changes.

An executive session was later held in which Cullen attended, but Wittendorf did not. Before the executive session, Cullendrafted a memorandum explaining the events leading to the shredding of documents. Cullen sent the memorandum toWittendorf, which she made changes to, but could not recall what the changes were.

Wittendorf was familiar with the Local Records Act, but did not know IA files were listed in the Local CommissionsApplication. Wittendorf also did not check the Local Records Act for compliance before the destruction of files occurred,and was not instructed by Morgan that it was part of her new duties. She believed the police department took care of thelocal records requirements themselves, and did not follow up with Mueller about disposal certificates. Wittendorf nevercontacted the Local Records Commission about the process of records destruction. She also could not recall if she haddiscussed requirements of the Local Records Act with Cullen. Wittendorf never told Cullen or Mayor Michael Houston thatthe Personal Record Review Act required the destruction of records after four years.

Once the shredding became public, Wittendorf spoke to Cullen and asked if they did anything wrong. Cullen respondedthat they had not, and everything was by the book. Wittendorf did send an email to Mueller to ensure he would be availableon April 25, 2013, to shred the documents. She did so to comply with the order to shred the files immediately, once the MOUwas signed. Her goal was to respond to the FOIA request truthfully. Wittendorf did not have any personal relationshipswith anyone at the police department, and only became aware of the theory that Buscher's files were only being shreddedso he could become chief from Mueller the evening before the documents were shredded. She said she was not evenaware of what Buscher's IA file consisted of. Wittendorf had nothing further to add, and the interview was concluded atapproximately 4 p.m. A transcript of this interview is attached to this report (see attachment #4).

Attachments:

1. MOU, consisting of 1 page.

2. Phone records, consisting of 4 pages.

3. Departmental Memorandum, consisting of 8 pages.

Page 667



NARRATIVE SECTION4. Transcript, consisting of 68 pages.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : MOUFile Name : Wittendorf MOU changes.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : PhoneFile Name : Wittendorf Phone Records.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : MemoFile Name : Wittendorf Attch 3.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : TransFile Name : Wittendorf Trans 2.pdf

Page 668

Attachment#2 IL13AA09938 Page #1

mccarta

Typewritten Text

Page 670

Attachment#2 IL13AA09938 Page #2Page 671

Attachment #3 IL13AA09938 Page #1

Page 674


Page 675


Page 676


Page 677


Page 678


Page 679


Page 680


Page 681

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Alright, today is February the 10th, 2014, it’s about 1:12 p.m. My name isLieutenant Scott Gaffner, with the Illinois State Police, currently at the uh,Central Headquarters in Springfield. Along with me is legal counsel:

HOSTENY: John Hosteny

GAFFNER: And also:

COPSEY: Special Agent Randall Copsey

GAFFNER: And currently today we’re uh, interviewing Geannette Wittendorf. Geannetteis it okay if we audio record our conversation with you?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: Okay. And you also have your attorney present with you. If we could haveyour full name please?

WEBBER: Roger Webber, from Beckett and Webber in Urbana.

GAFFNER: And is it W-E-B-E-R?

WEBBER: Two B’s.

GAFFNER: Okay. Roger do you have a phone number also?

WEBBER: Sure ...

GAFFNER: Thank you. Geannette, what’s your date of birth?

WITTENDORF:

GAFFNER: And middle initial?

WITTENDORF: S

GAFFNER: Okay, what address? Do you want us to use the uh, which address would weuse?

WITTENDORF: Roger Webber’s, at Becket and Webber’s.

WEBBER: The Urbana,

Page 682

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: The Urbana one? Okay. But you currently, you live in Springfield still?

WITTENDORF: I do live in Springfield, Illinois.

GAFFNER: Okay. Um, and if you could, give me an idea of, I know you worked forSpringfield Police Department until just recently. If we can go back a just alittle bit, give me a little history of. How long have you been out of law school?

WITTENDORF: Well I worked for the City of Springfield, I did not work for the SpringfieldPolice Department, it’s just like Correction. Uh, I graduated from law schoolin 2003. Upon graduation I worked for Winnebago County in Rockford,Illinois. Then was a solo practitioner for a couple of years.

GAFFNER: Wait a minute, so in 2004 you were with Winnebago County?

WITTENDORF: 2003

GAFFNER: So you started right after law school there?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: Okay. And what were you doing in Winnebago County?

WITTENDORF: Helping Assistant’s Attorney.

GAFFNER: Okay. And then from there you went where?

WITTENDORF: I was a solo practitioner.

GAFFNER: What year?

WITTENDORF: 2008 to 2010

GAFFNER: Okay. And then what’d you do?

WITTENDORF: And then I worked for the state of Georgia, in 2010 to 2011.

GAFFNER: Like with state of Georgia, what,

WITTENDORF: Department of uh, Human Services.

GAFFNER: Okay. Then what?

Page 683

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: And then I moved to Springfield and I worked for Koepe and Hiltabrand for ashort time.

GAFFNER: Who’s that?

WITTENDORF: Koepe and Hiltabrand

GAFFNER: How do you spell that?

WITTENDORF: K-O-E-P-K-E

GAFFNER: And,

WITTENDORF: H-I-L-T-A-B-R-A-N-D

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: And then I worked for Macon County State’s Attorney’s office.

GAFFNER: So from, are we still in 2011 or do we switch to uh?

WITTENDORF: I started uh, City of Springfield, March 2012, so,

GAFFNER: So,

WITTENDORF: It’s, I worked for a short amount of time at Koepe and Hiltabrand, a shortamount of time at uh, Macon County State’s Attorney’s office, and in 2012 Istarted for the, March 2012 I started City of Springfield.

GAFFNER: So you think the Macon County was still 2011 though? Starting, starting 2011going into 2012, or you,

WITTENDORF: I am honestly not sure.

GAFFNER: Don’t know, yeah.

WITTENDORF: Must have been cause I started March 2012 right?

GAFFNER: Right, so if you started March 2012, Springfield PD, could, or not SpringfieldPD, Springfield City. And with Springfield you were with CorporationCounsel’s office, is that what it was?

Page 684

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: And then what were you assigned to there?

WITTENDORF: I was assigned to uh, I was Assistant Corporation Counsel doing uh, insurancedefense litigation. Civil litigation in general. A risk management.

GAFFNER: Okay. Did you go somewhere else then, or you are always in that,

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: Position?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: Okay. Insurance defense civil litigation, so it, is that uh, you working then forthe city, you’re not working specifically for the police department?

WITTENDORF: That’s correct.

GAFFNER: So at any point in time, did you work specifically for the police department?And I’m not saying you’re emp-, I know you’re employed by the CorporationCounsel, but do you not have, like you’re either working for Public Works, orthe City Police Department, or somebody more than somebody else? You’renot, you weren’t doing that?

WITTENDORF: At one point after an assistant corporation counsel left, I gained some additionalduties which incorporated assisting um, the police department. But I was never,you’re never work for them.

GAFFNER: Okay so, you talking about when Megan Morgan left?


GAFFNER: Okay. So do you know when that would have been?

WITTENDORF: On April 15, 2013, I incorporated additional duties to those that I numerated uh,assisting with some police matters.

GAFFNER: So whatever she was in at the time you assumed, did you assume all of them orjust part of her responsibilities?

Page 685

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: Just some.

GAFFNER: What, and specifically what would they have been?

WITTENDORF: At that time, uh, Mark Cullen wasn’t specific. I, it was, I was basicallywhatever came up. Um, I know Krista Ep-, Eppenseller, also incorporated someadditional duties as did uh, Jason uh, Brokow.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: Obtained some additional duties. They were kind of split up since we wereshort one and a half people.

GAFFNER: Okay, so like on your duties with, with, in particular the police department atthe time, what were you uh, designated to mostly take care of? Anything inparticular?

WITTENDORF: Well I was kind of the uh, point person if they needed something at thatmoment, they could come to me. Um, so it seemed.

GAFFNER: For anything in particular or just everything? So in other words if they hadFOIA request, or if they had,

WITTENDORF: I did FOIA, yes.

GAFFNER: So that was part of it, was FOIA?

WITTENDORF: FOIA was added to my duties.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: At that time. It wasn’t necessarily gonna be long term, but, for that moment.

GAFFNER: Um, how about destruction of, of files or records, stuff like that. Was that partof your duties too to review those?

WITTENDORF: I re-, it appeared that I reviewed the request for them, yes.

GAFFNER: So that, that was part of your duties then?

WITTENDORF: Apparently.

Page 686

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Wh-?

WITTENDORF: Yes, at that time, yes. It was very up in the air I have to tell you.

WEBBER: Maybe ... you tell them what you were suppose to review for like you got, Iknow she got a list of these are the files that are scheduled to be destroyed,

GAFFNER: Yeah, we’re, we’re gonna get into that.

WEBBER: And,

GAFFNER: We’ll get into that.

WEBBER: Okay.

GAFFNER: Specific stuff, I just, I’m just trying to get a broad, broad idea some of the stuff,just to make sure we’re, you know, all on the same page with that. Anythingelse, FOIA request, destruction of police records, anything else?

WITTENDORF: Unfortunately, Mr... isn’t very specific, it was very up in the air, so I got whatcame across my desk at the time until he sorted it out.

GAFFNER: Okay. Okay. Um, I’m gonna go back just a little bit on some of your previouswork history stuff. So, 2003 you graduated from where?

WITTENDORF: University of Illinois, College of ... Urbana

GAFFNER: Okay, and 2003, Winnebago Assistant State’s Attorney until 2008. How didyou, how’d you leave there? Was it, I mean, is it a new election command orwhat was,

WITTENDORF: Yeah there was a new election and being a bilingual attorney I saw a goodopportunity for me to branch out.

GAFFNER: Okay. No other issues there at Winnebago County?

WITTENDORF: I decided it was time for me to go.

GAFFNER: Okay, but that wasn’t my question. Was there any other issues there atWinnebago County that, that made you depart, was it vol-,

WITTENDORF: ...and I didn’t get along with the new State’s Attorney, and I resigned.

Page 687

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Okay, so you did resign. Okay. Um, did it have to do with a case or anythinglike that, that you’re working up there, had to do with?

WITTENDORF: Yes, there was a case that didn’t go well.

GAFFNER: I, I’m gonna explain something to you, Geannette, first of all. Okay, and knowyou got your counsel with you and actually I didn’t, I didn’t tell you at the verybeginning, but, and let me just clarify. This, this interview here, of course it’snot administrative interview. We, we don’t do Springfield PD’s administrativeinterviews. Okay. So, so, if there was an admin-, and I know you’re notworking for Springfield any longer, so it’s not an issue, but anytime we’re calledin to do something, this is considered a criminal interview. We appreciate youcoming up here and talking to us, and hopefully you’re gonna shine some lighton this stuff that we’re gonna talk about here. Just so we fully understand whatyour job duties are and stuff like that. So we’re not trying to trick you up onanything with this stuff. But it’s essential that whenever I’m asking youquestions, I probably already know the answer to those questions I’m askingyou. I just want to see how forth coming you’re gonna be to me. Okay. Anddon’t, don’t try to hide any of this stuff back here just cause you may beembarrassed about it, whatever. It does, don’t worry about it. Bring everythingforward, whether you think it’s relevant or not. And then, at the very end, wecan make a well informed decision. I know you have your legal counsel heretoo to advise you, and that’s, he’s there for that. So if you’re not sure, and youcan look to him and ask him as well. But, just try not to, for, we’re not gonnatrick you up on anything and stuff. We’re gonna ask you some straight forwardquestions, we’re trying to do a fact finding investigation . Uh, there’s a lot ofinformation here and so, don’t think we’re trying to get you on a “gotcha”. Sowhen I’m asking about this, I already know the background on your history upthere, okay. I already know your background on all this stuff. It hasn’t takenus this long for us to go through this, to sit here and just kind of play games witheach other. So, just, go ahead, tell me a little bit about what happened with thatincident that led to your resignation, and then we’re gonna go through just acouple of these things and go into the kind ... interview. Okay? Does that makesense?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: Okay. So what was, what’s kind of the issue there with Winnebago County thathappened?

WITTENDORF: There was a rape case that I was trying. I got held in contempt.

Page 688

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: The contempt got overturned on appeal.

GAFFNER: And then, after that occurred, did you have any other sanctions that cameagainst you?

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: Okay. So then you departed Winnebago County, went to solo practitioner fora while, um, then, what happened with uh, Georgia, Department of HumanServices in Georgia? You were there a year?

WITTENDORF: I had issues with my ex, who was abusing me, and I departed.

GAFFNER: So personal issues? Now is he still down there or is he up in this area?

WITTENDORF: I believe he’s up north.

GAFFNER: Um, then for, then you had two jobs right back to back, um, with Hildebrantand, whatever the name is. And then Macon County. Why the short turnaround on those too?

WITTENDORF: Money. I kept getting better money. I was only making like 33 at Koepe andHiltabrand, and then Macon County, I was commuting, 45 minutes and I wasmaking 45. I had applied with Macon County in the city approximately thesame time, and then the city came and made me an offer for about 10 grandmore, so, and it was in the city. Being a single mom, between the commute and,you know, more money, it was reasonable.

GAFFNER: Okay. So you came on the city in, in uh March of 2012. Uh, prior to that timeperiod had you had any experience in doing, uh, this is, again, tell me, I hadinsurance,

WITTENDORF: Insurance Defense.

GAFFNER: Defense, okay. And civil litigation. Had you had any previous experience inthat area?

WITTENDORF: Well when I was a solo practitioner, I did civil litigation. And when I workedfor Koepe and Hildebrant that’s all they did is insurance defense.

Page 689

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: And when I worked with Macon County, I did do civil and uh, criminal.

GAFFNER: Uh, and just actually, from that time period until you started work forSpringfield, how many criminal cases had you worked? Do you have any idea,just in the ballpark of,

WITTENDORF: I know how many jury trial, criminal cases?

GAFFNER: Well, yeah, I mean,

WITTENDORF: Approximately 40 criminal felony jury trials.

GAFFNER: Okay. Most of them up there in Winnebago?

WITTENDORF: Probably, yes. Yes.

GAFFNER: Um, so as you come down to Springfield then, in April 15, 2013, start workingthere, I get the ap-, impression that you weren’t totally uh, apprized of what.When you applied to Springfield, did they give you a job description of whatyour job entailed? What do I want to say, a job uh,

UNKNOWN: Written job duties or anything?

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: I’m messing up the terminology, but uh,

WITTENDORF: Dossier

UNKNOWN: Maybe a job description.

GAFFNER: So, so when you applied for the job, how did you know what you were going tobe doing with Springfield?

WITTENDORF: They told me I would be doing civil litigation, that I was being hired for my trialexperience.

GAFFNER: Okay. Uh, so at any point in time did they show you any type of document thatoutlined here’s what we’re specifically, you’re gonna be rated on these things.Cause I mean,

Page 690

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: Everybody has job, okay.

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: So you never received anything like that?

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: Coming into this job, did anybody um, train for you this? Anybody sit downwith you and do some training?

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: Nobody kind of took you under their wings and,

WITTENDORF: No, I got a list of from the old attorney. She had a list of um, her cases, and uh,summary of what they were.

GAFFNER: We talking about Megan Moore, or somebody else?

WITTENDORF: No, the old civil litigation attorney that I replaced.

GAFFNER: Who is that?

WITTENDORF: Lucretia Pitts, Lucretia Pitts.

GAFFNER: Okay. Do you know how to spell that?

WITTENDORF: P-I-T-T-S?

GAFFNER: How about the first one?

WITTENDORF: I want to say L-U-C-R-E-T-I-A

GAFFNER: Okay. Uh, so, when you started your job at Springfield, what did you come tounderstand your job duties were, and what did you spend most of your timedoing?

WITTENDORF: Civil litigation. Insurance Defense, for the city, the city of Springfield is selfinsured. So, trip and fall, pot holes, car accidents, water damage, electrical fire,

Page 691

IL13AA09938

anything in which the city was being sued, we defended.

GAFFNER: What did you spend most of your time doing? I’m, I’m not just talking aboutthat either, I’m talking about maybe your, the FOIA, the destruction of policerecords. Kind of, I don’t know how you’re, how much duties, or how muchtime of your time is spent doing what duties.

WITTENDORF: I didn’t touch any of that until,

GAFFNER: Till Megan left?

WITTENDORF: April, yeah.

GAFFNER: Oh, okay, I’m seeing it. I was, miss looking at my notes. So in March of 2012,you came over to the city then April 15 is whenever you took over the additionalones. So, let’s go then to April 15 time period, whenever you received thoseadditional duties. Compared to this insurance defense litigation, that comparedto the FOIA and all these other things, who, what took up the most of your timeI guess?

WITTENDORF: I was doing both at the same time. Um, I was coming in early, working throughlunch, um, just to keep up. Cause I was still handling my civil litigation caseload, which is a full time attorney in and of itself, plus whatever else came myway, um, with uh, the additional duties, whatever crossed my desk.

GAFFNER: Um, what kind of training, whenever you took over Megan’s responsibilities,did she give you any job description of what she did, kind of give you someincite?

WITTENDORF: Megan did come up with a list of what she believed her job duties were. Andum, she spent a couple hours with me the week before she left, you know, at myrequest because otherwise, if we left that up to Mark, it would have neverhappened. To try to get an idea ...suppose to be doing, or,

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: Some of the stuff.

GAFFNER: And then, and then around that time period, uh, I mean, and the whole premiseof this investigation, this case, of course revolves around the shredding incidentthat occurred on April 25. Okay, so you’re, April the 15th you come in there, soyou have basically ten days uh, where you’re getting indoctrinated into what

Page 692

IL13AA09938

you’re suppose to do and this new FOIA stuff and destruction of police recordsand stuff like that, were you familiar with any of this stuff prior to coming inthere as far as, what they did or,

WITTENDORF: Somewhat, but also for half of that week, I was gone to a seminar in Chicago,so I wasn’t even there that full week, of the 15th.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: Um, but, that’s aside from the point I guess, but I was a FOIA officer for MaconCounty.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: So I was familiar with FOIA, not, I mean, so,

GAFFNER: So, at what point in time then, do you become aware of some requests whetherit’s from the PBPA or whether its from the city, um, to start looking intoreducing this, this reduction of time frames from five to four years. Adestruction of files, and FOIA requests coming in from Calvin Christian, all thiskind of stuff kind of came together pretty close to same time period, but what,when did that start hitting with you, that you recall?

WITTENDORF: Well,

GAFFNER: When you came in.

WITTENDORF: I knew about the FOIA requests, Megan told me about those, the week that shewas leaving because she was giving me some different responses that she hadprepared in the past, that I could use. And because there was pending litigationwith Calvin Christian over her prior denials, I guess, if I remember correctlythere was one, there were two other law suits he had filed, so, and so I thinkthere was gonna be a response that was due, when after she left so she wantedto make sure I had that, and the type of response that she gave to those. And Ididn’t find out, I didn’t know anything about the um, doing the reduction untilApril 23, when I got called into the Chief’s office. That’s the first I heard aboutwanting to do a reduction to the expungement period.

GAFFNER: So you were aware of the FOIA’s prior to that. So I’m gonna, I’ll jump back toApril 23 in just a minute, but, so when Megan’s informing you or advising youof these pending FOIAs that are out there from Calvin Christian, and she tells,talks to you about some possible responses such as what kind of responses is she

Page 693

IL13AA09938

talking about?

WITTENDORF: To deny them.

GAFFNER: And using what verbiage? Cause that, is that what she’s telling you basically,

WITTENDORF: Yeah, the, what the, what citations to the FOIA statute she uses to deny theFOIA request.

GAFFNER: Would you recall at that time what particular ones they were using for this, forhis request at that time?

WITTENDORF: Not off the top of my head I don’t.

GAFFNER: Do, did you draft the letters then in response to his FOIA, on, I know he hadnumerous FOIAs that came in. Okay, while you’re in, prior to you coming, um,I’m trying to think while you’re there, did, did you draft all the letters inresponse to his FOIAs or would somebody be drafting those letters?

WITTENDORF: I didn’t, I don’t think I drafted any of them.

GAFFNER: Who would draft the letters then in response to that?

WITTENDORF: Uh, well Donna Brown drafts a lot of the FOIA letters. I believe. I mean Idrafted some FOIA responses, but not to him I don’t think.

GAFFNER: So if you’re drafting a FOIA response, where does that go, usually?

WITTENDORF: Should go through the FOIA system, through the clerk’s office.

GAFFNER: Okay, and then the clerk sends it out?

WITTENDORF: Yeah.

GAFFNER: Okay. So it doesn’t show that it’s coming from you, it will show that it’scoming from the city clerk or something?

WITTENDORF: I want to say it depends.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: I don’t really remember cause I wasn’t doing it very long for them.

Page 694

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Um, so you don’t specifically recall which Calvin Christian request he had onfile, when it first came in? Do you have any idea which one it was?

WITTENDORF: No, there was so many.

GAFFNER: Okay. Was there one, uh, during this time period from April the 15 till April the25, was there a FOIA response that needed to be, or a FOIA request that neededto be responded to?

WITTENDORF: Yes. There was one that I asked for more time because I was going to be gonethe week of the 15th,

GAFFNER: Okay,

WITTENDORF: And I wasn’t going to be able to, I didn’t know enough,

GAFFNER: So you asked for what, is that a five day extension or what?

WITTENDORF: I believe it is a five day extension.

GAFFNER: Okay, so you requested a five day and then that would probably bring you up,is that the one that brings you up to the 25th then?

WITTENDORF: I believe so.

GAFFNER: Okay. Uh, so tell me,

WITTENDORF: Cause I knew I was gonna be gone, I was at that seminar when it was due, andthere was no way I was going to be able to get it done.

GAFFNER: Do you happen to recall what you indicated on there, why the reason is youwanted to extend it?

WITTENDORF: I don’t think you have to give a reason. I just told Donna to request anextension, I was going to be gone.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: ...

GAFFNER: Um, so you know you have a pending request that you have to address. You’regone for a little while and then, do you get called in the Chief’s office on the

Page 695

IL13AA09938

23rd prior to doing anymore on that?

WITTENDORF: Um hum,

GAFFNER: Issue? Okay so what ha-,

WITTENDORF: Yea, cause it was first thing in the morning.

GAFFNER: Okay, so what happens on the 23rd then?

WITTENDORF: So the first thing in the morning, I get called into the Chief’s office.

GAFFNER: Who was there?

WITTENDORF: Buscher and Markovick? I don’t remember if Markovick was there when I firstwas there, or if he was called in, but,

GAFFNER: And Chief Williams?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: What happened?

WITTENDORF: So they told me that they’ve been in negotiations with the union regarding thereduction of the expungement period. That the union wanted it to be threeyears, but they came to an agreement that it would be four, and that they weregoing to do an MOU, Markovick would draft it. And they needed to know if itwould be effectively immediately or prospectively. I said I’m not sure, I’ll haveto run it by Mr. Cullen, see what he has to say about all this. They say okay, goahead. That’s what I did. I went to Mr. Cullen’s office. I told him this is whatthey want to do, they want to do an MOU regarding the reduction of theexpungement period from five years to four. I told them, you know, the unionwanted three but they came to, I guess an agreement to do it for four. Do youhave any problems with this? No. What do you think about the exp-, whetheror not the expungements should be immediate or prospectively, meaning fromhere on out when it occurs, you know for future or whether it should occurimmediately, meaning any that are of date. He goes, no, it should beimmediately, anything existing right now. I said okay, so I walked back downthe hall to Buscher and Cliff were still in the office, or ... Buscher and Williamswere in the office. I said alright Mr. Cullen said it’s to be effectiveimmediately. Said alright, we’ll send you the MOU when it’s drafted. So Iwent back to my office and um, knowing that there was the issue with the FOIA,

Page 696

IL13AA09938

and given my history and knowledge of ..., I’m very familiar with calling theAG’s office, the FOIA hotline, so that’s what I did. I called the FOIA hotline,it was still actually too early, I called at 8:30, and the lady said none of theattorneys were in yet to try back in 15 minutes. So I called back in 15 minutes,I got a hold of a gentlemen and wish I had taken his name, I did not. And Iexplained to him the situation that we received a FOIA request, and during thependency of a FOIA request, an expungement period occurs, um, how shouldwe proceed? What should we do with the FOIA? He said well, there is nopreservation clause, there is no holding, uh, you should go ahead and proceedwith the expungement and respond that uh, there’s no documents responsive.

GAFFNER: See, okay, he said there’s no preservation clause and what else?

WITTENDORF: No holding, um, in essence...it was so long ago. It’s paraphrasing, but, there’sno holding, um, clause. There’s nothing in the FOIA statute saying you haveto hold documents in ...

WEBBER: FOIA creates another duty to preserve...

WITTENDORF: No duty...

WEBBER: Request the documents.

WITTENDORF: Right.

GAFFNER: Okay, then he, they told you what then after that?

WITTENDORF: To go ahead and expunge the documents and to respond there’s no documentsresponses. I said alright.

GAFFNER: Let me, I know you’re kind of paraphrasing a little bit, but let me ask you this,did he, do you think he specifically said expunge? Go ahead and expunge?Would that have been his term?

WITTENDORF: I know I did a memo closer to that date. I don’t know if you have it. Thatmight be more, um, accurate.

GAFFNER: Okay. Yeah, we’ll look at it here in a minute.

WITTENDORF: Oh, okay.

GAFFNER: Um,

Page 697

IL13AA09938

WEBBER: So you have it?

GAFFNER: Sure, yeah, I mean, if you have there too, we can make sure we’re talking aboutthe same one eventually, but yeah. Uh, okay, so, you had the meeting with, withCullen and, this is the 23rd, did, what was the purpose, did Chief Williamsindicate what the purpose of having the meeting on that day was? Was itsomething transpired prior to them setting down and talking about negotiations?Or just out of the blue they said hey, we’re negotiating with the union. I mean,did something push this forward?

WITTENDORF: I have no idea.

GAFFNER: Okay. And why did you, why did after your meeting Cullen did you go to AG’soffice, uh, was that something you thought of on your own? Was thatsomething somebody else mentioned or?

WITTENDORF: No, because of my experience as a FOIA officer, they’re the FOIA hotline.

GAFFNER: Okay. So you called the hotline before on other occasions?

WITTENDORF: Oh, often.

GAFFNER: Often? Okay. And so, how many times prior to this one had you called theFOIA office and received kind of specific guidelines and guidance as well?

WITTENDORF: Often.

GAFFNER: So whenever you called the, whenever you’ve called the FOIA office, is that theuh,

WITTENDORF: FOIA hotline?

GAFFNER: Yeah, but is it called uh, the PAC? Is that it, the Public,

WITTENDORF: I ...

GAFFNER: Public Assistance, uh,

UNKNOWN: Public Access Counselor,

GAFFNER: Public Access Counselor, the PAC office. Does that sound familiar to you?

Page 698

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: I always called it the FOIA hotline...

GAFFNER: Okay, so in the previous times you’ve called the FOIA hotline or the PAC,whatever,

WITTENDORF: Um hum,

GAFFNER: Um, have you asked them specifically for something, can you give me anexample maybe other things you specifically asked them for, and they’ve givenyou?

WITTENDORF: I spe-, I know when you call, you need to identify yourself as an attorney andask to specifically speak to an attorney.

GAFFNER: Otherwise, who you getting if you’re not?

WITTENDORF: Otherwise you get like a paralegal.

GAFFNER: Okay, alright.

WITTENDORF: So that makes a difference.

GAFFNER: Okay, so you spoke to an attorney then, specifically?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: Okay. So on the other occasions then, what, you recall what you’ve talked tothem about?

WITTENDORF: Hum, oh gosh,

GAFFNER: And I’m talking more so, re-, you know, hey I got this specific question of you,help me, give me some guidance on that, I’d like to kind of understand whatkind of guidance they give.

WITTENDORF: You’re putting me on the spot when you’re asking me ... specific something atthat time.

GAFFNER: ...

WITTENDORF: ...

Page 699

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: It doesn’t, I’m saying specific, I mean, I’m just trying to help you recall maybea case or something you were working, and you asked them a question, you cankind of give me a general response, but I’m just,

WITTENDORF: I know I called them even asking them about their frequent requester. Oh Ithink I called them again about Christian, because um, whether or not he wouldbe considered a frequent requester. And if he could be denied, um, as a frequentrequester, whether or not it’s considered uh, because of his numerous requests.Because he was requesting it under the guise of the newspaper. And you knowwe talked specifically, the specific facts. And they were like no, you know, inour opinion he still falls under the newspaper, even though he doesn’t actuallypublish any newspaper articles, you know, he still falls under this statute. Imean we always ... I was very comfortable talking ... talk specific facts, and theyresponded with specific. They were very helpful actually, you know, when theyhad specific guidance, they would give it to me. Like if they had um, HGopinions or something like that, they would, you know, show ‘em to me. Youknow and think it made a difference that, you know, after using them so oftenI knew to ask for an attorney and identify myself as an attorney. I think thoseare the, that’s the key difference between just calling and, and uh, saying hey,I have a FOIA question, you know.

GAFFNER: So, whenever you said they shared documents with you, then what, like, howwould they do that?

WITTENDORF: Well like when I worked in Macon County, they would actually like email themto me. You know, or show me where to go on the website to get ‘em.

GAFFNER: Okay. So on this one in particular with Calvin Christian, I, were you workingfor Springfield at that time when you were asking about this one?

WITTENDORF: Yeah.

GAFFNER: Now was this before or after, was this before or after the 23rd?

WITTENDORF: It was after.

GAFFNER: So after the 23rd, you called them again. Did you speak to the same attorney?

WITTENDORF: Oh I have no idea. I don’t remember. After this incident, I did learn, I did learnmy lesson and start writing down their names, yes, but,

GAFFNER: Okay, so you received a response back from the Attorney General’s office,

Page 700

IL13AA09938

whatever, whoever the attorney was, and was it, do you recall ... with Matt, firstname was Matt something?

WITTENDORF: I honestly don’t remember,

GAFFNER: Don’t know, okay. Uh, and this person, uh responded back that uh, you can getrid of the, you can expunge the documents, respond back no documentsresponsive. So what did you do then once you learned that information fromthem?

WITTENDORF: Well I informed Mark Cullen, you know, of the information I got from them.Just to keep him up to date. I also did some legal research on my own to try tofind any case law in existence regarding FOIA, preservation of documents, um,anything on FOIA. I couldn’t find anything.

GAFFNER: You couldn’t find anything on FOIAs and stuff?

WITTENDORF: On point with receiving a request in the preservation of documents orindependency.

GAFFNER: Oh so in your, in your search of, and where would you look when you’re tryingto find out that information?

WITTENDORF: Um, Lexis.

GAFFNER: Did you a Lexis search?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: And your specific ...

WITTENDORF: Wes Law, I apologize.

GAFFNER: Lex Law,

WITTENDORF: Wes Law,

GAFFNER: Wes Law.

WITTENDORF: I been using Lexis recently so, it’s in my head.

GAFFNER: So a Wes Law search and you’re looking specifically what you can do once a

Page 701

IL13AA09938

FOIA request is in, and if you can dispose of it, records, while it FOIA ...pending,

WITTENDORF: The preserv-, yes. Whether or not FOIA requires a preservation or documentsduring the course of the pendency of a FOIA request.

GAFFNER: And you never,

WITTENDORF: And thereabouts,

GAFFNER: Can you, ever have come up with um, anything indicating one way or the otheron that, the pending research?

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: Have you found anything since then?

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: Okay. Uh, So then what’d you do after you told Cullen about what you learnedfrom the PAC office?

WITTENDORF: Um, I believe at some point we requested that a list be put together of whowould be in the expungement um,

GAFFNER: When you say we, who’s we?

WITTENDORF: Well when Mark and I discussed it, you know, we discuss what the next stepswould be and I said, well, we need a list, I guess of who would be on this list sowe can go through and check whether or not who’s eligible in terms of whetheror not there’s any pending litigation and, so, figured that would take some timeto make sure we preserve of one who needs to be legally preserved. Um, andso I believe I emailed um, Mueller, he’s a high, head of Internal Affairs, and Iasked him to prepare a list from the case that the agreement went throughbetween the union and um, the administration.

GAFFNER: You emailed, did you state that on your email to him or you just were askinghim for a list?

WITTENDORF: I’m not sure. I believe I sent an email but I’m not positive. Maybe I just askedhim? I don’t know.

Page 702

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Is this common for you to ask him for a list?

WITTENDORF: I don’t know. This would be my first time.

GAFFNER: So you, you indicated you emailed... prepared a list of what specifically?

WITTENDORF: Of who would be eligible for expungement.

GAFFNER: ...IA files or?

WITTENDORF: Uh, I believe so.

GAFFNER: Do you know what IA files are or?

WITTENDORF: Internal ... who would be up for expungement. Who would be eligible for theexpungement if the expungement went through.

GAFFNER: What, what’s your definition of expungement?

WITTENDORF: With my current definition?

GAFFNER: No. Like what was your definition of expungement when you were talking backthen?

WITTENDORF: Well, um, well, I prepared the list of whoever they had, um, on the reprimandsand honestly, I had it all written down at the time. It’s been so long since Ididn’t need to use it anymore, I didn’t retain that information, but.

GAFFNER: What was your understanding what expungement meant though?

WITTENDORF: Destruction.

GAFFNER: Like, destruction of the whole file? Destruction of parts of it, what,

WITTENDORF: Destruction of the entire record.

GAFFNER: So expungement in your, your understanding of it back then when you’resending this email is destruction of the entire record is the same asexpungement?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

Page 703

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Okay. Okay. So once you sent that email, what happened?

WITTENDORF: He sent me back a list, and I believe he also sent me some examples of howMegan Morgan did it, because I actually wasn’t sure of how it was done. AndI believe I asked him, okay, now how do we, how is this done, how do I tell youwhat’s, what’s appropriate and what isn’t, and he sent me and email with someattachments of how Megan did it. And so, based on that is how I then wentthrough the list that he gave me.

GAFFNER: Okay. Then what happened?

WITTENDORF: Well the next couple days I went through the list and went through and sawwhich ones had pending cases, pending litigation. Went through all the namesand anyone who, uh, was involved in anything with the court systems, or, uhpending litigation. I marked as having to preserve, and anyone who didn’t Imarked as okay. I uh, texted Megan and I asked her again, you know, justwanted to make sure that, for the expungement all I need to look at is, youknow, what is pending cases. And she said yeah, um, that’s it. I said okay.And then I, I don’t know if I held on to it until the 25th or if I, was that me?

GAFFNER: If, if I showed you the list, would that, would you be able to tell me if that’s thelist that,

WITTENDORF: I need to see the one with my handwriting on it. I couldn’t tell you off the topwithout it.

WEBBER: ...that you.

WITTENDORF: ...

GAFFNER: Well is there any cases on there look familiar?

WITTENDORF: I mean the cases really meant nothing to me except I literally just went through,looked everyone up in the computer system, cross referenced our cases, um, tomake sure that nobody had any pending legal cases. Nobody had any courtcases, I mean. Some of the names look familiar, sure, from working in thedepartment. But there’s no way that I could I that I remember these from thelist, you know.

GAFFNER: That memo I’m showing you, is the one addressed to you from Chris Muellerright?

Page 704

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: It is addressed to me from Chris Mueller.

GAFFNER: So would that be the one then, is that your handwriting on that list?

WITTENDORF: Yes, this is me.

GAFFNER: Okay. So can you kind of walk me through then, on the list I’m showing it hassome handwriting on it. What, what’s your telling Chris, or LieutenantMueller?

WITTENDORF: Well, I’m telling him that the ones that are okay to expunge, because they haveno pending court cases, no pending litigation. And the ones that need to besaved because there is pending court cases, pending litigation, so we have alegal obligation to preserve them.

GAFFNER: And then on this list right here, um, did anybody review that list prior to you,or after you? I mean were you,

WITTENDORF: Yes,

GAFFNER: First person,

WITTENDORF: I had a, um, Mark Cullen and uh, Chief Williams look at this list also justbecause they’re more familiar with these people. I didn’t want to miss anything.I didn’t want to accidentally expunge a case that they knew was out there thatI, you know, cause I was relying on computers and data lists, and they actuallywere there along the time, more than me.

GAFFNER: Okay, so what did, did, either one of those two say anything about the peopleon it, contained on that list?

WITTENDORF: They just confirmed I was correct.

GAFFNER: Okay. Did, in the conversation with either Chief Williams or Mark Cullen, didthey say anything about Buscher’s name being on there?

WITTENDORF: Not at this time.

GAFFNER: So at any point in time, did they then? You say not at this time, so when didthey?

WITTENDORF: Well on April 25th, Cliff Buscher’s name came up in a meeting in Cullen’soffice.

Page 705

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Okay. With who?

WITTENDORF: Um, it was Mark Cullen and um, Logan,

GAFFNER: Willis Logan?

WITTENDORF: Willis Logan, Chief Williams, Buscher, myself,

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: And Chief Williams offered, he said you know we’re gonna get some grief forBuscher’s file being in there. And you know, why don’t we pull it. Buscher’slike I don’t have a problem with that. And Mark Cullen said no, we’re notgonna do that, press always needs something to talk about. There’s no reasonto do that, we’re not doing anything wrong. Leave it in, that was it.

GAFFNER: Did you say anything at that time?

WITTENDORF: I don’t say much, just follow orders.

GAFFNER: Okay. Um, so the day you, you have a date on here too, GSW 4/24/13, that,that’s your initial then and that’s the date, your date on that?

WITTENDORF: Um hum, yes.

GAFFNER: The day you received this is the 24th, you looked over that day and respondedback to them. That same day then?

WITTENDORF: That would be the day I looked it over. I don’t know if that’s the day I sent itor not.

GAFFNER: Okay. You don’t have any idea when, who’d you sent it back to?

WITTENDORF: I would have sent it,

GAFFNER: Did you send it back to Chris?

WITTENDORF: I would have sent it to Chris.

GAFFNER: You don’t have any idea when it got sent back to him though?

WITTENDORF: I don’t. It would have been attached to an email I’m assuming.

Page 706

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Alright, so, 24th you get this list. You look it over. You do your markings onit, so then, what else happens on the 24th, anything else on that day? Are you,is, is Mueller talking about anything? About the list, is, are you guys havingcorrespondence with Mueller?

WITTENDORF: Um, I think that might have been the night that Mueller called me. I knowMueller gave me a call and he was kind of, um, conspiracy theory I guess.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: About all of this. Um, you know if I remember it was at night. I had alreadybeen in bed. I remember I was sick that week too, probably from being overworked. And I, he woke me up, he was, he was uh, stressed out and uh, up,sounded upset and it’s like Geannette, you’re not from here. You don’t knowthese people. You know, I think there’s, I don’t know, he just sounded likedisgruntled employee. It sounded like, like a disagreement among employees.I, it, was uh,

GAFFNER: What, what did he say sp-, what did he tell you specifically though?

WITTENDORF: He said it was a conspiracy to get rid of Buscher’s file, he’s like you don’t knowwhat’s going on. You’re, you know, you know, you should call Megan. Uh, Idon’t, I told him, you know, Chris if you really think something’s going on, youneed to take this to the Chief. You need to talk to the mayor, you and I are justworker bee’s. I don’t know what to tell you. Um, we’re both just followingorders.

GAFFNER: So whenever he called you, I mean, did you not take that as he’s trying to giveyou a heads up on something, or additional information you may not be awarebecause you’re kind of new?

WITTENDORF: He didn’t sound very put together. Um, he, he, he didn’t sound very rational.He didn’t have any facts or basis or, or, he honestly just sounded like adisgruntled employee with a lot of uh, back stabbing theories, and it justsounded discombobulated and I mean,

GAFFNER: So it didn’t rise to the level in your mind of being anything to consider,whenever he’s telling you this stuff?

WITTENDORF: I gave him the best advice I could. I told him, I’m not the one to go to. I’m not,I’m nobody. You know, I’m like you need to take this to the boss, you know,

Page 707

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: What was, what was he warning you about though? I mean, give me somespecifics of,

WITTENDORF: Just what I said that,

GAFFNER: No, you didn’t tell me what case or anything, you just said you’re, you beenvery vague in general.

WITTENDORF: That they’re trying to destroy Buscher’s file.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: Hide the truth, you know, hide what happened.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: And that’s the extent of it.

GAFFNER: So when he, when he told you this information, what did you do with theinformation?

WITTENDORF: I told Mark that he had called me, that he told me this stuff, and Mark seemedto have the same opinion of it as, I guess that I had, that it just sounded a littleyou know, he expressed it sounded a little crazy and he doesn’t think anythingof it. I took it to my superior,

GAFFNER: When, when did you call him?

WITTENDORF: Oh, I talked to him the next day.

GAFFNER: Oh, you talked to him the next day, in person?

WITTENDORF: Yeah, yeah.

GAFFNER: You remember what time that was?

WITTENDORF: No I don’t. In the morning. I was very good about always going to Mark. I amvery much CYA.

GAFFNER: When you say CYA, what, like,

WITTENDORF: Cover your butt.

Page 708

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Yeah, so I, did the conversation, let’s, let’s stay on the 24th then, um, you saiduh, Mueller called you that night. Leading up to that night, why, why did hecall you that night. There had to be something going on that prior day, yourcommunications with him, stuff like that, that lead him to be concerned aboutsomething.

WITTENDORF: I honestly don’t remember.

GAFFNER: Had there been any correspondence or communication with you and Muellerabout asking him if he was going to be present the 25th to get rid of some filesor anything like that?

WITTENDORF: Possibly, cause I mean, that, those are the 24th, right?

GAFFNER: Right, right, the ones you just looked at, the documents, yes.

WITTENDORF: I don’t remember.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: It’s possible. I don’t know,

GAFFNER: Just a little bit ago we talked about on the 15th, or uh, let’s see, you extendedfive days on the 23rd, no, you request a five day extension on, on uh, CalvinChristian’s FOIA request. Um, one of them was coming up on the 25th, whereyou had to respond back to that, correct?

WITTENDORF: There abouts, yes, it must have been on the 25th, cause that’s when I responded.

GAFFNER: So on the 24th, you’re, you’re talking with uh Chris about these files in yourterms to be expunged, and you’re having communications with him. Are youasking him anything else, as far as, cause, who’s, who’s responsible forexpunging files or destroying files?

WITTENDORF: Chris, and his,

GAFFNER: So, IA

WITTENDORF: Partner.

GAFFNER: Is?

Page 709

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: Yeah.

GAFFNER: So, if, if we had some correspondence where you’re asking him if he’s gonnabe around on the 25th, to be able to shred some files, because of this pendingFOIA is that make, would that be accurate probably?

WITTENDORF: That makes sense.

GAFFNER: Okay. Um, and so, you think that’s a result then of Chris calling you and sayinghey, I want to give you some incite about one of these files that I have a concernabout.

WITTENDORF: You mean is that why Chris called me?

GAFFNER: Yeah, I’m wondering if that’s, if that’s what motivated that call.

WITTENDORF: I don’t know. I can’t say why Chris called me. I mean,

GAFFNER: Well I mean, do you think Chris called you because you’re new to that positionand then he wanted to make sure you weren’t blind sided with something? Ormaybe that you wouldn’t be used as a fall person for this? I mean, I’m justasking cause, he didn’t call Megan Morgan, he didn’t call anybody else. I meanhe calls, he reaches out to you at the time. I’m just trying to figure out what his,what his purpose was of calling you. Was his purpose, something that I’m notreading?

WITTENDORF: I don’t,

GAFFNER: Did he mention anything about being concerned that you could be used as a fallperson cause you’re new and that’s why he’s wanting to bring you up to speedon some information about back history on the department, on the Buscher case,or anything like that. Does that make sense?

WITTENDORF: I guess, I mean, I just don’t know what he thought I could do. I mean, all Icould do was tell ‘em, you need to go to your boss, is what I told him. Youneed to go to the Chief. You know, you need to go to the Mayor. You know,I told him I talked to Cullen. You know Cullen’s approved this, I don’t knowwhat to tell you. You know.

GAFFNER: Well actually, I mean, if, if you had the list though, it has your initial on that list.It doesn’t have Cullen’s initial on that list for the files to be expunged. So, inall reality I mean, you do have a say so, so when he’s telling you, if you wanted

Page 710

IL13AA09938

to, you could have pulled any of those files off that list if you wanted to, is thatnot correct?

WITTENDORF: No. The order for the files to be expunged immediately, was given by Cullen.It was not given by me.

GAFFNER: No, this is, this is, yeah, but this is before any order comes out. Right now I’mtalking about the 24th.

WITTENDORF: No, the order was given the 23rd.

GAFFNER: The order was given the 23rd?

WITTENDORF: That’s the only reason that I went through that list. I wouldn’t have had to gothrough that list if Mr. Cullen hadn’t made the decision,

GAFFNER: Where’s, where’s this order at? Do you have an order?

WITTENDORF: No.

WEBBER: You’re talking about ...

WITTENDORF: The conversation that the MOU was to be affective immediately.

GAFFNER: Yeah, that, that, that didn’t happen on the 23rd though. But I have, do you havea record of something that happened on the 23rd?

WITTENDORF: No. When I went to go speak to Mr. Cullen after the meeting, he’s the one whodecided that the MOU was to be affective immediately.

GAFFNER: Okay, well that ... is what you’re saying?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: Okay. That’s fine. If something’s signed and it’s documented, I couldn’tunderstand. You’re saying it, it would be effective. But what are you sayingwhen that’s becoming affective immediately? What does that mean? In yourmind? Whenever you’re saying that MOU becomes affective immediately,what’s that mean?

WITTENDORF: That those files would be expugnable,

Page 711

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: Immediately.

GAFFNER: Okay, what does that mean? Immediately?

WITTENDORF: As soon as the MOU is signed.

GAFFNER: So you’re, you’re taking this as whenever Cullen says this is effective rightnow, that the files had to be shredded right then and there?

WITTENDORF: That is my understanding.

GAFFNER: Why, why would, I don’t understand why that would be. Have to be right there.Was it because there was a pending FOIA request and had to be done before the25th or was there some other reason? Because you’re a good soldier and if, Iknow you signed you’re gonna have something done immediately, upon sign ofit?

WITTENDORF: That is what I, that was my understanding.

GAFFNER: Well, you have an MOU that gets signed on the 25th, and the MOU you weretalking about is the agreement between the PBPA and the Department, whichreduces the retention period from five to four years, right?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: Okay. So, what was the purpose of getting that signed by the 25th? Was therea purpose,

WITTENDORF: I had nothing to do when that MOU was signed. I did not make thearrangements for it. I had nothing to do with the scheduling of it. All I was toldwas to show up.

GAFFNER: Well, but it’s your email correspondence though with Mueller indicating for himto be available on the 25th,

WITTENDORF: That’s because I was told,

GAFFNER: To shred those documents immediately,

WITTENDORF: It was gonna be happening that day.

Page 712

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Right,

WITTENDORF: But I had nothing to do with any correspondence with the negotiations, with theagreement, with when it was gonna happen, nothing. All I was doing was ... myend and the legal aspect of it.

GAFFNER: Okay, but I’m trying to figure out why you’re pushing so hard for Mueller to getthose documents shredded by the 25th.

WITTENDORF: Because I needed to answer a FOIA truthfully.

GAFFNER: Okay.

WEBBER: I think she’s planning to answer a FOIA on the 25th that says there are norecords. She knows they’re suppose to be destroyed upon the signing of theMOU, and that’s suppose to happen. So the MOU gets signed, every file thatwould be expunged next year, you know in five years, that, that the is for fourand a half, four years, is gonna be destroyed that day, and she’s gonna send outthe answer she wants to know that it’s actually done if she’s saying these weredestroyed, or they don’t exist.

GAFFNER: Yeah, I understand what you’re trying to do, but what I’m saying is, you arepushing to have this done for the fact that you didn’t have to that FOIA and givethe information back to Calvin Christian right?

WITTENDORF: No, I was doing it so I didn’t have to lie on the FOIA.

GAFFNER: Well, okay. I mean, the, were the records actually, shredded and gone wheneveryou called Chris Mueller?

WITTENDORF: When I called him?

GAFFNER: When did you send that letter out then? When did you send the Calvin Christianletter saying there’s no records?

WITTENDORF: I didn’t send the letter out. The clerk’s office sent the letter out.

GAFFNER: When did they send it?

WITTENDORF: I’m not sure. I’m assuming the end of the day.

GAFFNER: Okay, so how did you know those files would have been shredded by the end

Page 713

IL13AA09938

of the day?

WITTENDORF: It was my understanding that the shredding occurs immediately. Was my beliefthat they would be shredded by the end of the day.

GAFFNER: Okay. Were you aware of in the past how they shredded documents and stufflike that? What kind of time frame it usually takes?

WITTENDORF: Chris made it seem like it was really fast.

GAFFNER: So it was his own, he was telling you that they shred them immediately usually?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: Is this on email somewhere or how’s this,

WITTENDORF: No, just conversation.

GAFFNER: Okay. Because, I mean, everybody we’ve talked to, that’s been in IA, even toinclude Chief Williams, who’s been there, nobody indicated they do themimmediately like the same day. That any uh, approval gets done on themwhether from your office or wherever, so I’m just trying to figure out who’s,

WITTENDORF: Chris indicated to me that it can happen immediately. I’m surprised if heindicated to you differently, to be honest.

GAFFNER: No I didn’t say he couldn’t do it immediately. I’m just saying that’s not beenever the past practice on doing it. It was, from reading the emails and talkingto these other people, it appears that somebody else was pushing it, which rightnow it looks like you’re the one pushing ‘em, to get these documents shredded.So I’m just trying to understand , if you’re not the one pushing and you’resaying somebody else is pushing you to push it, I’m trying to understand whothat is.

WITTENDORF: I was told that it was to occur immediately. I needed to answer a FOIAtruthfully. That was my goal.

GAFFNER: Who’s telling you that? Mark? Or somebody else?

WITTENDORF: To answer the FOIA truthfully?

GAFFNER: Well you said you were told you had to shred them immediately to answer the

Page 714

IL13AA09938

FOIA,

WITTENDORF: No, I was told that it needed to occur immediately. That was from Mark. I senthim two emails to confirm this. If he had said something different, that it didnot need to occur immediately, I would have sent an alternative answer to thatFOIA. I would have sent the denial saying, you know, for these reasons yourFOIA is being denied. However, because Mark continuously responded thatthis shredding needed to occur immediately, I wasn’t going to send a false FOIAresponse saying I’m sorry, you’re denied for these fraudulent reasons, knowingthe very next day these files were gonna be gone. That would have been,

GAFFNER: When did Mark send you his to expunge immediately emails?

WITTENDORF: On the 25th.

GAFFNER: Okay but, did you, did you have correspondence with Mueller on uh, before the25th, indicating that he needed to be available to shred these on the 25th?

WITTENDORF: Possibly.

GAFFNER: Okay, so, you’re telling me though Mark Cullen’s telling you on the 25th youneed to do it immediately, but even prior to that, you’re telling Mueller he hasto be ready on the 25th to shred them ...

WITTENDORF: Because of Mark had told me from the 23rd, and Buscher and Williams canconfirm that I immediately obtained my orders from Mr. Cullen. This isn’tsomething I’m going to do on my own.

GAFFNER: Okay. We’ll probably come back to that then in a minute. Um,

WITTENDORF: What time is it?

UNKNOWN:’ Wanna take a break?

GAFFNER: Yeah, let’s just take a little break if you guys want to, and that way, it’s uh, it’s2:18 right now. We’ll take a pause,

(INTERVIEW STOPPED)

(INTERVIEW RESUMED)

GAFFNER: Okay, it’s 2:26, we’ll, you’re still aware Geannette that this conversation’s

Page 715

IL13AA09938

being audio recorded and that’s okay with you?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

GAFFNER: Okay. Um, I know we had just a couple follow up questions and then we’ll getinto some of these documents. Were you able to get your 3 o’clock pushedback?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Um, let me, let me just follow up on some of the, some of the things. Uh,where, where were you in solo practice, here in Illinois?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Okay, I didn’t know if it was here or Georgia. And then, in, while you’re inprivate practice, or in any position prior to working for the city of Springfield,other than Macon County, did you do FOIA-, did you do FOIA anywhere else?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: Okay. Um, while you’re at Macon County, did you do FOIAs for the policedepartment or the sheriff’s office there?

WITTENDORF: Yes. Just standard police reports.

HOSTENY: Do you remember having the issue of I files there?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: I was gonna ask you what their policy was, whether they released ‘em or not.

WITTENDORF: No, it was just police reports.

HOSTENY: Okay. Um, when you were there, did you hear about the Geekus case?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: So you, you were familiar with that issue?

WITTENDORF: While I was there, it’s not where I learned about the Geekus case, I learned thatthrough my research, Springfield.

Page 716

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Okay. When Megan Morgan met with you for those couple hours to break youin on the partial duties of the police legal adviser, did she give you the historyof the department’s position on releasing internal affairs files?

WITTENDORF: The history of it? No, like I said, she just gave me the um, sample FOIA denial.

HOSTENY: And so their practice had been to deny IA files?

WITTENDORF: And litigate the issues.

HOSTENY: Right. And do, you couldn’t remember the number or the section number, butit was, was it the exemption have to do with adjudication of disciplinaryrecords, 7-1-N?

WITTENDORF: Uh, I might have something.

WEBBER: ...

HOSTENY: I have, I have some I can show you, or if you have something.

WITTENDORF: Looks like 7-1-N was being litigated. 7-1-F we were still litigating,

HOSTENY: 7-1-F? I’m, I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you Geannette.

WITTENDORF: 7-1-F and 7-1-N.

HOSTENY: Okay. Did Megan tell you about the ruling from Judge Kelly where the city lostthe first Calvin Christian file, FOIA case for IA files?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: And so you, you knew that the city had to produce them in that case?

WITTENDORF: Yes, but I knew there was a second case that we were litigating with JudgeSchmidt, that we were in the middle of.

HOSTENY: That, that ruling didn’t come yet?

WITTENDORF: No, and uh, there were different, there was a different exemption that hadn’tbeen ruled upon yet by the Appellate court that they had left open, that wehadn’t asserted yet, and I don’t remember it off the top of my head. Um, theyhad left open in the Appellate court, um, that we were going to be asserting

Page 717

IL13AA09938

should have gone to that.

HOSTENY: Okay, um, so, did Megan tell you that she had talked with Mark Cullen inJanuary and because of the adverse ruling from Judge Kelly, uh, they weregoing to eventually change policy and just start releasing all these and not, notfight them?

WITTENDORF: No, because Megan’s the one who gave me the response that she wanted to useto deny Calvin Christian’s newest request.

HOSTENY: Okay. Did Mark Cullen ever tell you that eventually we’re gonna change thegeneral order and we’re gonna just start releasing all these IA files?

WITTENDORF: No, Mark said that him and Megan had discussed it, the potential of it going thatway if they kept losing these cases.

HOSTENY: Okay. Um, and then where did you learn of the Geekus case when you did theresearch for this issue?

WITTENDORF: When I was reading the cases, because I went back and I read um, I read thefirst Calvin Christian case, and I was reading the second one, and then I starteddoing my own FOIA research regarding the issues in order to prepare anappropriate answer, un response.

HOSTENY: An answer on whether or not you can do a destruction while a pending FOIA?

WITTENDORF: No, an answer uh, in regards to the denial letter. I don’t just ... use otherattorneys work, I uh, research the issue and make sure that, the uh, exemptionsand stuff is appropriate and you know, and all that, so.

HOSTENY: Um, you said your first week as the police advisor you went to a seminar, whatwas that on?

WITTENDORF: I went to Chicago, the afternoon and the 17th through the 19th, what was the uh...

HOSTENY: I’m just wondering if it happened to be on FOIA or?

WITTENDORF: No. It was not.

HOSTENY: Anything like that?

WITTENDORF: It was,

Page 718

IL13AA09938

WEBBER: ...

WITTENDORF: Yeah, it was like civil litigation, ... law schools up there.

WEBBER: ...

WITTENDORF: Civil rights litigation conference.

HOSTENY: Chicago ...uh, civil rights litigation, section 1983. Okay, thank you. So if Iunderstood you correctly, you had a meeting. Trying to find the right part of mynotes. In Mark Cullen’s office, the morning of April 25th, which was the day ofthe shred, and the Chief recommended that we pull Buscher’s file. And by thatyou mean, not destroy it, that we hold on to it?


HOSTENY: Okay. And Buscher said I’m okay with that?


HOSTENY: And it was Mark Cullen that said no, let’s go ahead and keep that with the onesthat we’re expunging?


HOSTENY: Okay. And when you, um, initialed off on the list of cases to be expunged, asfar as you were concerned, that meant it was okay for them to actually put themin the shredder right then and do away with them?

WITTENDORF: Pending, given Mark’s approval that they were to be immediately expunged.To me I was doing a legal review of them for legal sufficiency to be expunged.That was my job. I was reviewing them for legal sufficiency to be expunged.

HOSTENY: Okay. So once the MOU was signed per Mark Cullen’s instructions, and I,once I had which ones were okay to expunge, it was your understanding theywere going to be shredded right away?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Okay. Um, let me show you some, some documents. Um, and I’ll, if it’s okay,I’ll just kind of paraphrase it and then hand it to you and take, take a minute to

Page 719

IL13AA09938

familiarize yourself. But this is just an email that Donna Brown sent you withum, Calvin’s Christian’s FOIA request for the Buscher IA file that he piggypacked off of Wendell Banks.

WITTENDORF: Okay.

HOSTENY: And it in Donna says, you know, we’re, we’re gonna deny it under 7-1-N. Andobviously since it was extended, you didn’t deny it right away. Did you tellDonna not to go ahead and deny it right away, but let’s hold on to it and look atit?

WITTENDORF: Probably, cause I’m sure I had research, and like I said, I had to go through allhis, I had to go through all his uh, his first, his first law suit, his second law suit.I had to review Megans response. Like I said, I don’t just use legal responseswithout reviewing them myself, for legal sufficiency. And I had to go throughall that research and I knew I was gonna be gone for two and a half days. So Itold her that I needed more time.

HOSTENY: Okay. Um, and did you do all that research?

WITTENDORF: Yes. Well, most of it, given the time constraints.

HOSTENY: Um, we’ll just, and this is one from you to Stephanie Barton, where she makesa reference, Stephanie made a reference to some new FOIA rulings, and youasked her, and I high lighted it here, can you explain to me what new FOIArulings you are referring to. This was dated April 17, regarding IAinvestigations. Did you ever, did Stephanie ever meet with you and explain um,the court rulings or the ULP rulings on IA investigations?

WITTENDORF: ...public record think I was asking her what she meant, which one she wasreferring to.

HOSTENY: Right, but I mean, did you ever meet with her and go over those issues?

WITTENDORF: I don’t remember, I don’t know, maybe.

HOSTENY: Do you remember, um, when you became assigned to part of the policedepartment duties, that whether Stephanie said anything to you about, hey if youhave any issues on the collective bargaining agreement, come to me?

WITTENDORF: Stephanie? Uh, I don’t know if she said anything personally.

Page 720

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: You don’t recall her requesting that you go through her on collective bargainingmatters?

WITTENDORF: Not specifically. Not in that whole week before it happened.

HOSTENY: Did uh, did anybody else recommend you go to Stephanie for stuff like that?Did Megan or Angela Fines?

WITTENDORF: I think after the fact. I mean, you have to understand this was like,

HOSTENY: Right.

WITTENDORF: I mean, I was there for two and a half days, and then it was Monday, and theysaid this was happening. I went to Mark, immediately cause, like I said, I washad these duties for two and a half days, and I was gone. They called me in 8a.m. Monday. I didn’t know, if, what they can and can’t do, you know. Wentto Mark, Mark okay’d it. Mark make a decision. I went back, I said okay, theysent me the document, I forwarded it to Mark. Mark approved it. I made somelegal edits, sent it back.

HOSTENY: You made legal edits to the MOU that Markovick drafted?


HOSTENY: Do you remember what changes you made to that? To it?

WITTENDORF: Um, I added citations.

HOSTENY: Did you add any reference to the uh, change in the general order?

WITTENDORF: What do you mean?

HOSTENY: The general order of the Springfield Police Department? The general ordercovers everybody, even those not in the union, so the issue would be by, byincluding the general order, you made it applicable to people that were not inthe bargaining unit.

WEBBER: So the red is what you put in?

WITTENDORF: Um hum.

HOSTENY: You have a document that shows your changes?

Page 721

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: I do.

HOSTENY: May I see it please?

WITTENDORF: Sure.

HOSTENY: Um, so the red is what you added?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Okay. So it says you added, uh, in the first introd-, whereas clause, sectionRoman numeral five, print A of the GO, rock number three add period. So Iassume that’s addendum number four and section Roman numeral seven A ofthe general order rock, number three addition, add, addendum five. And the ...tracking system, uh, and then in paragraph three you added after the month ofthe incident or the month upon which the incident is brought forward, whicheveris longer. Can we make a copy of this for later? We’ll put that in the pile. Um,do you remember you talked about when that evening after you went throughall the stuff that you just mentioned, you know, talking to Mark Cullen and allthat, that uh, Mueller called you that night, late that night.

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: And he recommended you talk to Megan Morgan?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Did you do that? Did you talk to Megan?

WITTENDORF: I texted with Megan.

HOSTENY: After Mueller tried to warn you?

WITTENDORF: I don’t recall when I specifically texted. I did call and text with her on occasion.

HOSTENY: Was she gone from the city then?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Is that why you texted her instead of emailed?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

Page 722

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Do you recall, I mean, what did you say to, in the, the essence of your texts,back and forth with Megan, what was you telling her what was going on andwhat did she say to you?

WITTENDORF: No, um, I basically asked her, you know, other than, you know, pending courtcases and litigation, is there anything else I need to look for in reviewing thelegal sufficiency of expungement. And she said no. Um, I don’t recall ourother conversations.

HOSTENY: Do you recall if you told her one of the files to be expunged under this newMOU is Buscher’s?

WITTENDORF: I don’t think so. I don’t think I got in touch with her with that.

HOSTENY: Did she weigh on whether or not that was a good idea to expunge? I mean, didshe recommend whether you expunge Buscher’s or not?

WITTENDORF: I don’t think we discussed that.

HOSTENY: Here’s an email on April 22, that Monday when you came back to work, fromDonna Brown with a new FOIA request. Um, by John Myers, for all theretention records. The retention policies and all that. And it’s got someattachments to it. It’s got the FOIA request that’s been put in the city website.Then the general order. Then the last one is part 1200 of the local recordscommission application. Did you get that email and all those attachments?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Did you look at ‘em all?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: So prior to that, had you had any knowledge that Internal Affairs files werelisted in the local records commission application?

WITTENDORF: No I believed that um, the police department took care of that on their end.

HOSTENY: The police department took care of what?

WITTENDORF: Any uh, local records requirements with something they did administratively,cause I know Donna Brown does it for their police reports and stuff like that.So I figured if they had to do it for their destruction of IA files, I just figured

mccarta

Typewritten Text

Page 723

mccarta

Typewritten Text

IL13AA09938

they did that on their end.

HOSTENY: Um, had you ever dealt with the local records act in any of your previousassignments, either with the city or any of your prior, uh, positions?

WITTENDORF: No, they always did that administratively.

HOSTENY: But I mean, had you ever come across the local records act while working forMacon County or in private practice?

WITTENDORF: Like of it’s existence, yes.

HOSTENY: So you were generally familiar with it?

WITTENDORF: Generally, yes.

HOSTENY: Um, were you aware that it was a two step process?

WITTENDORF: Terms of?

HOSTENY: What was your understanding of what the city would have to do to comply withthe local records act, when you got this email from Donna Brown?

WITTENDORF: Quite frankly, I don’t know what their steps are. I just always, you know, Iknew the law was there, and I just always, it was just always something that theadministration took care of on their own. I’ve never done it, for any agency thatI worked for. That was always something the administration did.

HOSTENY: Um, you did all that research on FOIA, did you do any research on the localrecords act before?

WITTENDORF: Before?

HOSTENY: Before the shred? Can you say out loud for the tape?

WITTENDORF: Not before the shredding, no. Well except as it relates to responding to this, Isuppose. I don’t even know we responded to this though. I know we had tworesponse.

HOSTENY: I’ve got one, um, I can show you that where Chris Mueller sent you the list thatyou initial off on, wanting to know if that’s responsive, if, if, I think he’s tryingto say are these the destruction certificates? The, the disposal certificates.

Page 724

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: Right, I remember that.

HOSTENY: Okay, let me show you that one and you can take that back. So, do youremember what he attached, what he sent you?

WITTENDORF: Yeah, I believe he sent the list, or a list of,

HOSTENY: The cases to be expunged?

WITTENDORF: Cases to be ex-, like kind of, kind of like uh, the list of expungement. Eithermine or ones that Megan and him had done, I don’t remember.

HOSTENY: That you,

WITTENDORF: That either,

HOSTENY: That you or Megan would initial,

WITTENDORF: Initial,

HOSTENY: Off on, okay. Um, did you ever talk with Chris Mueller about whether or nothe had any of the, cause in paragraph three Donna Brown is asking for theapproved records disposal certificates from the local records commission. Uh,and Chris sent you those memo’s and you say no, that’s not it, it’s, those areattorney client privilege. Did you ever talk with Chris Mueller about, youknow, do you have the disposal certificates?

WITTENDORF: I guess I didn’t follow up on that.

HOSTENY: Here’s uh, here’s one where he says if, in the body of the memo, or the emailfrom him, if the standards change, and by that I assume he means if the MOUis signed?

WITTENDORF: Uh, yes.

HOSTENY: Is that your understanding of what he’s referring to?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: But then he says um, I’ll need your approval to destroy them?

Page 725

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: And so, when you initialed off on that, that was your understanding then thatthey could go ahead and be destroyed?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: On this one it, it refers to, this is an email from you dated uh, Tuesday, April 23,and I’ve highlighted, you said you read the local records act and it only appliesto public records, which internal affairs files are not. So what research on thelocal records act had you done?

WITTENDORF: This was just a short, to the point response to Donna, where I wasn’t going toget into the legal explanation of the exemptions that we were claiming under theFOIA act. I didn’t mean under an attorneys um, definition that these weren’tpublic records, under ... obviously we know that they are. I guess I could have,given a longer better explanation, but I had a lot of stuff going on, so I just gavea short, to the point, curse response. I could have given a better one.

HOSTENY: Would it be fair to say what you, what you really meant there is they, they’renot disclose able records? We don’t disclose these because there’s a FOIAexemption for them?

WITTENDORF: That is exactly what I meant to say.

HOSTENY: But that’s under FOIA so I’m talking about under the, what makes you thinkthey’re not releasable under the, or they’re not public records under the localrecords act?

WITTENDORF: I miss, mistyped, I was rushed and receiving ten FOIAs a day, along witheverything else I was doing, and I get dozens of emails from Donna. ...

HOSTENY: So you meant to say FOIA there instead of local records act?

WITTENDORF: I, I just know that I was responding to, um, to her in a short manner, regarding,in my head, we’re not disclosing the IA files at that time. Uh, we’re exertingour FOIA exemptions, um, rather than getting into a long legal discussion withher. Oh, that’s my alarm to pick up my son, I’m sorry.

HOSTENY: Do you recall doing any, any research then on the local records act?

WITTENDORF: Just um, I believe yeah, at some point I did.

Page 726

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Before the destruction of the records, on April 25th, or shred? When I say theshred, I’m talking about the afternoon of the April 25th, 2013.

WITTENDORF: Uh, I don’t know if I, I must, I believe I looked at it and read it in regards toMyers, was it Myers or Cravens FOIA?

HOSTENY: Myers is the one I showed you.

WITTENDORF: Myers is the one,

HOSTENY: Just showed you.

WITTENDORF: Believe I looked at it in regards to his FOIA request, and,

HOSTENY: Did you, did you do anything besides read this statute? Did you go to thesecretary of state’s web site or anything?

WITTENDORF: I did not.

HOSTENY: Or look at the annotations in the statute, in west law?

WITTENDORF: Uh, I don’t believe so.

HOSTENY: Here’s what I’m gonna give you, uh. This is one that Donna sent you, whereshe called the state archives and asked them about the local records commission,and this is Tuesday, April 23, and I’d first like to ask you, did you ask Donnato do that or did she do that on her own?

WITTENDORF: I believe we were discussing the issue. I remember I recall that com-, email.Um, because we had um, discussed after I read her application, the fact that itwas only for electronic records, and she said something to the affect that shetalked to them regularly because she does the applications for the um,destruction of the records. So, um, I don’t know how that specific conversationcame about, in terms of I don’t know if I asked her to talk to them or if she didit on her own.

HOSTENY: Okay. But you, so you did know that Internal Affairs files for the policedepartment were covered at least, I mean are you making the distinctionbetween electronic verses hard copy?

WITTENDORF: Based on the letter of the application, yes. That’s how I read it.

Page 727

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Okay. Um, why don’t you go ahead and look at that email chain, and. So, if Irecall the email, she tells you that the local records person that she talked to saidif it’s not covered, you can’t ever destroy it.

WITTENDORF: Well, they kind of said both.

HOSTENY: Is that how you took that?

WITTENDORF: Don’t you think? I know. Sound like it. It says on the one hand, if it’s notlisted, it’s permanent. On the other hand, there’s no statute that defines theretention period, so they can’t enforce listing them on the application. It saidmany police departments don’t include them under their application.

HOSTENY: But you knew yours way on the application and the application said five years.

WITTENDORF: Right, for electronic. And so I also assumed, like Donna does, that this wassomething the police department, and like this, the other police departments do,that they do administratively...legal department job to fill out the disposalcertificates.

HOSTENY: I’m not following you there. Who would have filled out, who’s, who’sunderstanding is it?

WITTENDORF: It would be my understanding that the local,

HOSTENY: Who would fill out this....

WITTENDORF: Records act...

HOSTENY: Disposal certificates?

WITTENDORF: Would be the duty of Chris Mueller and the IA department. That would be myunderstanding. That was my understanding. As my understanding that that waswhen I spoke to the other attorneys after the fact, that is what theirunderstanding was too, according to the other attorneys I talked to.

HOSTENY: Did you ever um, before the shred, call anybody at the local records commissionand ask ‘em, you know, about the process?


HOSTENY: Uh, were you aware that once you filed the disposal certificate, you have to wait

Page 728

IL13AA09938

for 60 days before you can destroy the records, so the archivist has a chance toretain the records if he wants to? Um, did you ever talk with Mark Cullen aboutthe local records act before the shred?

WITTENDORF: Well only to the extent of this FOIA. I would have given him the FOIA andshown him, would have forwarded to him, and talk to him, discuss the FOIArequest with him.

HOSTENY: Under the FOIA law, you talked to him about the legalities under FOIA, but I’masking under the local, did you talk to him about the requirements of the localrecords act?

WITTENDORF: I honestly don’t know.

HOSTENY: Um, here’s one, after the MOU was signed, Buscher was at the signing of theMOU, wasn’t he?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Was that unusual to you?

WITTENDORF: ...

HOSTENY: Was that the first MOU you had ever been involved in?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Um, I was wondering why you forwarded that to Deputy Chief Buscher?

WITTENDORF: I forwarded it to Buscher and Williams, and Mark. Forwarded to all the heads.

HOSTENY: And then here’s one that, after it went out, Donna Brown sent you a copy of theresponse letter that was prepared, which was to the FOIA to Calvin Christian’sFOIA, that says, we have no documents responsive. So did you, after the MOUwas signed, did you, or to your knowledge, did anyone else tell Donna Brownto prepare that, that’s how that was to be handled?

WITTENDORF: I’m sure I did.

HOSTENY: And, so when you signed the MOU, when the MOU was signed the morning ofthe 25th, you knew the files were still in existence?

Page 729

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Did that, um, mean, as a lawyer that seems to me, you know, if I get a subpoena,it goes by the date that I received the subpoena, not the date, that the return dateon the subpoena. Or, if I, would you agree with that?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Or, you know, doing civil defense, civil rights, civil litigation, you know whata litigation hold is. If you have reasonable expectation even before the suitsfiled, you have to retain records, correct?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: So did that seem, uh, proper to you that you could destroy the records while theFOIA was pending?

WITTENDORF: Based on the very clear affirmative response I received from the AG’s office,and the fact that there was no legal research I found on point. The fact that thestatute is devoid of any position I was put in, was very clear orders from Mr.Cullens and Williams, the position I was in was to send employer response witha false denial knowing that within a day or two those files would in fact bedestroyed, and we would be in the same position that we are in now. Or, senda truthful response that the files had been destroyed.

HOSTENY: You had uh, said earlier that you had, if the files, if the MOU wasn’t negotiatedand the files weren’t destroyed, you had an alternate legal basis to deny andwhat would that have been?

WITTENDORF: That would have been incorporating what Megan Morgan had previously givenme.

HOSTENY: The exemptions under 7-1-N and 7-1-F?


HOSTENY: And then probably litigate again?

WITTENDORF: I assume so.

HOSTENY: So the game, the backup plan was to deny the records and not release ‘em?

Page 730

IL13AA09938


HOSTENY: Um, here’s your memo, uh, about your conversation with the AG, and you sentit to Mark Cullen on May 1.

WITTENDORF: ... there’s a typo, I believe the date’s a typo.

HOSTENY: The date you had the conversation or the date that you, the date you had theconversation with the FOIA hotline is a typo or the date of the memo is a typo?

WITTENDORF: The date I had a conversation with the FOIA hotline, is a typo.

HOSTENY: It says April 25,

WITTENDORF: Um hum. I think I subsequently fixed that,

WEBBER: Says 23rd,

WITTENDORF: I know I fixed it in the other, when I fixed the memo. Do you have the full log?

HOSTENY: Um, your handing me an AT&T phone log, phone bill, and then an IllinoisAttorney General’s Office directory. One’s marked the AT&T Phone bill for,I’ll ask you just explain it to me, but it’s marked exhibit 11, looks like adeposition exhibit. Is that what it is? Like it was marked in a deposition orattachment to a memo.

WITTENDORF: It was attached, it was an attachment.

GAFFNER: Is that from ...

WEBBER: ...

HOSTENY: Okay, tell me what that document is then.

WITTENDORF: This is a phone log that was pulled from my work phone, documenting myphone call to the ARDC.

HOSTENY: Okay.

WEBBER: To the Attorney General,

WITTENDORF: I apologize, to the Attorney General.

Page 731

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: To the PAC hotline, is that, FOIA

WITTENDORF: FOIA hotline,

HOSTENY: Hotline,

WITTENDORF: Um hum,

HOSTENY: Show, uh, there’s some markings on there, so, when did the phone call takeplace?

WITTENDORF: April 23,

HOSTENY: At what time?

WITTENDORF: 8:30 a.m. was the first time I called them. And then when I called back at 8:49.

HOSTENY: Okay. So you only had one actual conversation?

WITTENDORF: Right. Then I called them later again that day for something else.

HOSTENY: Did you keep notes of your conversation with uh, attorney that you talked to?

WITTENDORF: I did scrawl, somewhere, something.

HOSTENY: You don’t keep a phone log or minutes of conversations like that?

WITTENDORF: I usually keep a note book, a scratch book next to the phone where I write stuffdown.

HOSTENY: You keep that? Would it still be in existence?

WITTENDORF: No. Cause then I converted it to a memo.

HOSTENY: Okay.

COPSEY: What was the duration of that call at 8:49?

WITTENDORF: Four minutes.

HOSTENY: Then let me ask you, um, the memo other than the date of the conversation, isit accurate? Is the substance of the memo accurate?

Page 732

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: Yeah, I have highlighted there, you had some other questions. Do youremember what those were? That you talked about with the, with the attorney?

WITTENDORF: It was those that are listed. Maybe my grammar might be misleading I suppose.I asked him what do we do if we receive a FOIA request during the responseperiod. Before we respond the records are subject to expungement. Are wemandated to return, retain the documents and turn them over, or can we expungethem before we respond as long as it’s pursuant to a valid expungement. Andhe did say yeah, go ahead and get rid of the files, then you respond nodocuments responsive exist.

HOSTENY: Did you tell him that you amended the contract during the pendency of theFOIA so that you could reduce the retention period?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: Um, did you talk to him about any statute other than FOIA? In order words, didyou talk to him about the requirements of the local records act?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: Would you have kept notes of meetings with uh, when you went in and briefedMr. Cullen?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: Or say for example, the meeting that you had, um, on Monday the 23rd when youwere called into the chief’s office, with Buscher and, on, would you have notesof that meeting?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: No? Um, the day after the shred, there was a regularly scheduled meeting thatthey have ever week between the legal office and the labor manager. You recallattending that meeting on Friday morning, the 26th, and giving Stephanie Bartona copy of the MOU?

WITTENDORF: Oh, okay. Okay.

HOSTENY: You recall that meeting?

Page 733

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: Brief, or vaguely.

HOSTENY: Do you recall she wasn’t happy that she wasn’t involved in the process?

WITTENDORF: Stephanie’s rarely happy.

HOSTENY: Um, what do you recall about that meeting? Tell me what happened?

WITTENDORF: I want to say Stephanie, Angela, Steve, Mark and I were there?

HOSTENY: Steve Ron and Mark Cullen?

WITTENDORF: Yes. I believe Mark told them what happened, Stephanie was upset, I think shewas upset because Collective Bargaining. Um, I had to go to court, so I don’tknow what happened the rest of it. I left Mark to explain. In the end, from mypoint of view, he was the decision maker, he made all the calls, I was the go togirl, so,

HOSTENY: Do you recall if either you or Mark Cullen told the other people in attendanceat that meeting that the files had actually been destroyed the same day as theMOU was signed?

WITTENDORF: I don’t know cause I was there very briefly cause I had, like I said I had to go,I had a big motion that morning, for my regular case load.

HOSTENY: Here’s an email that might help you. It’s one from Angela ... basically tellingyou to hold off on any shredding. Do you recall getting that?

WITTENDORF: Oh yeah.

HOSTENY: And that was after the meeting with Labor, correct?

WITTENDORF: Right, cause it was ... um hum,

HOSTENY: Was Angela your supervisor?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: Why is she sending you that me, that email then?

WITTENDORF: That was Angela’s personality.

Page 734

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: And then you, your response was,

WITTENDORF: Was short and to the point. I told her to talk to Mark in the end because he’s theone who made the decisions.

HOSTENY: Your response seemed a little testy to me. Were you a little upset that Angelasent you that?

WITTENDORF: Uh,

WEBBER: Who is Angela?

WITTENDORF: ...

HOSTENY: She was the police legal advisor before Megan Morgan.

WEBBER: Okay.

HOSTENY: She did it for a long time.

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: When you say I done all the research, are you talking about all the research wealready talked about for FOIA?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: What other research are you, are you referring to any other research?

WITTENDORF: No, just regarding the FOIA and uh,

HOSTENY: The phone call to the attorney general’s office?

WITTENDORF: As I said, I talked to the AG’s office, talked to Mark. I told her she can talk toMark because in the end, it’s Mark’s decision. She, it wasn’t my ...

HOSTENY: Did Mark ever ask you for a memo, like a legal memorandum on, you know, theissue of whether or not could shred these records with a pending FOIA?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: Or did you ever prepare any legal memorandums about FOIA or the local

Page 735

IL13AA09938

records act?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: With regard to any of these issues?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: Um, there was one, one of the alderman, Joe McMinimen, asked um, thecorporation council whether or not a collective bargaining agreement can bemodified without the approval of the city council. And he forwarded that toyou. And on April 30, you said I’m getting you something. Did you everprepare a memo on that?

WITTENDORF: Um, I remember I did, something short regarding, I think I did do just a shortsynopsis of the laws in regard to, you know, unless it involves money or um,pay changes, it doesn’t need to go through council for council approval. That’swhat I recall, I recall doing something to that affect.

HOSTENY: And you did that after you got this email on April 30?

WITTENDORF: I believe so.

HOSTENY: You didn’t do anything before the actual shred?

WITTENDORF: Well before that in regards to the MOU, I just looked at the ordinances, and theorders to make sure that there’s nothing preventing the signing of an MOU, acontract, prohibiting, and there wasn’t any.

HOSTENY: You looked at the city ordinances and then the cities general orders.

WITTENDORF: Um hum...

HOSTENY: Okay. Here’s an email, um, the day after the shred on Friday, April 26, and thiswould have been after the morning meeting with labor, you sent to StephanieBarton, Steve Ron, Angela Fyans-Jimenez and Mark Cullen. The MOU nowcomplies with the personal record review act.

WITTENDORF: Yeah, somebody at the meeting or in the emails, they were emailing during theday, something about does this even comply with the personal record reviewact? How many years is that? Bla-bla-bla, and I said yes it does in essence.

Page 736

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Do you, um, did you ever discuss with Mark Cullen the possibility that thepersonal record review acts requires you to destroy these records after fouryears?

WITTENDORF: No, not that it, it doesn’t require you to destroy them after four years, it justdoesn’t allow you to, um, release them.

HOSTENY: Because one of the alderman, and I don’t know if it wasMcMenamin or Candman, I think it was Candman, said that he was told by Mayor Houston, thatthe personal record review act required you to destroy these records, so we were trying to see ifyou were aware whether you or Mark Cullen ever told the mayor that?

WITTENDORF: I don’t ...

HOSTENY: So did you,


HOSTENY: Okay, you didn’t advise Mark Cullen or Mayor Houston or anybody else in theadministration that the personal record review act requires you to actually destroyrecords after four years.

WITTENDORF: Unfortunately, all my communications went through Mark. I did notmyself speak with the Mayor or the alderman.

HOSTENY: About any of this?

WITTENDORF: About any of this.

HOSTENY: There uh,

WITTENDORF: Get an attorney client waiver.

HOSTENY: Pardon me?

WITTENDORF: ...

WEBBER: Oh, from the state?

WITTENDORF: Yeah,

HOSTENY: We have a copy of it if you want.

Page 737

IL13AA09938

WITTENDORF: Okay.

HOSTENY: Um, there, when this came out in the press, there was a executive session thatMark Cullen attended of the city council, were you present for that?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: Um, Geannette if you can, speak up so we can,

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: And when, in preparation for that, I’m assuming it was in preparation for that,Mark drafted a memo explaining what happened. Do you recall seeing thatmemo? That’s a draft of it.

WITTENDORF: I remember he sent me, a memorandum, I don’t remember the specifics ofit, but I do remember. He did send me a memorandum.

HOSTENY: When you read the memorandum, do you recall having any concerns with theaccuracy of any of it?

WITTENDORF: I remember I made some changes.

HOSTENY: Would you have a copy of your changes?

WITTENDORF: I didn’t even think,

HOSTENY: Or do you know what the changes were?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: Um, one of the issues is who was pushing the change, the MOU prior to beingcalled into the chiefs office on that Monday morning. Were you aware whether ornot the union was requesting a change, of the five year retention period?

WITTENDORF: I have no idea about anything.

HOSTENY: Um, this doesn’t have the complete, I didn’t put the complete records disposalapplication, but Donna Brown is sending you the 33 page application on, what isthat, May 1?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

Page 738

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Why was she sending you that then? You recall?

WITTENDORF: Maybe because I felt we didn’t send a complete response to John Mayer? That we needed to send him the complete application. I know we sent hima supplement to the FOIA, his FOIA request.

HOSTENY: Alright. Um, here’s a email from you to Mark Cullen on Friday, May 3, whichsites some federal cases. You recall that email where you talk about people,government employees shred records all the time?

WITTENDORF: Oh, I was siting the case. That was a citation, that wasn’t my uh,

HOSTENY: Oh it was?

WITTENDORF: I’m sorry, this was a direct,

WEBBER: ...this is all a quote...

WITTENDORF: Yes, that’s a direct quote.

HOSTENY: Oh, okay, it’s not in quotes though.

WITTENDORF: That was copy and paste.

HOSTENY: Got it.

WITTENDORF: That was not my verbiage.

HOSTENY: What prompted that email then, why, did Mark ask for that? What was going onthat he asked you to do some research?

WITTENDORF: It was continuing research on the lawsuit, to defend the lawsuit.

HOSTENY: Which?

WITTENDORF: From Kelvin, for the shredding.

HOSTENY: The one in front of Judge Schmidt?

WITTENDORF: No, it was a new one, for the, the shredding of the documents.

HOSTENY: The new one, okay. Um, was that,

Page 739

IL13AA09938

WEBBER: This one?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

WEBBER: It’s the,

WITTENDORF: That was filed, May 2,

HOSTENY: Was that research done that day of May 1? That you cut and pasted?

WITTENDORF: This is May 3rd.

HOSTENY: May 3rd, oh I’m sorry, I thought it was May 1st.

WITTENDORF: Probably.

HOSTENY: So this was in response to the lawsuit that was filed May 2nd?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

HOSTENY: You wanna take a break? Just, couple minutes.

GAFFNER: Couple minute, quick break,

WITTENDORF: Sure,

GAFFNER: Then we’ll head back. It’s uh, 3:37.

(INTERVIEW STOPPED)

(INTERVIEW RESUMED)

WITTENDORF: Oh, we got two tape recorders now,

GAFFNER: Yeah, it’s always been two. It’s 3:41, we’re restart the interview again, and thiswill be the final time.

HOSTENY: And I just had a couple more, did you have any roll or in recommending the city’sdefense of the litigation that was filed on May 2nd? I mean did you work ondefending that with the city?

WITTENDORF: No, when it first came out, I mean I did some legal research just, you

Page 740

IL13AA09938

know, because as an attorney it just bothered me.

HOSTENY: Did you recommend that the city settle that lawsuit or did they ever ask youropinion?

WITTENDORF: They kept me out of it.

HOSTENY: Were you deposed in that?

WITTENDORF: No.

HOSTENY: After the fact, the research that you did, did you find out the city’s nevercomplied with the local records act?

WITTENDORF: That was my understanding.

HOSTENY: Do you have an explanation for how that happened?

WITTENDORF: The only thing that we surmised among ourselves was that we all assumedthat they were doing it on their end administratively like Donna does. You know, Donna does it for them, we assumed they were doing it, andwe can only assume, pure speculation. I don’t know who they assumedwas doing it cause Donna Brown does it. Maybe they assumed DonnaBrown was doing it for them too, I don’t know.

HOSTENY: They assumed you guys were doing it, legal.

WITTENDORF: Okay.

HOSTENY: Or that legal said it was okay to shred so it was okay to shred.

WITTENDORF: Okay.

HOSTENY: That’s not your understanding?

WITTENDORF: I can only surmise that there was mis-communication going on. We hadwrong assumptions going on both ends.

HOSTENY: Um, did you ever talk with Mark Cullen about once this all came out, and youfigured out, what was actually happening?

WITTENDORF: I mean, very briefly while he was there, I’m like, you know, Mark did

Page 741

IL13AA09938

something go wrong here, what happened? He’s like no, nothing waswrong. We did nothing wrong. There’s nothing wrong here. It’s just themedia blowing things up. Everything was by the book.

HOSTENY: I mean he never came to the realization you, the city was never complying withthe local records act?

WITTENDORF: Mark kept insisting everything was fine.

HOSTENY: That’s all I have.

GAFFNER: Um, just kind of a couple things to wrap up with, in, one of your interaction had,one meetings, when you’re questioned about this uh, this shredding of the filesand allowing them to be shredded while this FOIA was um, pending, youindicated basically the buck stopped with you. Um, what was your, what wereyou indicating at that meeting?

WITTENDORF: What I said at that meeting, is, you know, I did the research, I talked to theAG’s office, I will take responsibility for my actions. For my roll. Ididn’t say I’d take responsibility for everybody’s actions or everybody’sroll, but, you know I think people need to be responsible for their actionsand for their roll. And I did do the research. I did talk to the AG’s office,but I also took all that to my superiors, and I made sure that their intentand their orders were clear.

GAFFNER: The concern from doing this investigation and from talking to all the peoplewe’ve talked to as well, and the thing we come into as of course you know you’regonna be one of the last people we talk to. So all these other people that you’rementioning and stuff like that, we’ve had conversations with ‘em. The problemcomes into play is whenever we talk to people and you’re adamant about talkingto the AG’s office and them giving you clear, concise direction when the AG’soffice persons specifically that you talked to, we had the conversation with deniesthat, to the point that he would not have even given somebody that clear, concisedirection that you’re alleging to have. Um, their information they rec-, that theydole out, is not gonna be specific to cases, it’s gonna be general in nature. And sowhenever you’re alluding to the fact on these memo and your interview here thatyou were provided clear and concise direction from them, that is not what they areconveying to us. Whenever you have people, uh, Stephanie Barton, uh, Angelaum, Greg, um Chris Mueller, um, other people that are trying to give you awarning, say slow down, hold on, give you a caution sign, whatever you want tosay, and it appears you continue to move forward with uh, the shredding of thesedocuments, of responding back to this FOIA to say there’s no records available.

Page 742

IL13AA09938

You know, it creates a grey concern to us. That nobody else is doing it, but it’s,it’s your signature on all these things, it’s your emails indicating this. You knowthe people that you’re claiming, you know, it should have been on their shoulders,you’re saying it’s not our responsibility. Donna Brown’s saying it’s legalsresponsibility, which is you. You know, it’s all coming back on your shoulders,and you’re trying to push it off on Mark Cullen, to say he’s the one who gave youthe direction. But on your emails and your correspondence, it’s showing thatyou’re the one that’s really running the show. And even when people are tryingto say slow down here, listen to what I’m trying to tell you, your new here, itappears that you’re not willing for some reason to listen to anybody else’s adviseor input on this whole thing. Is there a reason why you keep going forward withthis full fledge without slowing down and trying to look at some of these thingsthat they’re telling you?

WITTENDORF: Stephanie and Angela didn’t get involved until after the fact. So I don’tthink you can take that into consideration.

GAFFNER: You never, there’s the thing though with Megan Morgan, you’re saying that youdid reach out to Megan Morgan. Megan Morgan’s saying you never, she nevertalked to you about these things. That you never reached out to her for advice on. I would have reached out to advice on my predecessor and ask hey what wouldyou do in this situation here. But apparently you didn’t do that, even though youtold us you did.

WITTENDORF: I just sent her a text asking her about the expungement, if there’s anythingelse I need to look for. She said I didn’t do that?

GAFFNER: She’s saying she didn’t have any correspondence about this case in particular.

WITTENDORF: Well I,

WEBBER: That’s not what she’s saying.

WITTENDORF: Right.

WEBBER: She’s saying,

GAFFNER: Hold on,

WITTENDORF: Yeah, you asked me that, if I asked her about this case specifically and Isaid no.

Page 743

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Okay. So you never had any conversations with anybody to get advice on thiscase.

WITTENDORF: I didn’t because I was talking to my boss about this case. And this washappening in a really short amount of time.

GAFFNER: Yeah, you also said you talked to the Attorney General’s office,

WITTENDORF: And I talked to the Attorney General’s office and if you found the person Italked to, that’s great, but, like I said, I don’t remember the name of thegentlemen. Maybe you can trace it by the phone number and the time? That might be helpful.

GAFFNER: Yeah, we talked to him.

WITTENDORF: Well I’m telling you what he said. I wish,

GAFFNER: So what do you think, Mark Cullen has told us transpired?

WITTENDORF: I don’t know, but I know that hopefully Williams and Buscher backed upat least the times and what I said I did, because,

GAFFNER: So if Mark Cullen is denying these things that you kind of pushed on hisshoulders,

WITTENDORF: Well you have the emails in black and white,

GAFFNER: Okay, I’m saying expunge immediately right?

WITTENDORF: Right,

GAFFNER: Right, yeah, we have that. But I mean, we don’t have, I mean, you’re telling usconversations took place where he’s, he’s uh, given you direction on, on this. Asfar as,

WITTENDORF: Williams and Buscher were in the room when they offered to withdraw,their file. And he said no. Correct? I’m assuming,

GAFFNER: That’s what you’re saying, yeah.

WITTENDORF: I’m assuming if you speak to them, they’re gonna tell you the same.

Page 744

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Okay.

WITTENDORF: And, I’m assuming they’ll also tell you that after I spoke to them I wentand spoke to Cullen and came back and told them what he said.

GAFFNER: Did you get a call from Chief Williams, um, prior to him giving a direct order toMueller to shred those documents? Did he, did he talk to you about that?

WITTENDORF: I don’t know. I got many calls from them during...

GAFFNER: I’m talking about on the 25th? This would have been on the 25th.

WITTENDORF: I don’t remember.

GAFFNER: Well I guess when we’re looking at the totality of all the information we have,and all the evidence. Uh, and your correspondence with, with Mueller, when hewas on training, he was training the 25th, and you’re, you’re requesting that he isavailable to shred documents immediately. This is before Mark Cullen’s emailcomes out. But you’re, you’re request for him to be available once the MOU issigned to shred these documents immediately. Where did that come from? Where’d the direction come from for that?

WITTENDORF: I don’t recall telling him to be available immediately.

GAFFNER: Do you recall having a conversation or email correspondence with him, asking ifhe’s gonna be around the 25th?

WITTENDORF: I do recall asking him if he was gonna be around.

GAFFNER: Okay, so what was the purpose of that?

WITTENDORF: See if he was gonna be available to comply with the order that they beshredded, or expunged immediately ...

GAFFNER: Okay, but this was prior to that order coming to you from Cullen.

WITTENDORF: Right, so once Cullen gave the order, and I confirmed with him that hewanted this done immediately, in order for me to respond to that FOIArequest truthfully, that was my goal. Is to respond to the FOIA requesttruthfully.

GAFFNER: Okay. Were you aware those documents actually were not shredded when you

Page 745

IL13AA09938

called and asked him?

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: Were you aware there was also a CD, uh, digital version of those files?

WITTENDORF: No, it was my understanding they were so old that everything was paper.

GAFFNER: Okay. Do you see the, do you understand kind of the concern when we’relooking at this from the outside, uh, do, can you kind of see where for us, youhave these people that are at least, what appears to from all the things we’ve seenand people we’ve talked throwing out kind of wondering why you don’t talk tothem for advice, or the ones that are trying to reach out to you, are saying she’snot listening to us, we’re trying to convey this...

WITTENDORF: These people that are saying they’re not listening,

GAFFNER: Well Mueller’s one of them. I mean, Muel-, he spoke with you about it, so he’s,he’s saying you’re not, you know, Donna Brown had conversations with youabout this whole totality of the local records act and stuff like that too, so I mean,when I’m talking people, I’m not just talking about Angela and I’m not justtalking about Stephanie.

WITTENDORF: Um, don’t know any of these people. I’m not from Springfield, I don’thave connections or ties to anyone. I have no reason to do anything oranyone, I didn’t know anything about this police department, or, youknow. I got put into some duties, I got called into some meetings. I didthe legal sufficiency duties, the legal duties I was asked to do, and thatwas it for me. And everything I did, I went to my boss and I’m sorry ifthat was a mistake. If,

GAFFNER: Did anybody direct you to make sure that those files were shredded by the 25th inorder for Cliff Buscher to be able to go in the Chief’s position. Have you everheard that as a reason why they were doing this?

WITTENDORF: I believe that’s one of the things that Mueller was implying.

GAFFNER: But nobody else besides Mueller? Like did you hear that from Chief Williams? Did you hear that from Mark Cullen?

WITTENDORF: No

Page 746

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Okay, none of those guys up there?

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: Uh, was, was the push on this, as far as getting done quickly, because those rec-,and maybe I missed it earlier when you were talking about it, because the recordswere being, were exposed to released to any individual that requested thembecause of the suit that was lost by the city? Was that kind of the push on this? You understanding or not?

WITTENDORF: I didn’t,

GAFFNER: You’re not aware of that either?

WITTENDORF: I, I didn’t know there was a push. I didn’t understand there was a push. The only push for me was I needed to answer FOIA and I needed toanswer truthfully. That was my only thing.

GAFFNER: Why couldn’t you release it though? Why couldn’t you release the records to‘em? Who told you not to do that?

WITTENDORF: That’s what I was told. I was told this is what we do by Megan Morgan,she gave me these are the denials.

GAFFNER: Right, right,

WITTENDORF: When I knew that the files were gonna be destroyed, I knew that I wasn’tgoing to throw a red herring out there and lie today that oh, here we’redenying it because, you know, these exemptions apply and then tomorrow,these records are gonna be destroyed.

GAFFNER: So you’re, actually what I’m hearing then, is you’re actually pushing this more soyou don’t have to use this other premise? Is that what I’m hearing?

WITTENDORF: No, I knew,

GAFFNER: I mean for this, when I say pushing it, pushing to have it done by the 25th. Youwere pushing it more to have it shredded by the 25th, so you wouldn’t have tocome up with it, saying hey, it’s either too cumbersome or hey, it’s uh, whateverthe other exemptions are within the,

WITTENDORF: I was doing it so I didn’t have to lie and mislead on a FOIA.

Page 747

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Right,

WITTENDORF: Because within, according to the order, according to the email I keptgetting, this was gonna happen immediately, and Cliff Buscher’s wasgonna be a part of it. And that was Mark’s orders, and those people in thatmeeting better be telling you the truth and tell you that’s what he said. And I wasn’t going to lie in a FOIA and say on this isn’t gonna happenand in 24 hours have that file be destroyed because then that would ...

COPSEY: Did you know what was in the Cliff Buscher file? You know the seriousness ofthe offense or?

WITTENDORF: I didn’t know anything. No.

COPSEY: So to you it could have just been a rudeness complaint?

WITTENDORF: It, I had no idea. I knew nothing.

WEBBER: I want to clarify a couple, couple things. Geannette, when you called theAttorney General’s hotline, did you specifically mention a file or did, were youtalking generally if we have a request for a file that’s about to be expungedlegally do we have to save it or do we go ahead and destroy and respond?

WITTENDORF: I was speaking generally.

WEBBER: Okay, you never mentioned a specific file or a specific FOIA request at all?

WITTENDORF: No.

WEBBER: Okay. Um, when you were having that conversation were you relying on Markand the city, the chief and all the other people who were involved in creating theum, memorandum of understanding, were you assuming that they were doing, thatthat was a legal agreement that they were entered in to?

WITTENDORF: Of course.

WEBBER: So when you made the call to the Attorney General’s office, you did not thinkthere was any legal reason that Buscher’s file couldn’t be destroyed if that, uh,agreement was signed, or any of the other files on that list.

WITTENDORF: Right, other than any other legal reason such as a pending case or,

Page 748

IL13AA09938

WEBBER: And when you went through the list and checked off, you know, keep this one ordon’t keep that one, basically your approval to destroy meant, we don’t have anypending litigation that we need to keep these files for?


WEBBER: Did you ever look into local records act compliance before the destruction ofthose files was to have occurred?

WITTENDORF: No.

WEBBER: When you assumed Megans’ responsibilities, were you instructed that it wouldinclude compliant, checking compliance with the local records act?

WITTENDORF: No.

WEBBER: You knew you were doing FOIA responses though?

WITTENDORF: Yes.

WEBBER: Think that’s all I have.

GAFFNER: Alright, it is 3:59.

UNKNOWN: Um, you always have a general question, is there anything else? Anything elsethat we haven’t asked you that you, think we should know, or you want to say?

WITTENDORF: No.

GAFFNER: Okay, 4 o’clock.

Page 749


DII Investigators

Report ID: 523591






0 0 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 24, Interview of Mark Cullen

Person Interviewed : Mark K. CULLENDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Mark K. CULLENMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: WhiteDOB




No Photo

Page 750



Person Interviewed : Mark K. CULLENRESIDENCE INFORMATION



Cell Phone

NARRATIVE SECTIONThis investigative report reflects the interview of former Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen. The interview was conductedon February 20, 2014, at approximately 1:38 p.m., and took place at the law offices of Metnick, Cherry, Frazier, & Sabin,located at 1 West Old State Capitol Plaza, Suite 200, Springfield. The interview was conducted by Lieutenant Scott Gaffner#4222, and myself, Special Agent Randall Copsey #5908, of the Illinois State Police (ISP), Division of Internal Investigation(DII). Also present in the interview was ISP Legal Counsel John Hosteny. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013,the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation was requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate ProsecutorDirector, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a Springfield Police Department Case #2013-MR-394, involving the shreddingof police officers' internal investigative files on April 25, 2013. DII received information that Cullen was involved in theevents leading up to the shredding incident. Cullen was accompanied by his attorney Rick Frazier. At the beginning ofthe interview Cullen gave consent for the interview to be audio recorded, and the following information was provided byCullen, which is in summary, and not verbatim. The audio recording will be retained in the case file.

On August 1, 2011, Cullen was appointed as the City of Springfield Corporation Counsel by Mayor Michael Houston. Priorto that appointment, Cullen spent 20 years as an attorney for Sorling Northrup Law Offices. He later left his position ascorporation counsel on September 1, 2013.

As Corporation Counsel, Cullen was the chief attorney for the city, and oversaw the law department. This included staffattorneys, assistant corporation counsel, and support staff. Cullen was responsible for all legal affairs for the City ofSpringfield, and all of his attorneys and support staff reported to him. All legal affairs were handled primarily by sevenassistant corporation counsel, whom he met with once a week to review their work. Cullen was responsible for all of theiractions, opinions, and duties. Cullen said he expressed early on that he could not review their work daily and they neededto tell him what was important.

Assistant Corporation Counsel Megan Morgan was assigned as the police liaison to the Springfield Police Department,but later left for a position with the Secretary of State's Office. Her responsibilities were then divided among AssistantCorporation Counsel Geannette Wittendorf, Krista Appenzeller, Angela Fyans-Jimenez, and Jason Brokaw. Wittendorfhad worked for the city for approximately one year and handled primarily risk management, claims, and general litigationbefore asking to be given these additional responsibilities, which included Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Cullen discussed FOIA requests they were receiving for IA files with Wittendorf. The first request was from SpringfieldPolice Lieutenant Wendell Banks requesting an IA file for Deputy Chief Cliff Buscher. The investigation concerned anincident in Missouri, for which Buscher was ultimately charged, reprimanded and demoted. Within a week of that request,Calvin Christian submitted a request for the same file. Cullen did not remember specifically discussing the Buscherinvestigation with Wittendorf, but assumed he did. A short time later, Christian submitted a FOIA request for all IA files forthe City of Springfield. It was to be Wittendorf's job to review the requests, and determine how to respond. Bank's requestwas ultimately denied, as they viewed IA files as exempt under FOIA. This belief was based on previous research done

Page 751



NARRATIVE SECTIONby Morgan with previous requests. Wittendorf and Cullen also decided to deny Christian's requests for the same reason.Cullen was aware the city had recently lost a case in court after a request by Christian was denied for a different exemption.Cullen previously had a conversation with Morgan about the direction court cases were going, and that eventually moreinformation would need to be disclosed from IA files. Morgan spoke about making changes, including changes to theGeneral Order.

On April 23, 2013, Wittendorf advised Cullen that Springfield Police Chief Robert Williams wanted to sign a memorandumof understanding (MOU) between the department and Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA), to reduce theretention period of Internal Affairs (IA) files. This was the first Cullen learned of the MOU, but there had been discussion inthe past about reducing the retention time. The union wanted to reduce the retention time to three years, to be consistentwith the Personnel Records Review Act, but the chief was firm with five years. Chief Williams now wished to reduce theretention time to four years, and assigned SPD Deputy Chief Robert Markovic to draft the MOU. The MOU was draftedand forwarded to Wittendorf, who forwarded it to Cullen. After receiving the MOU from Wittendorf, Cullen asked her ifChief Williams had discussed the MOU with the mayor, wanted to know who was pushing the MOU forward, and why theyneeded it. Wittendorf did not know, and said she would speak to Chief Williams. On that same day, Cullen became awarethat Buscher's IA file was included in those now eligible for destruction.

On April 24 or 25, 2013, Cullen told Wittendorf to conduct research on how to deal with a file which had a pending FOIArequest, but was eligible for destruction. Cullen advised her to call the Attorney General's Office's public access (PAC)hotline. Cullen added that he was never focused on Buscher's IA file when he made the request. Wittendorf later advisedCullen the attorney with the PAC advised her to dispose of the records.

On April 24, 2013, Wittendorf advised Cullen that Chief Williams had not spoken with the mayor about the issue. Cullensaid that was not how things were done, and that Chief Williams needed to talk to the mayor, or Cullen would. Cullen hada meeting with the mayor every Monday and Thursday, and every director in the city knew that if Cullen knew anything,he would tell the mayor. When asked if it was explained why the reduction was requested, Cullen said he did not inquire,and assumed it was in response to the union's prior requests over the years. A few months before the MOU was created,Morgan and Springfield Labor Manager Stephanie Barton negotiated a contract with the PBPA, but Cullen was not involved.At the time, Cullen was informed of any significant issues with the negotiations, which he relayed to the mayor. He wasnot aware of the reduction period for retaining IA files being discussed during negotiations.

On April 25, 2013, at approximately 8 a.m., Wittendorf, Chief Williams, Buscher and possibly Springfield Police IALieutenant Chris Mueller, went to Cullen's office. Cullen was advised the MOU had been agreed upon and signed by thedepartment and PBPA. Cullen was surprised, and this was the first he learned of the signed MOU. Cullen asked ChiefWilliams what they received in return from the PBPA, but was not provided a coherent answer. During the meeting, MayoralExecutive Assistant Willis Logan entered the room, and Cullen asked Chief Williams to explain the signed MOU to Logan.Cullen was asked when the MOU became effective, and when would they act upon the reduced retention period. Cullen saidthe MOU was effective once it was signed, and created an obligation for the city to follow through with what was agreedupon. Wittendorf was responsible for reviewing IA files, and determining if they would be retained or destroyed. Cullenwas never involved in the destruction of IA files, as it was handled by the police liaison corporation counsel, and Cullendid not know when Wittendorf reviewed the eligible files. Mueller prepared a memo indicating which files were eligible fordestruction, and Wittendorf decided which files needed to be retained. Cullen did not know if she had any other role in theprocess. Once Wittendorf signed off on the list of IA files to be destroyed, this provided authority for disposal. Cullen saidthey did not discuss any specific file from the list of eligible files, including Buscher's IA file.

Page 752



NARRATIVE SECTIONOn April 25, Mueller spoke with Cullen and expressed his concern about destroying the IA files. Mueller received an orderfrom Chief Williams, but wanted the legal department to confirm the MOU was effective immediately. Wittendorf thenexplained the law, and what she had learned from her research. Cullen made his decision based on Wittendorf's research,and the Personnel Records Review Act which indicated records could not be released to third parties after three years.Cullen also received an email from Mueller, attempting to verify that the MOU was effective, and the documents were to bedestroyed. Cullen responded that based on the execution of the MOU, the destruction of files was to occur immediately.Cullen did not mean the documents needed to be shredded immediately, but the process was to be started. Cullen wasconcerned that if they did not follow the MOU, they would face an Unfair Labor Practice charge. He denied making acomment that they were not doing anything wrong, after being asked if they should destroy Buscher's file. Cullen wouldhave said they must treat all files the same, and not treat Buscher's file any differently.

On April 26, 2013, Cullen believed he first learned that the files were destroyed, after Wittendorf reported to him that thedocuments were shredded, and she was going to respond to Christian's FOIA request that they no longer had the records.Cullen said he did not speak to the mayor about the shredding of documents, or reduction in retention time, until April29, 2013, because the mayor was out of town.

Cullen was familiar with the Local Records Act, but was not aware of the record keeping portion of it until after theshredding incident occurred. He also discovered after the documents were shredded that there were inconsistencies withthe established destruction process, as it related to the the Local Records Act. He said the Local Records Act did addressIA files, but only those in electronic form. He was also not aware of any discussions with Wittendorf, Mueller, or SpringfieldPolice Records Manager Donna Brown about disposal certificates.

Cullen said neither Wittendorf, Buscher, nor Chief Williams expressed concern over Buscher's IA file being shredded, andhe did not understand why people believed the shredding was done only to destroy Buscher's file, because the incidentinvolving Buscher was reported in the media and was "old news." Cullen said there was an allegation that he and ChiefWilliams were in a dispute because the chief did not want to destroy the files, and Logan had to referee. Cullen said thatwas untrue, and Chief Williams did not have to sign the MOU. He also believed Barton should have been included in thewhole process. He previously told Morgan, Wittendorf, and several directors throughout the city that Barton was to beincluded in everything related to the collective bargaining agreement. Cullen believed that Barton was intentionally left outof the MOU process, because she would not have approved the MOU. Cullen had nothing further to add, and the interviewwas concluded at approximately 3:41 p.m. A transcript of this interview is attached to this report (see attachment #1)

Attachment:

1. Transcript, consisting of 46 pages.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : TransFile Name : Cullen Trans 2.pdf

Page 753

Interview of Mark Cullen

February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Well today is uh, February 20th, 2014, it’s about 1:38 p.m. Uh, we are actually at thelaw offices,

HOSTENY: .....

GAFFNER: There you go, uh, my name is Lieutenant Scott Gaffner with the Illinois State Police.Along with us,

HOSTENY: John Hosteny

COPSEY: Special Agent Randall Copsey

GAFFNER: And also Mark uh, I know you’re aware that this is being audio recorded, is that okayif we have consent to do that?

CULLEN: Yes, you have my consent.

GAFFNER: And also Mark, you have your legal representation here today too?

CULLEN: Yes

FRASER: Rick Fraser

GAFFNER: Okay. Uh, and Mark if I could get, is your date of birth 9/27/62?

CULLEN: That’s correct.

GAFFNER: Okay, what current address would you use?

CULLEN:

GAFFNER: What would be a good phone number?

CULLEN: Uh,

GAFFNER: That your home?

CULLEN: Uh, it’s a cell.

GAFFNER: Cell?

Page 754


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: Yes. I don’t have a land line.

FRASER: I would prefer any contact with Mr. Cullen of course be through his counsel versesdirectly to him after this meeting.

GAFFNER: And also, um, what I’m gonna do is direct you back Mark to uh, take us back towhenever you started working for Springfield city. And if you want to give us a littlehistory even prior to that, where you were, prior to that, but just go ahead and startme in Springfield city because I’m not sure how long ....

CULLEN: Okay. Uh, I started uh, with the city, uh August 1, 2011. Uh, I was appointed byMayor Houston and confirmed by city counsel. Uh, prior to that I had worked for20 years, uh, as a uh, attorney and share holder and director of Sorling Northrup LawOffices, here in Springfield.

GAFFNER: How do you spell that?

CULLEN: Uh, Sorling, S-O-R-L-I-N-G, uh, Northrup, –O-R-T-H-R-U-P Law Offices. Uh, Iworked there for about 20 years. Uh, prior to that, I worked for the First NationalBank of Chicago up in Chicago.

GAFFNER: And, when did uh, when did you end working with Springfield city?

CULLEN: Uh, September 1, 2013.

GAFFNER: Okay. And we’ll probably come back to that here in a little bit. Whenever you wereuh, hired on with Springfield city, what was your title and what was your main dutiesand responsibilities with the city?

CULLEN: Uh, I was hired as corporation counsel. Uh, that is the chief attorney for the city ofSpringfield. I oversaw the law department, including the staff attorneys, assistantcorporation counsels, as well as support staff. And I was responsible for all legalaffairs for the city of Springfield.

GAFFNER: Okay. And in being a chief attorney, um, you were the person I guess that would beresponsible, and, in your corporation counsel, there, your assistants would be calledassistant corporation counsel, is that what they ...


Page 755


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: So everybody underneath you basically, you were responsible for them to ensure thatthey were doing what they were doing what they suppose to do?

CULLEN: Correct, I was the supervisor. They were direct reports, all the attorneys, or uh, weredirect reports to me. Uh, I also have support staff uh, in the office, that reported tome. Uh, all of the legal affairs were handled principally by the assistant corporationcounsels. Uh, I would meet with them, review their work, uh, supervise theiractivities, uh, but ultimately uh, they were handling most all of the matters. Uh, mostof my functioning was administrative and supervisor functions. Um, I tell people Ididn’t do any legal work, everybody else did. Uh, but they all reported to me and Iwas responsible for all their actions, opinions and, and uh, duties as assistantcorporation counsels.

GAFFNER: So at the time, who was below you, as far as your assistants?

CULLEN: Uh, I had,

GAFFNER: How many were, how many were there?.

CULLEN: I had seven.

GAFFNER: Okay.

CULLEN: Um, Angela ..., Megan Morgan, uh, when I started Lucritia Pitts, uh, Linda O’Brien,Steve Ron, and uh, Krista Appenzellar were, were the attorneys. There were six ofthem. Uh, ultimately I got approval to hire a seventh.

GAFFNER: And they would not only deal with Springfield city police department issues, they’dalso deal with ...

CULLEN: Every issue across the city. Code enforcement, employment, uh, personnel matters,uh, real estate transactions, uh, uh, litigation, uh, all uh claims, risk management, uh,workers compensation, um, uh, licensing, business licensing, was underneathcorporation counsel’s office.

GAFFNER: Okay, and in particular uh, I guess when you first started back, who was responsiblefor the Springfield city police department?

CULLEN: For police department, Megan Morgan was uh, called the police liaison. Was not anofficial title, she was assistant corporation counsel uh, but, ... we referred to her as

Page 756


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

the police liaison. She was in that position I can’t tell you how long uh, she was inthat position, but, she, she had been in that position for some time before I came.

GAFFNER: Okay. And at some point in time, then she was, she left that position and somebodyelse took her place?

CULLEN: Correct. She, she left for a position with, I believe was the Secretary of State’soffice, uh, doing internal investigations. And at that time, uh, I spoke with the policechief about how we were going to handle things, and I was going to divide up herresponsibilities among several different attorneys. Uh, in the same respect that wedivide up every department in the city. No, no one has a particular attorney who’sresponsible for a city department. They’re responsible for certain activities, and, anduh, so, for any given department, one of several attorneys might be involved,depending on the actual legal matter.

GAFFNER: So, when she left, um, you didn’t have somebody specifically designed or is thatdesignated for Springfield city or?

CULLEN: Correct. What I, what I did was, I had three different attorneys who took on uh, thenMegan Morgan’s responsibilities.

GAFFNER: Okay. Who would that have been?

CULLEN: Uh, Geanette Wittendorf, uh, uh, Krista Appenzellar, and uh, Jason Brokow.

GAFFNER: How do you spell Krista’s last name?

CULLEN: A-P-P-E-N-Z-E-L-L-A-R, I believe, Appenzellar. I think that’s correct.

GAFFNER: And whenever you divided the ... these up, did you, did they have now a I guess aclear set of defined roles that they had, or was it just verbal?

CULLEN: To be honest, no. It was not well defined because we were changing things, uh,pretty dramatically. And so, we were kind of going along on a day to day basis totry to, to try to see how that would work. Uh, conceptually what, what I’d brokenit down into was, um, Megan’s, one of Megan’s responsibilities was FOIA and so,Jason Brokow and um, Geanette Wittendorf were going to take on FOIAresponsibilities. Uh, she also did legal updates which principally were cases orstatutes that would have been uh, applicable to the Springfield police department.And I had designated Krista to do some of that, some of the training and that because

Page 757


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

of her background. And then there were kind of the, more of the police operations,um, answer the day to day calls. Uh, when officers had issues, things like that.Those were gonna be handled by Geanette Wittendorf. And then uh, in terms ofemployment, and I should have said this before, in terms of employment personnelmatters, those are gonna be handled by Angela Fyans-Jimenez, uh, who was our cityemployment, uh, attorney.

GAFFNER: So basically it was split in...

CULLEN: It was really split into four, and I, and hadn’t thought through the employment partof it. Uh, rather than having the police, uh, you know a police liaison do that, I wasgoing to have our city employee, employment attorney do those responsibilities.

GAFFNER: You say that was Stephanie Barton?

CULLEN: No, Angela, Angela Fyans-Jimenez. Yeah, Stephanie Barton was labor relationsmanager. Uh, she was not ever uh, authorized to actual, actually represent the cityin any legal matters. She’s a licensed attorney, but uh, her responsibilities were tobe limited to labor relations manager, uh, as opposed to acting as an assistantcorporation counsel.

GAFFNER: Okay, so when these, when these uh, duties were split up after Megan left, um, itwasn’t written out what they were suppose to do, but they should have known prettywell what their areas, content areas would have been?

CULLEN: They did know, uh, but we did have some give and take because as things came up,we had to kind of manage, who might do this where is it applicable, uh, if somebodywasn’t comfortable, didn’t have an experience or, or was not capable of doing thatkind of work, we would talk about it. Uh, but I think, yes I had sat with all of them,I talked through what my expectation was and what my idea was behind dividing itout that way. And essentially what I, what I told them was the same thing as I talkedto police chief, I was going to handle it like every other department in the city. Uh,no other department had a dedicated attorney, and, and because of the uh, staffingand resources that we had, we needed, we needed to spread it out so that peoplewould do work across their technical expertise rather than do everything for aparticular department.

GAFFNER: Whenever Geanette was hired on after Megan left, did you hire her or how did she...

Page 758


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: I did hire her, but she had been, she had been with the city about a year beforeMegan left. And I hired her actually to take the place of Lucritia Pitts, who didprimarily risk management and claims, uh, general litigation for the city. And that’swhat I hired Geanette to do, and what she did all along up until I assigned her theadditional responsibilities. At the time I told her I could not afford to lose her andher expertise in handling the claims and risk management side of it. So, yes, I wasgoing to add some responsibilities to her, but I was going to still expect her to do thatfunction at the same time, which is again, tying back to uh, I was not going toappoint an attorney to be just the police liaison as we had in the past.

GAFFNER: Is there any reason why you selected Geanette for some of those duties? Did shehave a background in FOIA or anything?

CULLEN: She, she uh, had I believe eight or nine years as State’s Attorney, Assistant State’sAttorney, in both uh, Macon and uh, what’s Rockford, uh, no, it wasn’t Rockford,Winnebago County I think, is where, but she had done stints an Assistant State’sAttorney in a couple of those, couple of those areas, so she did have a goodfamiliarity ... criminal justice system. And, oh, and I’m sorry, you asked why did Iappoint her, she asked. She, she knew obviously of Megan leaving, uh, knew andexpressed a real desire to take on some of those responsibilities. And so again, thatlead me to the conclusion that we ought to divide up responsibilities because I stillneeded her to do what I hired her for, which was the uh, litigation and uh, claimsmanagement.

GAFFNER: Um, so if I’m understanding correctly then, all these attorney did these differentfunctions when they’re dealing with issues, how often do they come to you and letyou know what they are doing?

CULLEN: Pretty much every day. Uh, you know, for an office that size, at uh most we haveseven attorneys. And I would see almost all of them every day. Usually about aparticular matter or particular question that they were working on. Uh, I told themearly on, you know, I can’t look over your shoulder every day all day, so I gotta relyon you to tell me what’s important. You got to let me know what’s going on and,and what you need help with. I try to encourage a more collegial environment wherethey and I know that they talk with each other quite a bit about different problems.Uh, bounce ideas off of whatever particular legal topic we needed to address.

GAFFNER: Let’s take you back to um, I know April 25th, is the time frame we’re kind of lookingat, when this shredding incident occurred. Uh, an actually, one thing I didn’t hit on,from the very beginning, and I, I know you have your legal counsel here with you,

Page 759


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

and I didn’t probably clarify this either, we, we of course, we don’t do administrativeinterviews for the city of Springfield. We’re the State Police, we do anything whenwe’re called in to, it be criminal in nature, when we’re looking at interviews. So,you know, I know you have your legal counsel here, I know you volunteered to cometalk to us, you know your rights are still applicable, in this situation here. Any pointin time you don’t feel comfortable talk to us, that’s fine. But we would like to getyour side of kind of how this transpired.

CULLEN: I came here, not only do I want to be cooperative, but I’ll be honest, I want to beexonerated. I’m tired of being vilified by the media, by alderman, by anybody elsewho thinks they know anything, and they don’t. As, as obviously John knows I haveuh, ethical obligations so I’ve just sat here and had to take it and I’m tired of it. Andso I uh, I actually encourage the mayor. I wrote the first draft of the first lettersending the matter out to get investigated. Not the least of which is cause I try to dothat and did do that for a short period of time after all this happened. Uh, uncoveredwhat I could, but I readily admit, I’m not an investigator. I don’t know how to dothose things, I just know how to uncover the facts, sift through everything and try tofigure out exactly what had happened.

GAFFNER: So we kind of transitioned back to the main thrust of what we’re gonna talk about is,is the incident involved, involving the shredding of police documents. This occurredfinally on April the 25th, but I want to go back, um, if you can, tell me when did thisfirst come up and what prompted even the discussion to start on whether you wouldlook at shredding internal files, reducing the time period from five to four years,when did all this start to transpire?

CULLEN: Um, April 25 was a Thursday, which I remember cause it’s ingrained in my brain.On Tuesday the 23rd, was the first time I became aware of anything relating to itbecause the uh, assistant, Geanette Wittendorf came in and told me that the policechief wanted to sign an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, with the PBPA, thePolice Benevolent, for the purpose of reducing the holding period that we wouldretain internal affairs files.

HOSTENY: What day was that, I’m sorry.

CULLEN: That was Tuesday the 23rd, and I think I remember that very accurately, but I will begindulgences as to knowing for certain, but I’m, I have high degree confidence. Uh,but Tuesday the 23rd was when I first became aware of the that there was an MOU.Um, there had been, there had been discussions before about that retention period,and this predates any dis-, any discussion about the MOU that was in place. But all

Page 760


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

that I became aware was that the police chief had decided after quite frankly a longtime of holding firm at five years, that he wanted to reduce it to four years. Heassigned that to Deputy Chief Bob Markovick, to actually prepare the form of theMOU. They gave that to Geanette and she forwarded it to me, on, on that Tuesday.

GAFFNER: Were you aware, what, what was the push, what was the push in the reduction thistime period?

CULLEN: I’m sorry.

GAFFNER: So what,

CULLEN: I apologize, I meant to put it on vibrate. I’m sorry.

GAFFNER: What kind of push, what kind of push forward the whole MOU thing in the fistplace? You were saying the chief did it.

CULLEN: Right.

GAFFNER: Was there any, do you have any understanding why?

CULLEN: No, I don’t. I la-, well, I’ll ask you this, at the time, on April 23, it was a surprise tome, because he had not talked to me and I had not talked with, uh, him or anyoneelse about internal affairs files. About the retention period for the internal affairsfiles. The only discussions we had had, uh internally, and this was with primarilywith Geanette, was that we were getting FOIA request for all these IA files.

GAFFNER: When did you become aware about some FOIAs coming in on IA files?

CULLEN: Would have been the week be-, the week before there were two specific ones.

GAFFNER: Do you remember what they were?

CULLEN: Yeah, one was a FOIA request from Lieutenant Banks. I, I apologize, I don’t, I don’tremember his name. It’s either Kurt or Wendell and he goes by the other, and I justcan’t remember which is which. I just always say Lieutenant Banks. Um, but he hadfiled a FOIA request specifically for Cliff Buscher’s IA file, from, I can’t rememberexactly how he framed that FOIA request, but it was a specific FOIA request for theCliff Buscher file that related to the incident down in uh, uh, Missouri, when uh, theCliff, when uh, uh, Cliff was ultimately reprimanded and uh, demoted for the

Page 761


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

activity. And he filed, Lieutenant Banks filed a request and for that specific IA file.And at the time, and I can’t remember whether it was still Megan Morgan in theposition or if Geanette had assumed those responsibilities at that point. Uh, but thatwas the first uh, FOIA request that really directed toward internal affairs file. Andbecause it was by a member of the command staff to, or about another member of thecommand staff, they, they uh, uh, again, I think it was Geanette let me know that wereceived that FOIA request. And to me, that was a significant, it’s always significantwhen you uh, get one member of command staff talking about another member ofcommand staff. Um, shortly after that, and I will say within a week after thatrequest, we got a request from Calvin Christian. It was notable only because CalvinChristian in, in the first part of 2013, when I was still corporation counsel, submittedno less than 50 FOIA request. That’s five zero in case, in case it’s not uh, clear onthe recording. Uh, 50 FOIA request, so yes, I would often be told, Calvin submittedanother one. Uh, and what it was about. This one came to my attention specificallybecause it was exactly the same request as Lieutenant Banks, not too far later, youknow, within a week or so, after that. Um, then shortly after that request, Calvinsubmitted another request that was for every internal affairs file of the city ofSpringfield. And those, that now was going to become a huge project for the legaldepartment, because the legal department had specifically, would have been GeanetteWittendorf, would have been reviewing the FOIA request to determine what, ifanything, we were gonna respond with on that request. Uh, those, those items wereuh, were pending and what then uh, was followed up with this MOU, the, the draftMOU that Geanette gave to me.

GAFFNER: So whenever they came in, she advised you of these ... FOIA, uh, did you make therecommendation on what to respond back to the FOIA with?

CULLEN: No, no, that was her, that was her prerogative,

GAFFNER: ...Geanette, okay.

CULLEN: Correct. Uh, she was responsible for it. She came in and talked tome about, aboutmost of them because she was still, uh, trying to ... into those job functions. So shedid come in and talk to me. Uh, I, I don’t remember specifically, and I am gonnaclarify, I, I do believe that Megan Morgan responded on Lieutenant Banks’ requestbecause I remember her telling me she was gonna respond. She was gonna deny therequest. She was gonna give him a copy of his statement, uh, but not pursuant toFOIA, pursuant to the uh, uh, officer’s bill of rights act that entitles an officer to acopy of his or her statement when they, uh, uh, in an internal affairs investigation.So, uh, she did respond to that. Uh, when the, when Calvin Christian’s request came

Page 762


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

up, I am certain that Geanette talked to me about how she was gonna respondbecause it would have been, she would have patterned that response after whatMegan Morgan had done with Lieutenant Banks’ request. And similarly when thethird request, the second request from Calvin Kirsten came in for every file, wetalked about what response we were gonna make to that.

GAFFNER: What did you guys come up with?

CULLEN: We were not going to provide any, uh, in both of those cases, similar to LieutenantBanks, we were viewing internal files as exempt under FOIA.

GAFFNER: And how did you come up with that conclusion?

CULLEN: That was uh, based on actual, actually goes back for a couple of years. I had beentalking with Megan Morgan about internal affairs files, FOIA requests. We hadgotten other FOIA request for other internal affairs files and the like, and she haddone a lot of research on FOIA, the exemptions that were applicable, and that wasbased on her research that she said, this is, this is the way we need to respond to it,and, and, I certainly, I don’t, I can’t tell you that I told her specifically yes go aheadand do that or, or, what, but I certainly was aware of it, and I certainly approved ofthe way that she had been responding to those request, and, and the fact that Geanettewas going to uh ... those same kinds of responses, was consistent with what the citylegal had, had been doing before.

GAFFNER: Had, um, had the city had some recent, uh, litigation in reference to uh, AI files thatthey had just recently lost? Actually ...

CULLEN: Correct. We actually had two different cases that Calvin Christian had filed. We hadone that was, that was lost, and it was on the basis of a different exemption. And I’llapologize in advance, I cannot remember, uh, exactly how it goes. I, I , I know thatthere are a lot of records with it, but she had not utilized one exemption. She hadrelied on something else. The court had specifically determined that the exemptionsshe relied on was not sufficient to withhold an IA file, but because it had not beenclaimed, reserved judgement as to other exemptions that might be applicable underFOIA. And her, in her research she said this second exemption is what we need touh, use as the basis for not producing any internal affairs files per, pursuant to FOIArequests.

GAFFNER: Did Megan Morgan, at any time before she left, indicate to you though, from losingeither one or both of these cases that had been presented against the city, the fact that

Page 763


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

the city was probably gonna have to actually change the protocol and start releasingpretty well all documents that are being requested, was that a conversation that evertook place?

CULLEN: I don’t recall her saying all documents. But yes, we talked about the state of the lawbeing in the flux and changing, and that there certainly was a direction that uh, courtcases were going that were gonna require disclosure of more information out of theinternal affairs files. And yea, we talked about uh, that there might be a possibilityin the future of us having to go through and redact, uh, information out of internalaffairs files before we produce them.

GAFFNER: Was it, was she working on or did you provide her uh, guidance to work on um,some, some kind of either documentation or some type of parameters in which thecity would need to start to respond according to the release of documents, or howthat would look?

CULLEN: Honestly, I don’t remember guiding her specifically or directing her on somethinglike that. Uh, but she was very much a self starter and if she had an idea and thoughtit was something there, uh, I considered her having very well thought out opinionsand ideas, and I would have given her cart blanc to proceed. Um, I don’t recall if atthe time she was working on anything in particular. Um, but at the same time itwouldn’t surprise me that she was having a lot of discussions among the commandstaff an, and talking to them. She met with well, my, my understanding is she, fromwhat she told me, she met with the chief almost every day. She met with commandstaff constantly. Uh, she was in their offices. And so I, I wouldn’t be surprised thatyes, she was, she would have been working on something to try to figure out how wewere gonna proceed with it.

HOSTENY: There was a general order on that.

CULLEN: Um hum. Yes.

HOSTENY: Was she working on a change to the general order?

CULLEN: She talked about that. And she talked about a need for doing some changes. Um,it’s the same, it’s the same general order and this is a tangent I know, but um, peoplehave asked me, you know why, why was this even applicable to Cliff Buscher’s file.The general order I think that you are referring to covered all internal affairs file andwas for all sworn officers, not just uh, collective bargaining unit members. And, anduh, we had talked about that, and about a need to change it. I don’t know, whether,

Page 764


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

to what extent she had done any work on that.

GAFFNER: Whenever Geanette had been discussing the Calvin Christian FOIA request comingin with you, and you guys were trying to determine how to respond back to them,what was the plan?

CULLEN: The only plan I was aware of was, was again, continuing to deny them on the basisof FOIA exemptions.

GAFFNER: Okay.

CULLEN: Up until the point that again, uh, that the police chief said he was now going to beamendable to reducing the time period that we would retain those files.

GAFFNER: Was there any discussion or concern that either from one of these cases we’re talkingabout or maybe a different case, to where it felt the IA files uh, were kind of leftvenerable to be able to viewed by anybody, and this was the way of maybe doing,changing that, was reduce that time period down from the five to four years. Or,was...

CULLEN: I didn’t I wasn’t part of that. I don’t remember that discussion. Um, we, we talked,I know that Megan and I had a meeting with the chief with uh, uh, Don Edwards,who’s the president of the union, and um, Ron Stone, who was the uh, union’sattorney. Far before this had ever come up, I want to say even before they negotiatedthe collective bargaining agreement, and, and the substance of that was, you know,again, we’re getting, we’re getting FOIA request uh, we wanted to work with theunion because any change in the general order was certainly could be viewed asaffecting the terms and condition of employment, and so we’re obligated to negotiatethat in good faith with the union, uh, to the extent there’s any change in, in, again,the terms and conditions of employment.

GAFFNER: Okay, and I just want to make sure I understand you correctly too, you’re saying,Tuesday, April the 23rd, was the first time you became aware of this MOU thatMegan, or that Geanette Wittendorf provided you to look at. Which reduced thattime period down from the five to the four years. And prior to that, you had not hadany meetings with anybody else, uh, to have discussions about, about the MOU inparticular?

CULLEN: Oh I, absolutely not. I didn’t have any discussions with anybody about the MOU.Um, the first time I learned of it was when Geanette brought it to me. Actually, I

Page 765


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

think she emailed it to me, now that I say that. But no, I had not had anyconversations with anybody about an MOU. I do know that in the past, the unionhad often brought up the idea of reducing that period. They wanted it reduced downto three years, which I think was to be consistent with the personnel records reviewact. Um, but that, I wasn’t part of those discussions. I just know that I was told that,that was a recurring theme from, from the union was to try to reduce that period thatwe would retain files.

GAFFNER: Okay, so April 23rd, you see an MOU that Geanette provides you reduces the timeperiod uh, of IA files from four to three years, and what happens then?

CULLEN: Well I, that’s, that’s when I asked her specifically whether the police chief had anydiscussions with the mayor about it, where this was coming from, what the reasonfor it was,

GAFFNER: You asked,

CULLEN: All that,

GAFFNER: You asked this to Geanette?

CULLEN: That was all with Geanette, yeah. My, my only discussions about the MOU werewith Geanette.

GAFFNER: Now is in writing or verbal?

CULLEN: I don’t remember anything in writing. I think it was all verbal.

GAFFNER: What’d she say?

CULLEN: She said that, at first she said she was gonna check with the chief. Uh, sheeventually reported to me that the chief had not talked with the mayor about it andI said that, that’s not the way we do things. We’re, you know, he needs to talk to themayor.

GAFFNER: When you said eventually, when’s this?

CULLEN: Probably the next day...

GAFFNER: So...

Page 766


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: Probably Wednesday.

GAFFNER: This is before the shredding then?

CULLEN: Correct.

GAFFNER: So,

CULLEN: Correct. Yeah, I, I specifically told her that the chief needed to have a discussionwith the mayor about the situation. Uh, because I knew what the mayor’s reactionwas gonna be.

GAFFNER: So when she, you to-, she told you the mayor was not advised, you told her he needsto be advised of it?

CULLEN: Correct.

GAFFNER: Are you telling her to advise him or was that, were you advising?

CULLEN: No, I was telling her to tell the chief, that he needed, the chief needed to get in andtalk to the mayor. I also said if the chief doesn’t, then I am gonna talk to the mayor,and I have, at the time I had two regularly scheduled meetings the mayor every week,Monday and Thursday afternoons. And um, I told every director in the city, I toldrepeatedly, uh, everything that I know, I’m gonna go and talk to the mayor. That’sthe way I go.

GAFFNER: So you’re saying then the Tuesday of that same week, you would have not told themayor because you didn’t know about it until,

CULLEN: Correct.

GAFFNER: Actually, what was the 23rd?

CULLEN: 23rd’s I think a Tuesday.

GAFFNER: Tuesday,

HOSTENY: ...what were the two days that you had regular meetings with the mayor?

CULLEN: Monday and,

Page 767


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Oh Monday,

CULLEN: And Thursday

HOSTENY: Afternoon?

CULLEN: Correct, correct. And, and so I said, you know, the chief needs to talk to the mayor,and other, otherwise, I’m ta-, I said, the chief needs to talk to the mayor, period. Andum, I had had a number of discussions with the mayor because the chief wouldn’t goin and talk to the mayor, and invariably I was the one going in to talk to the mayor.I said, if uh, uh, without a doubt, I’m gonna go in and tell the mayor because I’ve gotthe meeting scheduled with him, but I said the chief needs to talk to him and explainto the mayor why it is that they want to reduce the holding period.

GAFFNER: So had you been explained the reason why they wanted to reduce it? I mean, wereyou familiar then after she told you...MOU and you, you felt ... comfortable with itor what, what was your thoughts on it?

CULLEN: No, I didn’t inquire as to why, um, because I, I assumed that it was in response to,uh, the union’s consistent uh, request and work to try to reduce that period.

HOSTENY: Over years right?

CULLEN: Correct.

HOSTENY: Yeah.

GAFFNER: Were you involved in the negotiations with the PBPA?

CULLEN: No, not, no not the ones and I can’t remember when they concluded it, but they wereuh, in the few months before, all of this happened, they were negotiating, I was notinvolved in that. Uh, Megan Morgan represented the legal department and StephanieBarton, uh, was actually managing that was, uh, labor relations manager, uh, jobfunctions.

GAFFNER: But you were in your position at the time whenever they negotiated there?

CULLEN: I was, yes.

GAFFNER: They don’t come to you and tell, kind of premise?

Page 768


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: Oh, they talked to me about things that were going on because, uh, betweenStephanie, I, I was meeting with Stephanie weekly, uh, along with two otherattorneys in the uh, in the legal department. Um, primarily to keep on top ofeverything that was happening. She, she had at any time, uh, probably four or fivebargaining agreements that were in process. So I was meeting with her weekly. Um,Megan’s office was, two down from me. My office, I had a division manager andthen, uh, who was a support personnel, and then I had Megans office. She was in myoffice, again, maybe not every day, but about every day, talking about differentthings. Uh, maybe specific things that were going on in the negotiation, other police,uh, police department activities, that kind of thing. So, I was, I was definitely abreastof it, I also took that information and conveyed that to the mayor, again, at ourregularly scheduled meetings. So, I, I was aware of, I would say the significantissues that were being negotiated out of the contract. I certainly was not aware ofevery issue that was going on in the contract.

GAFFNER: So, whenever they first come together, they put their wish list together, would yoube aware of that?

CULLEN: No.

GAFFNER: Okay. When you met with the mayor then on your weekly meetings, on Mondaysand Thursdays, do you have an itinerary that you talk to him about? Or is there notestaken at the time, or is there any documentation of your meeting with him?

CULLEN: No. I, I always handle the list of four or five items. You know, I had, he alwaysrelied on me to come up with a list of what we were gonna talk about and thosemeetings would take, uh, typically 30 to 45 minutes, depending on what all we hadto talk about. Sometimes a lot longer, sometimes, sometimes even we’d say, youknow, we don’t need to meet. We, I don’t really have anything to discuss. Um, Ididn’t put together an agenda, but I did certainly itemize at least three or four or fivethings that I needed to go through with him about.

GAFFNER: Anybody else in the meetings besides you and the mayor?

CULLEN: Yes, uh, always, well I shouldn’t say always. Was always scheduled to include, uh,Bill Logan, who’s executive assistant and Nathan Malach, who’s thecommunications director.

GAFFNER: Is...

Page 769


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: We were considered the mayor’s, I guess, we were all in the mayors office in thebureaucracy of the city, we were all considered in the mayors office and we were uh,the policy making individuals I guess for the mayors office.

GAFFNER: Did anybody keep track of what’s discussed in those meetings? Take records?

CULLEN: Not the, no, not,

GAFFNER: Or do you ever follow up with emails saying, per our previous meeting, here’s whatwas discussed, bla-bla-bla?

CULLEN: I, we, we flew emails back and forth a lot, um, I, it would have been in response towhatever tops were going on. I think I can say pretty definitively it never wouldhave been said, based on the meeting we just had. But it would have said, I wouldhave said, you know, on this matter here’s, here’s something going on, um, we dida lot of that. Uh, at the same time, you know, I saw the mayor most every day. Andif there was something really important, I would, my office was right next to his, I’dgo right over there and say, you know, can I see the mayor for five minutes, youknow, is the mayor busy doing anything right now and I could, I could give himsomething very quickly. Uh, so it was a combination of, of uh, emails, I, I, Iremember doing a couple memos, uh, about different topics, but it was primarilygonna be our weekly staff meetings and, and uh, I looked for ultimately gettingdirection from him.

GAFFNER: So the 23rd you received this MOU from Geanette Wittendorf, you advised her sheneeds to tell Williams to advise the mayor what’s going on here. Then what happensafter that?

CULLEN: Uh, the next thing I was aware of was, uh, we, on Thursday morning they all camein my office, and they all were uh, the chief, Geanette, uh, I believe Cliff Buscherwas there, and uh, possibly Lieutenant Mueller. Uh, I know he was in my office thatday, uh, I can’t remember exact time frame, but early, I’m gonna say about 8 o’clock,uh, they came into my office and said uh, we gotta talk to you about this. And theytold me that the MOU had been signed. And again, they, I don’t rememberspecifically who said it, it was probably the chief, but it may have also been Geanettewho told me the MOU had been signed.

HOSTENY: Who else ... besides Geanette and the chief?

CULLEN: Uh, I know uh, Cliff Buscher, but I can’t remember, uh, if Lieutenant Mueller, I

Page 770


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

don’t know that he was in there at the start. He was in my office at some point thatmorning talking about, talking about this, uh, MOU, but I can’t remember exactlywhat uh, time he might have showed up. Um, but that’s the first point I knew thatthe MOU’d been signed, and that came as a surprise to me. And one of my firstquestions was, Chief, what do we get for it? You know we reduced the retentionperiod, what do we get? Uh, and I never got a real firm answer about exactly whatdo we get. Um, after uh, after that meeting had started, uh, Bill Logan came in myoffice, uh, because every morning Bill Logan came into my office between about8:30 and 9 o’clock, and say hi and uh, talk about what we thought was on tap for theday, and what we might need to get done for the day. And at that point I said Logan,you need to sit down and hear what, what we’re all talking about. And, and uh, hadthe chief repeat what we were talking about with the MOU.

GAFFNER: Then what happened?

CULLEN: The, well the first thing, the first thing they started asking me is, when does thisbecome affective. I said well, it’s affective when you sign it. Um,

GAFFNER: Who’s, who’s they? You say they were asking you.

CULLEN: Uh, it would have principally the chief. And that, that was what they want, whatthey then wanted to know is what, what do we do now. Well, you sign the MOU.Um, that creates an obligation on the city’s part then to follow through with what’sin the MOU, and that was to review, you know, I then turned it back over toGeanette, and she, she had the responsibility for, uh reviewing the files. This wassomething that on, on a regular basis, um, Megan before her and then Geanette,would review those files in internal affairs to determine whether or not they neededto be expunged and destroyed or, or retained.

GAFFNER: What’s your definition of expunged?

CULLEN: Uh, just, deleting everything. Shredding the hard copy, uh, destroying any electronicrecords.

GAFFNER: Okay, complete destroy of records.

CULLEN: Correct.

GAFFNER: What day, whenever they came in your office, 8 a.m. that day, that morning, whatday was this?

Page 771


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: That would have been Thursday morning.

GAFFNER: Thursday, the 25th?

CULLEN: Correct.

GAFFNER: Okay. So chief primarily asked when does it become affective and you’re tellinghim well it should become affective now. Um,

CULLEN: Right. I, I think I would have said something like, we don’t have a choice. We nowhave to abide by the terms. Um, the, uh, policeman’s benevolent was alwaysproactive about enforcing the terms of the agreement and I said, we, we need to startthat process, that we, we now have an obligation and, we need to look at it.

GAFFNER: When did you become aware that Cliff Buscher’s files was in among these files thatwe’re talking about, that got reduced from the five to four year period?

CULLEN: Um, I probably knew that on Tuesday when, when uh, I got a copy of the MOU.

GAFFNER: Was there any discussion about that?

CULLEN: About that particular file?

GAFFNER: Yes.

CULLEN: I don’t remember any discussion about any particular file. Uh, what I, what Iremember talking about was, we now have a bunch of files that are between four andfive years old. They now have to be reviewed. That was gonna be Geanette, sheneeded to review them. She needed to go through that process, and, and we, therewas a process that was set out. Uh, I don’t know the whole process but I know thatMegan had a specific process and that she had trained Geanette so that Geanettewould be aware of what the process was now for uh, reviewing and determining whatfiles to be destroyed and what files uh, should be retained.

GAFFNER: So you’re saying, you became aware of Buscher’s file being part of that ... Tuesday,the 23rd, but you never had any discussion or nobody brought this to your attentionspecifically talking about the Buscher file and having concerns with the Buscher filebeing in there, to be destroyed?

CULLEN: I don’t recall any conversation before then, at all. Because I was, I wasn’t, I was

Page 772


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

aware of the FOIA requests, um, but I wasn’t, I wasn’t focused on how old Buscher’sfile was.

GAFFNER: Okay, so you told us a minute ago that you’re aware that there’s a FOIA request inthe Buscher file,

CULLEN: Right,

GAFFNER: Then Tuesday you become aware Buscher’s file is part of these files to be destroyed,so, is there any discussion about what you guys are gonna due then with the Buscherfile ...FOIA on it?

CULLEN: Absolutely. Because I, I wanted to know fr-, I wanted Geanette to research what thelaw is. Could we expunge the file, at that point, since it was subject to a FOIArequest.

GAFFNER: So when would you have asked her to do that research?

CULLEN: I can’t remember if it was Wednesday or Thursday. Uh, but it was, in an among allthose conversations. Yes, I, I told her specifically we need to know the law on whatthis is. Uh, I told her, she needed to research it and give me her conclusions, and Ispecifically told her I wanted her to call the attorney general, uh, because they hada public access counselor hotline. I said, let’s take advantage of it and see what theysay.

GAFFNER: Anybody else ...

CULLEN: Came from me. I uh, uh, I know that I had at least uh, one conversation withGeanette about it. Um, I’ve been, I’ve been aware I’ve done, I’ve done FOIAmatters for Municipalities. I’ve, I’ve represented uh, Municipalities in privatepractice for 20 plus years, so, uh, I when, uh, all of the uh, legislative activity wasdone on FOIA requests and everything, uh, I’ve been aware of the hotline and the uhpublic access, uh, counselor’s office for since it’s insemination.

GAFFNER: Are you familiar with the local records act?

CULLEN: Yes.

GAFFNER: And whenever uh, this MOU came forward, reducing the time period down from fiveto four years, did you make any statements about what had to be done with the local

Page 773


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

records act or the application...

CULLEN: I did not. Uh, I was not aware of, and I hadn’t had any dealings with the actualrecord keeping part of it, so I wasn’t, uh, I wasn’t aware of the existence of anapplication or anything like that, until after the fact when I went back to try toinvestigate what all had happened.

GAFFNER: So you weren’t aware of there being a certain time period on the, application you hadto adhere to whenever this,

CULLEN: I was not aware of that at the time.

GAFFNER: Was there anybody that brought this to your attention?

CULLEN: No.

GAFFNER: ...

CULLEN: No, not that time.

GAFFNER: So you advised Wittendorf to check with the AG’s office about the Buscher file.What happened then?

CULLEN: I didn’t ask her about the Buscher file, because we had FOIA requests. So I, I wasn’tfocused on that file. That, that file didn’t mean anything to me. I was focused onwhen a change was made to the MOU, that requires us to expunge records, what isthe law as it relates to FOIA requests. So I wasn’t focused on the Buscher file, um,and quite honestly, I’ve never been focused on it. It’s, it’s, that was, that was oldnews. Um, I’m still kind fascinated by the whole, belief I guess, of a lot of peoplethat, that it was done for a specific purpose with the Buscher file. Um, that file,when it happened was in the media. There were all kinds of reports. There was, itwas already public knowledge when you went through uh, the SJR archives. It’s outthere, so I, I’ll be honest, I never understood why people thought that was the basisfor a lot of this. It, just, didn’t occur to me because it was, already out in the public.Not the specific file, I don’t mean that, but all of the, all of the bad news, all of thathad been well documented in, in the media when it happened.

GAFFNER: So you’re not saying in the AI file, IA file was, would have been out in the news oranything like that,

Page 774


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: No, no, I don’t mean that, no, no. I’m just saying the story and all the negative pressthat was created from it was, was already out there. So I was not at all focused onthat file. It was not, it was not brought up to me in any respect other than there wasa FOIA request and my concern was how are we going to treat this FOIA request inlight of the fact that we have one right after it that is for every internal affairs file.So, that, that, my focus was, what are we gonna do, what’s the process, what, whathas to be done? And I was, I have never been involved with the expungementprocess that was handled by the police liaison, and then uh, uh, when Megan left itwas gonna transition to Geanette. Uh, what I wanted to know, I wanted to knowwhat the law was, can you expunge files that are, that are uh, subject of a FOIArequest. Uh, and again, at that point, we had two different FOIA requests. Granted,both from uh, Calvin Christian and both for the same, for the same basic reasons. Hewanted to get them uh, all of the internal affairs reports that he would get his handson.

GAFFNER: So what did you, what was learned from that inquiry?

CULLEN: Uh, Geanette went out and did the research. She said that she talked with um, uh, anattorney at the Attorney General’s office, on the hotline. Uh, she gave me a uh, Idon’t want to say it was a memo, I can’t uh, I don’t know that it was exactly in amemo format or what, but uh, she gave me a copy of a case note that talked about uh,FOIA request and expunging file. And uh, she also, uh, gave me a memo thatoutlined her contacting the Attorney General’s office and what the attorney general’soffice had said in response to her questions.

GAFFNER: Which was what?

CULLEN: Um, that the attorney in the Attorney General’s office had told her that it was okay,in fact, she highlighted the specific response he said was, get rid of ‘em.

GAFFNER: How many times have you dealt with the Attorney General’s office uh, in relationto FOIA requests?

CULLEN: I have not. That’s always been, handled by someone else. I have never had to dealwith the Attorney General’s office personally.

GAFFNER: On any other cases or anything like that?

CULLEN: No. Again, there was other attorneys but the only time that it’s come up, uh, hasbeen the couple years that I was corporation counsel. Prior to that I had not had an

Page 775


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

issue that, that rose to the level of the Attorney General, uh, relating to FOIA.

GAFFNER: Did it, did at any point in time concern you that, at the general hotline number, thatwould be called, that they would give a specific response back on the question thatwas posted in such a manner?

CULLEN: It was my understanding that that was their job, that they were there and that wascreated so that municipalities would have a resource to contact the attorney general’soffice.

GAFFNER: Who told you that?

CULLEN: That, that was what I learned from, uh, the Illinois Municipal League going to uh,seminars and other uh, uh, reading uh, articles that were again related to FOIA anduh, the creation of the public access counselor’s office.

GAFFNER: So then what happened after you received that memo from her saving get rid ofthem?

CULLEN: Uh, then uh, I got a request from Lieutenant Mueller, uh, wanting to verify andwanting my opinion that it was, uh, that it was, the MOU was affective, and that theexpungement needed to start and I responded.

GAFFNER: In what way?

CULLEN: That was by email.

GAFFNER: Okay, and what did you say?

CULLEN: Uh, I said based upon the execution of the MOU, uh, the expungement of files needsto occur immediately.

GAFFNER: And what were, what were you saying in that? Were you saying that he needed todrop everything he’s doing right then and take care everything at that point in time?

CULLEN: No, uh, in fact, I, I didn’t have any idea of what the process was for going through.Uh, what I was telling him was, that once the MOU was signed it becomes affectiveand it becomes binding on the city of Springfield to then go through the process aswe’ve had gone through for years and years before that.

Page 776


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Did uh, Lieutenant Mueller at any point in time express concern to you,

CULLEN: Yes he did,

GAFFNER: About what was transpiring? And when did this, when did this occur?

CULLEN: He was in my office and that was on, on Thursday, the 25th.

GAFFNER: And this was prior to the shredding occurring?

CULLEN: I don’t know that because I don’t know when,

GAFFNER: When was he in your office?

CULLEN: I thought it was in the morning on the 25th,

GAFFNER: And what did he convey to you in that meeting?

CULLEN: He, he wanted, he wanted, I’ll be, I’ll be straightforward with you guys, he wantedto cover his ass. He wanted somebody else to say that, uh, this MOU’s affective.Uh, he got an order from the Chief, uh, specifically, I, I don’t know what, but uh, uh,the email chain that I got reference you know, him getting an order from the Chief,and he wanted legal department confirmation that the MOU was affectiveimmediately.

GAFFNER: But did he convey to you any concern he had with Cliff Buscher’s file, about theappearance of any of this stuff, or about, rushing to get rid of these files? Anythingto that affect?

CULLEN: I guess I would not necessarily know how to characterize it. He was in my office,we were talking about it. Um, was he, was he concerned? Sure. I think he was. Andthat’s why I turned to Geanette, explain the law. What is, what is the law? What didyou find out? And uh, she explained it, and what research she had done and what shewas prepared to do, and uh, and he and she were then gonna go start reviewing thefiles.

GAFFNER: So on, on the Thursday, the 25th, then after that point in time, you’re, they hadreviewed the files up till then?

CULLEN: I don’t, I don’t think so. No. I don’t think they started to review them until the, until

Page 777


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

the 25th, after the MOU had been signed. That, that’s what I was told, put it that way.I had, I guess I should clarify. I don’t, I don’t have any idea what they might havedone before that. I wasn’t aware of anything until after the MOU had been signed,and uh, uh, Lieutenant Mueller wanted us specifically to confirm that it was okay togo ahead and start expunging records.

GAFFNER: So then what happens?

CULLEN: That’s, that’s the extent of what I was involved with. I, I don’t know anything elsethat happened. Uh, Geanette ultimately reported to me that uh, she was gonnarespond on the FOIA request and that uh, the records had been expunged.

HOSTENY: Prior to this MOU being signed, had the PB and PA union filed numerous, uh, unfairlabor practice charges against you for not immediately filing, following either a CBAor LMU?

CULLEN: Yes, and in fact, we had an unfair labor practice that had uh, been over the uh,internal affairs files. And that had recently uh, gotten resolved, essentially made,rendered mute so they withdrawn that unfair labor practice claim, prior to all thiscoming up. Uh, but yeah, that was, that was the essential, the essential uh, problemthat I was faced with was. I either uh, risk an unfair labor practice claim with theunion, which I knew that we would lose, or, uh, we have again, another litigationwith Calvin Christian, which we had one pending. We had one decision as youreferred to earlier. Uh, another one that was pending. Uh, and it had sat for, at leasttwo years because it was before I got in office that, uh, it had been uh, filed and thejudge had sat on it for a couple years and we had not heard any response on it. Um,and uh, Geanette’s research that you know, we can go, we can go ahead with thedestruction of documents because of the research she had done. So I felt at that time,with that, plus with the personnel records review act, that says uh, any personnelrecords cannot be released to third parties that are over three years old. Between thetwo of those, I, both of those acts supported what we had done in response to theFOIA request.

GAFFNER: And I think what I heard you say earlier too was, neither Geanette Wittendorf, CliffBuscher, Chief Williams, either one of those three expressed concerned overBuscher’s file being one of those files to be shredded?

CULLEN: No they did not.

GAFFNER: And did, did uh, did you ever have a conversation with either the Mayor or Willis

Page 778


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

Logan about the, the shredding of these files and the retention period being reduceddown from the four to five years.

CULLEN: Uh, not till after the fact. Um, my recollection was the Mayor was out of town, onthat Thursday and Friday. And not in the office, so I did not have a chance to talkto the Mayor until Monday. Um, and I was in his office Monday morning becauseuh, we that, that was the first that uh, first opportunity I had to talk to him. Uh,Logan was in my office on the Thursday, and we had, we had talked about it and um,Logan and I usually talk several times during the day, so. Uh, I’m certain that Iwould have updated him, uh, also on Friday. Uh, about what had happened.

GAFFNER: When you update Willis Logan of something, does he just keep that to himself ordoes he tell somebody else?

CULLEN: Oh I think he probably tells the Mayor all the time.

GAFFNER: Is that kind of his primary responsibility to keep the Mayor apprised of what’s goingon?

CULLEN: Well, I, I, yes, I think that’s Logan’s responsibility, but I also view that as myresponsibility too.

GAFFNER: So anything else happen then after the 25th of, that we need to be aware of? Any uh,anybody destroy any records, any files, any emails?

CULLEN: I, I guess....it’s kind of open ended, so I’m not sure,

GAFFNER: Well, I’m not, and I’m not talking about these IA files, I’m talking aboutcorrespondence with other people in relation to, leading up to the destruction of thesefiles, stuff like that.

CULLEN: I’m not aware of any. I, I, I don’t remember anything right now, as we sit here.

GAFFNER: Anything else, that’s relevant...

CULLEN: Not, not that I can recall.

GAFFNER: Okay.

HOSTENY: Was there an issue, Mark, concerning the Chief. There was, there was an incident

Page 779


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

where the Chief indicated that he was against the destruction of files, where therewas a meeting with the three of you,

CULLEN: Oh, okay. Um, what people have consistently pointed out, apparently ChiefWilliams in his deposition that he gave, uh, in the lawsuit that was filed by CalvinChristian, the third lawsuit, he apparently gave a deposition where he said that therewas a dispute between himself and me, regarding the expungement of files. And I,I have not seen his deposition, I only know what was reported in the media. Uh, Ihad been show, uh, one page or one paragraph where he made that statement. Anduh, my recollection of his statement was that, uh, there was a dispute betweenhimself and me about the expungement of files, and that Bill Logan, uh, came intoessentially referee that dispute, and make a decision. And, I gotta tell you guys,that’s just absolutely false. Uh, the only time that the Chief and Logan and I wereat the same time in the same place talking about this was that Thursday morning inmy office. And Logan came into my office, because Logan came into my officeevery day in the morning to talk about what we were gonna, what we were gonna beworking on that day. And, the Chief never made any uh, made any statement to thataffect, to my recollection, because if he had, the first thing I would have respondedto him with was, why did you sign the MOU then? If he thought that we out tosomehow delay, uh, expungement of any files, per that MOU, all he had to do wasnot sign it. So why did, why would he sign it, and then say, oh, we ought to delaythe uh, expungement of files, in accordance with the MOU. It still makes no senseto me. And, and, you know, trying to lay this at the feet of Bill Logan. The onlyreason he was in there was because every day he’d come in my office and he’d giveme a big hug, and, we would sit down and talk about what we were doing. Andbecause the Chief was already in my office, I said Logan, you need to hear what,what the Chief has now done.

HOSTENY: So, after the MOU was signed on that Thursday, you said that, okay now the process,you know, the MOUs requires us to take action, so now this process has to takeplace. So you task Geanette with following that process, one of which was she andum, Mueller would then go through the files and see which ones needed to beretained cause of like pending litigation or something like that?

CULLEN: Right, that, that’s what I was told. What, all I said was, the MOU’s affective, nowwe gotta go through the process. And if we don’t, we’re gonna risk an unfair laborpractice claim, so we’re gonna go through the process. At that point, I, I had noexperience or involvement with it, um, and I never had. It, there, there was a processthat uh, Megan Morgan had worked on with the police. That process happened ona regular basis. I, uh, later, after the fact, when I went through to figure out what all

Page 780


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

had happened, yes, uh, what happens is that, Lieutenant Mueller prepares a memo,or several memo’s, that uh, indicate which files are now eligible for expungement.And then, um, uh, Geanette would go through that list, and again, as you said, lookfor, is there a reason, do we need to keep these files or can they now be expunged?And would indicate whether to save or destroy those files, and they would then bedestroyed. Uh, Lieutenant Mueller is the person who actually handled the files. Idon’t know if Geanette actually looked at any of the files. Um, I, I don’t know what,her roll was other than giving an indication which should be retained and whichshould be expunged.

HOSTENY: And so when she signed off on that memo that Mueller would generate, was that thecorporation counsel’s authority to IA to shred the files?

CULLEN: Sure, yes.

HOSTENY: So at any point then, on the 25th, when Geanette was looking at the files and whichones to retain, did anyone broach the subject with you about, hey, maybe Buscher’sis one of those files that we need to keep?

CULLEN: We didn’t talk about any specific file. So, no, we didn’t talk about Buscher’s file orany others, it was um, simply, here’s the MOU, here, and I didn’t see the list, but Ijust said, the MOU’s affective. We now have to abide by the terms of the MOU.That means you have to start, uh, you have to go through the process. And at thattime, I didn’t know what that process was. But I did know that it was a fairly welldeveloped process because of, it had been ongoing with uh, the internal affairsdepartment for quite some time. Now I discovered later, several things that werecomplete inconsistencies. Uh, the local records act, uh, we had this applicationwhich I’m sure you’re now familiar with, it was a 33 page document on, and again,cause it’s ingrained in my brain, on page 31 it referred to internal affairs files. Andit says internal affairs records, uh, I won’t say that it says that specifically. It talksabout internal affairs files. What I remember and what I never got a good answer onwas, in parentheses, right after that, it says electronic or electronic version, or,something to that affect. And I have no idea what that means. I don’t understandwhy you would have a 33 page detailed itemization of all the different records andwhat they were gonna do. And on this one, it was only electronic. I don’t knowwhat that means about hard file, I know that that application and substantially thatform, had been in existence with the local records commission for a longer period oftime than I was at the city of Springfield. So that means we’d been destroying hardcopy files, regularly, uh, I was told that that again was a, a well established process,but it didn’t, I saw nothing in the application with the local records commission, to

Page 781


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

talk about hard copy. And I never was able to get an understanding from anyonewho I talked to as to why that was.

HOSTENY: Okay, when were you aware that the city had this 33 page application with the localrecords commission?

CULLEN: It was probably a week or so after that because,

HOSTENY: After the shred?

CULLEN: After the shred cause I went through and, and investigated to determine what exactlyhad happened. I prepared a memo for the city counsel that outlined what I thoughtall took place, and that was the first point at which I, uh, had seen the actualapplication.

HOSTENY: So before the shred, you weren’t aware of the application? The city’s application?


HOSTENY: And, uh, you said you couldn’t get an answer. Did you task Geanette or anybody inyour office?

CULLEN: I ...

HOSTENY: ...

CULLEN: I asked Geanette, I also asked, uh, I can’t, I can’t remember the woman who was inthe records division, of the uh, police department,

HOSTENY: Donna Brown?

CULLEN: Thank you. Donna Brown. Uh, talked with folks uh, uh, talked with Mueller, uh,ya know, what do we know, what, and no one knew anything.

HOSTENY: And was that after the fact?

CULLEN: That was all after the fact, yes.

HOSTENY: Okay. So, as you told the uh, we listened to the tape of the executive session thatyou had with the city counsel on May 7, and as you told them, it’s apparent the city

Page 782


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

never did comply with the local records act on internal affairs files.


HOSTENY: Um,

CULLEN: Hard copies.

HOSTENY: On hard copies,

CULLEN: Apparently. Cause I don’t, I don’t know of any basis that we have ever said to thelocal records commission, this is when we’re going to destroy hard copies of internalaffairs files.

HOSTENY: Did you know, you know, from representing other cities, that under the local recordsact there’s a two step process. One is you get the application with your retentionschedule approved and then, in the second phase when you actually want to destroyrecords, you have to get permission by getting a disposal certificate and then wait 60days.

CULLEN: I was generally aware of that, uh, I did not have a lot of experience with it, becausemost of my municipalities had an established process. They were smallermunicipalities, it was all administrative. And uh, quite frankly they didn’t need topay an outside to give ‘em an opinion on it. So I didn’t have a lot of experience withit, but I absolutely knew what the requirements were.

HOSTENY: Okay, and did any of that discussion, about the local records act of getting a disposalcertificate ever come up with either Donna Brown or Lieutenant Mueller, or GeanetteWittendorf, prior to the shred?

CULLEN: No, not that I’m aware of.

HOSTENY: Who’s job, from your understanding, of Donna Brown’s position and LieutenantMueller’s position and the legal office’s involvement with authorizing these, um,shreds, who’s job would it have been to get the um, the disposal certificates,

CULLEN: I think that’s the biggest part of the problem. I don’t think that anybody, uh, I thinkin, with respect to every record other than internal affairs files, it was Donna Brown.And, that’s because Donna was the record keeper for all SPD stuff,

Page 783


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Except for,

CULLEN: Except for the internal affairs files, which means to me then, it becomes LieutenantMueller’s responsibility and it becomes Geanette Wittendorf’s responsibility to makecertain that all of the uh, uh, relevant laws were, were filed. But I don’t think thathad been done for years, and I don’t think that uh, in, in the time before Geanettetook over, that we had, as the city had done anything uh, with getting a disposalcertificate on internal affairs hard copy internal affairs files. I don’t know if Donnagot anything on the electronic version. It still fascinates me, John, that there’s adistinction. I don’t get it because Donna, by policy and procedure, wouldn’t havehad anything to do with internal affairs and wouldn’t have had any access, shouldn’thave had any access, to any of those files. So the only person who should have at allbeen able to physically touch those files or electronically access any of thatinformation, would have been Lieutenant Mueller, and I suppose any of theinvestigators underneath the IA department.

HOSTENY: We got a copy of everything the city, police department had on file with the localrecords commission. And, they have um, disposal certificates for regular policereports and crash reports, and stuff like that, but nothing was ever filed on IA files.

CULLEN: I think that has just been missing for a long period of time, for the city.

HOSTENY: The, the current application, the 33 page one, that you’re familiar with, that wasactually approved in December of 2012.

CULLEN: Okay, was that the first time it had been approved, or was that amendment andrevision from prior?

HOSTENY: There had been one on file since 1987,

CULLEN: Okay,

HOSTENY: But the IA files was added in the application from 2012, and that was approved, Ithink that was filed in August or September, and it was approved by local recordscommission in December.

CULLEN: Okay.

HOSTENY: And so we’ve asked what did the city do to implement that, um, process for the IAfiles. Are you aware of anything?

Page 784


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: I’m not.

HOSTENY: They did?

CULLEN: No, in fact, I’m, I don’t think I was at all involved with that, uh, application. Um,that would have been while Megan was police, police liaison, so perhaps she hadsome involvement with it, I don’t know.

HOSTENY: Okay. When you first learned of the MOU, uh, being existing, when Geanette sentit to you in an email on Tuesday, the 23rd, and then after they came to your office andit was signed on the 25th, were you at all concerned that Stephanie Barton wasn’tinvolved in that process?

CULLEN: Oh yes. Uh, in fact, I had gone around a couple times with Megan, and also had letGeanette know for certain, that Stephanie was to be involved with anything relatingto the collective bargaining agreement. I’d had the same discussion with the numberof the directors around the city. Um, because I think that if, I was,

HOSTENY: And that includes the Chief?

CULLEN: Absolutely, yes. Um, I will say I don’t know that I specifically had that conversationdirectly with the Chief, um, because at the time, I would have told Megan and, anduh, Megan viewed it as intruding upon her territory, and she gave me a little pushback with it. Uh, I told her no, this is the way it has to be. Um, uh, I think people,I think people, a lot of people around the city kind of viewed it as an intrusion, andI was out there telling them she has a lot of knowledge and a lot of value, and sheneeds to be included in that process. In fact, there was a memo sent by the uh, HRdirector, Malina Tarabus Collins, to all of the directors, including myself, includingthe Chief, that said, Stephanie’s to be involved. And this is how we’re gonna do itwith uh, respect to collective bargaining and disciplinary issues and all of that.

HOSTENY: Was that before or after the shred?

CULLEN: Way before. Well before, I want to say, uh, within a couple min-, a couple of monthsof uh, Stephanie’s hiring at the city. Uh, and that, that was a little bit of a change,and like I said, I got certain amount of push back from Megan as well as Angela, andthat was also one of the reasons why I wanted to make certain that Stephanie was inthe legal department every Friday morning because I wanted to, I wanted her to bepart of it, and I also wanted my attorneys to know that she was suppose to be a bigpart of that.

Page 785


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: You had a regular meeting with the legal office and the labor relations office onFriday mornings?

CULLEN: It was, yes, it was it was myself, Stephanie Barton, uh, Angela Fyans-Jimenez, andSteve Ron, always met. And on occasion, and I remember uh, Megan Morgancoming in a couple times during that, um, because as it involved the uh, policecollective bargaining agreement, and uh, some of the police disciplinary matters.Uh, because I’d gone back and forth with Megan on disciplinary matters, and makingcertain that she included Stephanie. Again, because it involved a collectivebargaining agreement, that was Stephanie’s job, she was labor relations manager.She needed to be included in it, and again, there’s a little bit of territorializationthere, that uh, I specifically addressed.

HOSTENY: When Geanette took over Megans job, did you explain all that to her that hey, if it’sMOU, it’s gotta go through Stephanie Barton?

CULLEN: I didn’t say MOU, but I know I said employment stuff has to go through Stephanie.You need to include Stephanie in that process.

HOSTENY: Or collective bargaining stuff?

CULLEN: Correct. And I know she was aware of it because, we had just finished up thenegotiating and ultimately approving the collective bargaining agreement. And so,

HOSTENY: The one for the police?

CULLEN: For the police, yes.

HOSTENY: Um hum. Uh,

CULLEN: And I know the Chief was aware of it, again for the same reasons. The Chief wasn’tinvolved as I was told, he wasn’t involved in the negotiating sessions under thecollective bargaining agreement. I think that that was managed by uh, BobMarkovick. Uh, I don’t know who else, uh, from the police command staff wasinvolved, but uh, I don’t think the Chief was in those negotiations. But I know hewas aware of it because uh, I do recall having a discussion with him about StephanieBarton’s involvement. Um, but my, all of my discussions with him were generallyabout collective bargaining and about uh, any discipline or employment action thatwas being taken.

Page 786


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: When Geanette told you that okay, the Chief wants to do this MOU, did she at anypoint ever say to you, hey, the Chief doesn’t really want to involve Stephanie or he’snot running it through Stephanie or?

CULLEN: No, if she’d told me that, I’d say no, that’s not gonna happen. Now, do I think theyhid that from me, yeah I do. I think they knew and I think they purposely didn’tinvolve her um, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that she wasn’tgonna just say to them, oh yeah, go right ahead and do it. I think that was gonna bethe same case when Megan Morgan was uh, police liaison. Megan told me that inother situations at other times, uh, she had been firm with the Chief that we need tohold true on the five years.

HOSTENY: Um,

CULLEN: And I think, I think the Chief recognized that there was a gap and uh, uh, he knewthat Stephanie should be involved because she just finished negotiating the collectivebargaining agreement that this thing was amending.

HOSTENY: So when they came to your office and said now that it’s signed, I mean did you askGeanette, hey, why did you sign this without Stephanie’s involvement, or is it, is itlegal for you to sign this on behalf of the city when the Mayor or the city counselhasn’t approved it?

CULLEN: No, because I, I, it was. I mean, that was the problem, the police chief had theapparent, if not actual authority to enter into an MOU like that, had done sorepeatedly in the past, other chiefs had done so in the past. It, it was administrativelywe had changed that, and that was not suppose to be the case, but they, they knewthat, uh, and went ahead with it. I, I didn’t know whether she’d been involved withit at all, at the time. At, you know, on Friday, uh, when I talked with Stephanie aboutit,

HOSTENY: In your regular meeting,

CULLEN: Then I know.

HOSTENY: Yeah, in your regular meeting. What happened at that meeting?

CULLEN: I think I actually talked to her separate from that regular meeting. Uh, but I do, I doremember talking to her about it, and realizing at that point she’d not been involvedor, uh was completely unaware of this also.

Page 787


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Did, did Geanette Wittendorf have the authority to sign off on that MOU on behalfof the corporation counsel’s office?

CULLEN: Yes.

HOSTENY: And did you give her that specific authority or did she have that just by virtue ofbeing the police legal adviser?

CULLEN: By virtue of being, being tasked with me on those responsibilities, um, all of theassistance had authority to, to do various activities in the name of the legaldepartment, and that, that would have been one of them. Um, we, and any of theassistant corporation counsels could approve agreement, uh, sign pleadings, and allthat. Um, that is the ... affect of the corporation counsels office.

HOSTENY: When did you know, when did you first learn that they actually shredded the files,including Buscher’s file, uh, the evening of the 25th?

CULLEN: I don’t know if I knew then on the 25th or if it was the next day. Um, I, I don’t recallwith certainty uh, uh, I think that I didn’t know until Friday morning. I think theyreported to me that it all got done and, and uh, they responded to the FOIA requestand all that. I think they, I think that was the next morning, Friday morning.

HOSTENY: Okay, would have that have before the regular meeting with labor relations? Yourregular meeting between legal and labor relations?

CULLEN: I, I can’t remember that John. Um, 9 o’clock was when we had the, the uh, stand,the set, weekly meeting with labor relations. Um, most of the uh, attorneys wouldshow up, they were suppose to be there at 8, so it, it could have been before. Uh, andit probably was, but I can’t tell you with certainty.

HOSTENY: Okay. Cause Stephanie Barton was in that meeting and she said that in that meetingit didn’t come out, but the files had actually been shredded.

CULLEN: Hum, then I had a conversation with her after that, is that? I don’t, I don’t recall. Iknow that I had a conversation with her about it.

HOSTENY: Later that day or?

CULLEN: If she says it didn’t come out at that 9 o’clock meeting, then, then it would had tohave been later that day.

Page 788


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: I mean you didn’t, you didn’t, did you intentionally not tell her? Did you know thatthey had been shredded and intentionally not tell her that in the meeting?

CULLEN: Oh not at all. Uh, it didn’t make any difference to me. You know, I, I had no carewhat-so-ever about whether the file got shredded or not, or any of those, those files.It just, it was not on my radar screen. Um, uh, what mattered to me was that they’dsigned the MOU, and now all of the sudden we had to, we had to react to it. But Ithought, I, I know I had a discussion with Stephanie about it, cause then, you know,she was very, very upset by not being included in it. Um, do I think she thinks I shuther out of it completely? Yeah, I do. I had no, I had no reason to. Again, I, youknow, whether it’s Cliff’s files or anybody’s file, made no difference to me. I, I, youknow, I don’t have any reason for wanting or not wanting that file to be released,didn’t have any impact one way or the other. Um, I do think, and, and as I talkedwith Stephanie about it later, uh, no, no question, she felt she was purposefully leftout, and, and in retrospect, absolutely, she was left out. It wasn’t by me cause I wasnot involved other than, being told this is what happened.

HOSTENY: Um, in that meeting a comment was made by Geanette that, you know, I’ve done theresearch, you know, I did my homework, I researched all this, that research she didwas just under FOIA?

CULLEN: Correct.

HOSTENY: Right? Okay. Uh, I listened to the executive sessions,

CULLEN: And I guess I should have asked you John, which meeting were you,

HOSTENY: Friday meeting,

CULLEN: The Thursday morning meeting?

HOSTENY: No, the Friday morning meeting between labor and legal.

CULLEN: Oh, yeah.

HOSTENY: She wrote an email also to, Geanette did, uh, where Angela Fines told her to hold up,do you recall that email?

CULLEN: I do.

Page 789


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Hold up shredding,

CULLEN: I think that was on Friday wasn’t it?

HOSTENY: Yeah, it’s on Friday. Was Angela Geanette’s supervisor?

CULLEN: No.

HOSTENY: Geanette reported, like everybody did,

CULLEN: Directly,

HOSTENY: Directly to you?

CULLEN: Correct.

HOSTENY: So which, I was kind of surprised that Angela was like telling her what to do.

CULLEN: Um, I had a major personnel issue that involved uh, several of the attorneys. Angelaand Megan, and uh, uh, Geanette,

HOSTENY: One of the clicks.

CULLEN: Um hum, you know, I, I,

HOSTENY: Explain it to me because we’re trying to figure ‘em out.

CULLEN: Um, every one of them, felt like they ought to be in charge and, you know, based onexperience or knowledge or whatever. And they, I was, I was several times, havingto manage the personality issues that came out with it. Um, they would, they did allof the classic things that employees do. Talking behind each other’s back, comingand running to me and saying, you know, so and so did this, or so and so did that.It was not within Angela preview at all. Um, Angela had been the police adviser,which means she had participated in the review and expungement of internal affairsfiles when she was the police adviser. Um, she knew a lot about it. I did, I didcertainly, uh, tell both Angela and Geanette that I expected them to work together.I expected all of my attorneys to act professionally and, you know, ask each otherquestions, and follow up. Both of them are very head strong, very independent.

HOSTENY: Strong personalities?

Page 790


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: Very strong personalities. And they butted heads, and, and, um, you know, in whatI anticipated or expected out of them, was to have a professional relationship. Andit wasn’t. Um, Stephanie, to her credit, is, is an excellent attorney and she knows alot. Uh, personality wise she’s exactly the same, and so then I had three of them.And ultimately what happened was, that, Stephanie and Angela bonded togetheragainst Geanette. So now I gotta manage a potential, uh, uh, hostile workenvironment and everything else. And, at no, at no time did, did any of them kindof step up the way I think it should have been handled, which was to say, let’s figureout what’s best for the city of Springfield. It was all about point fingers anddisclaiming responsibility, and you know, I wasn’t involved, and I was excluded.And I’m suppose to be in charge. Well, that’s not, none of those statements are true.Everybody’s suppose to be involved. But ultimately it’s the mayor. The mayordesignates the police chief and myself in the respective areas. And, uh, it is up to usto manage that, and, and, certainly I had real struggles trying to manage that. Um,but I had, I had all three of them just going at, uh, each other and siding on one sideor the other. And, you know, honestly, uh, Stephanie and Angela are both veryintelligent and they know a lot about it. They were also viewing it with 20/20hindsight, which is, as we all know, is a great position to be in when you’re anattorney. Cause you can now see all that in hind sight. Um, but, Angela had donethe same thing with internal affairs files, when she was the police liaison. So, uh, noquestion they excluded, and I, I do think that, that was done with a purpose, and itwas not right then, and it, never was suppose to be that way. Everyone knew that.

HOSTENY: Okay. Um, so you kind of, I’m assuming that once this all came out in the press,that’s what lead up to the executive session, where you had to go explain to the citycounsel,

CULLEN: Correct.

HOSTENY: What happened. Uh, the executive session was on May 7, you did a draft of a memo.

CULLEN: Right,

HOSTENY: Um, you circulated it, uh, Geanette made changes to it, uh, Stephanie Barton madesome changes to it. You amended it after that I assume?

CULLEN: I did.

HOSTENY: Um, do, did you ever sign a copy? I mean, I know that you passed,

Page 791


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: No,

HOSTENY: It out at the counsel, and then asked for it back. Is there a signed copy out there?

CULLEN: Not that I’m aware of.

HOSTENY: Okay. Um, in, in that executive session, uh, you were asked some questions by thealderman, one of which was Frank Edwards, and he made a comment about, youknow, nothing gets done in one day. And he asked you specifically about the localrecords commission, and this was after I think you looked into, may have not hadyour answers all resolved, your questions all resolved by Geanette or whomever youtasked to do that. But, he asked you, uh, did we ever get permission from the localrecords commission. And uh, this isn’t a verbatim thing, it’s from my notes, we havea standing request in. I have now reviewed that whole request. Were you talkingabout the application that was on file?

CULLEN: I was.

HOSTENY: Okay. It had been granted a while back, which it had been approved in Decemberof, uh, 2012. And it had been made a while back, but then this is what I want to askyou about, this was a comment you made. And it was actually granted the same daythe MOU was signed, six to eight months later. Do you remember what you werereferring to there?

CULLEN: I do not. Um, can you say that again? It was?

HOSTENY: We, we have a standing request in. I have now reviewed that whole request. It hadbeen granted a while back, and it had been made a while back, and it was actuallygranted the same day the MOU was signed, six to eight months later.

CULLEN: I think that was, I, I, I don’t know what I was referring to. Um, but I remembermaking that comment and there was something that I saw that was, just by coincideapproved the same day that the MOU was signed, and I, cannot recall what that was.

HOSTENY: Cause we, we, haven’t seen anything. I have the, the tape recording if that helps you,but you recall making this statement?

CULLEN: I, I do, and I’m, now I can’t recall what I was thinking about.

HOSTENY: Okay.

Page 792


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: Because there was, there was something that was approved, and I thought, I thoughtthere was something approved that, the records department had requested that wasapproved the day of the signing the MOU.

HOSTENY: If that comes to you, let us know. Um, my understanding is you took the positioninitially that the MOU was valid?

CULLEN: Yes.

HOSTENY: And you told the union that, they you, the city was gonna take the position the MOUwas valid?

CULLEN: I don’t know that I talked directly to the union, but I, I certainly, yes, I, I am of, wasof the opinion, and am of that opinion.

HOSTENY: And then uh, I don’t know if this happened before or after you left the city’semployment, but now they filed an unfair labor practice to have the MOU thrownout. Did you recommend that or, have any involvement in that?

CULLEN: No. Who, was that, filed by the city?

HOSTENY: Yes.

CULLEN: Or filed by the union?

HOSTENY: Filed by the city.

CULLEN: Wasn’t aware of that.

HOSTENY: Oh, um, and, let’s see, what else was there?

CULLEN: What’s the basis for,

HOSTENY: That is was signed without authority of the Mayor, and the city counsel.

CULLEN: Okay.

HOSTENY: Did you, uh, get deposed in the Calvin Christian law suit?

CULLEN: I did not.

Page 793


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

HOSTENY: Did it ever get, uh, to the point when you were still with the city, as to recommendwhether to settle that or not? Were you involved in the settlement negotiations atall?

CULLEN: No. Uh, I wasn’t involved in any settlement negotiations. It was filed, we wereresponding to it. It was my suggestion to go hire Noll law offices to do that. Uh,and, and that was their responsibility. Um, they reported back to me about things,but I don’t, I’m not aware of any settlement negotiations until uh, John Mehlickbecame corporation counsel.

HOSTENY: Okay.

CULLEN: In fact, while I was still there, we were fighting. We were, had filed motions todismiss that lawsuit. It wasn’t until after I left that they uh, filed the motion, uh,admitting the uh, first count.

HOSTENY: Admitting that they violated the FIOA act?

CULLEN: Correct.

HOSTENY: I think I’m done, let’s take a break.

UNKNOWN: Sure, okay,

GAFFNER: It’s about 3:22, we’ll go ahead and stop the tape.

(INTERVIEW STOPPED)

(INTERVIEW RESUMED)

GAFFNER: It’s 3:30 p.m., we’re gonna restart the interview. Same information, or the same, uh,notification basically, as far as you know, us talking to you about a criminal case.You’re here of your own free will, have your attorney present ...

CULLEN: Yes.

GAFFNER: Go ahead...

CULLEN: I, wanted to tell you, it’s, it is bugging me that I cannot remember what I wasreferring to. Uh, I guess I wanted to say a couple things. Uh, number one, what I was

Page 794


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

told was the process, uh, by Donna Brown, was that there were often times changesmade in that application, and they were done very informally. And what she told meis she would email the uh, contact person that she had at the local recordscommission. Say here’s how we’re gonna change it, and she’d get an email back.I don’t know if that’s what I was thinking about, or if I was thinking about anothercertificate of destruction that, that, uh, we had received that happened that coincideto that April 25th date. Um, I wish that I had access to my computer and everythingelse, and I think that I could figure out exactly what I was referring to with that. Ijust cannot recall it right now.

GAFFNER: Mark, I’m gonna take you back to some of the questions I asked you about, and onein particular I asked if anybody brought it to your attention concerned about the CliffBuscher file. And you repeatedly said that nobody had brought it to your attentionat any, to any ... really. The problem with that somewhat is the fact that in talkingto you, we’re talking to you almost at the very end, cause, that’s just kind of how itflows. With you being and you insinuated your basically you’re the guy in chargeof the legal department, everybody else basically gets approval through you. Um,in one of the meetings in which there was numerous individuals there, to includeyourself, Buscher, Williams, Geanette, um, Willis Logan, uh, that you indicated, youknow, you had a meeting with him as well. There was multiple people that indicatethat they brought up to you this concern of having Buscher’s file in there. And so,the problem we have is, you know, whenever you’re telling us you don’t recallanything coming up, in fact, not even recall, you said it didn’t come up, and whenwe had multiple people in these meetings, and we speak to them at different times,and they don’t know who we’ve spoken to or not, so it’s not,

CULLEN: Right,

GAFFNER: Like they collaborate together, come up with a conspiracy theory anything like that,so, ya know, I just wanted to find out, do you happen, did something jog yourmemory from now to then, maybe they would have talked to you, or would there beany reason why you would have,

CULLEN: I don’t, I don’t recall anything, of talking specifically about Buscher’s file. Uh, wewere, we were talking about the MOU, we were talking about, again, FOIA requeststhat yes, did include Buscher, but weren’t limited to just his, just his uh, file. I, Idon’t care about his file in particular. That, that’s what uh, you know, yes,everybody’s been pointing it at me, it makes no difference to me whether that file’sout there or not because it, it doesn’t affect me at all. So, why, why would I want tohide that? I don’t recall a discussion about it because it was not an incidental part

Page 795


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

of it. I don’t think it was ever brought up to me. Um, but I do know that’s why Itasked Geanette with the idea of researching what the law is. Let’s know exactlywhat the law is and when she researched that, and those are the conclusions that, thatshe had, and the recommendation that she had made, uh, I, I readily admit that Idon’t recall everything that we talked about in that meeting. Uh, I have no reasonto hide behind or try to hide Cliff’s file. I, it, it is of zero value to me what-so-ever,so,

GAFFNER: Did Geanette ever ask you about Cliff’s file? Not being new to that section of thepolice department. Do you ever recall her coming to you and asking what’s the bigdeal about the file, or what’s the storey on it, or history?

CULLEN: I, I don’t recall, but it would make sense to me that we did, uh, talk about it, becausewe got two, the two FOIA request from Lieutenant Banks and from Calvin Christianabout it. And I do think that uh, uh, she probably did ask me about it. I don’t knowwhat’s in it. And at the time I didn’t know what’s in it. I knew what the uh, basic,uh, uh, problem was, and what had happened. Uh, that’s all I knew about the file inthe first place. I didn’t know anything about what statements were there, who saidwhat. Uh, I did know that, uh, one of the other people on the command staff, DougWilliams, was also on that trip. I think I knew at that point who all was involved inthat trip, but, um. And she probably did ask me about it because it had been thespecific subject of two FOIA request.

GAFFNER: That Doug Williams son? Yeah, think it’s Doug Williams son, it’s okay ...

UNKNOWN: Too many Williams ...

CULLEN: I, there’s, there are two brother,

GAFFNER: Yeah Williamson brothers,

CULLEN: Doug and Greg, and Greg works in IA, Doug’s now retired, but he was commandstaff. And I think both of them went with Buscher, now that I’m,

GAFFNER: Would there be any reason, uh, during, there seemed to be such a push on getting thisthrough. Would there be any reason people are insinuating with the push, every timewe talk to people, kept saying the push was coming from above, push was comingfrom above. ...you’re above, you know, your corporation counsel assistance. Wereyou pushing this, to get this through in any way?

Page 796


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: Not at all.

UNKNOWN: Through being, through meaning ...

GAFFNER: ...shredding incident.

CULLEN: Not at all. I, it didn’t make any difference to me. Um, the fact is that the file existed,it had been publicized in the past. I honestly didn’t care. It made no difference tome, uh, whether it was public record or not.

GAFFNER: And so nobody above you was, the mayor above you, or Willis Logan above you,pushing you to?

CULLEN: Not at all,

GAFFNER: Do something on this?

CULLEN: Never. No ...

HOSTENY: I’m sorry, were you done?

CULLEN: I, yes.

HOSTENY: As Lieutenant Gaffner said, the people we’ve interviewed have, have said theydiscussed it with you. Specifically about okay, if we’re gonna shred these files now,we have a batch of them that’s available to shred now because it’s, the MOU’s beensigned and it’s now four years, and that they specifically discussed whether or notyou should shred the Buscher file. And the argument against shredding it was it’sa real high profile case, it’s gonna look bad, and they attribute to you, I don’t knowif this was said in uh, the chief’s deposition, but in the interviews we had, it wasattributed to you, a comment we’re not, that you made, we’re not doing wrong here.We didn’t do anything wrong. You recall making that comment?

CULLEN: I, I certainly think that that’s true, with respect to having gone and done the researchon FOIA requests. Uh, and I don’t, that, doesn’t sound like something I would havesaid other than after the fact, as people were asking about things. It, I wouldn’t havesaid that before hand because it hadn’t been done yet. I mean, if I understand thequote attributed to me, we haven’t done anything wrong, uh,

HOSTENY: Or we’re not doing anything wrong, something like that.

Page 797


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

CULLEN: Well, the, the,

HOSTENY: But you didn’t make that comment in relation to Buscher’s file?

CULLEN: What I, what I, no, I, that comment, I don’t recall that comment. Um, I do believethat we have to be consistent and you can’t hold out one file and not others, and youcan’t treat people differently, uh, who are similarly situated. And so, even if thathad come up, I would have said we can’t treat, Cliff Buscher’s file any differentlythan anybody else’s. Cause that can get us into trouble. Then, is he gonna turnaround and sue the city? So, again, that, I, I, don’t understand what context that is.I, I do understand them asking me my opinion on what we are suppose to be doing,and I would have said yes, we’re gonna do this thing the right way. We are notmaking a mistake. Uh, uh, Geanette researched it, said here’s what the law is. Now,I did not check her research. I didn’t go into more detail with it, but I would havesaid on that basis, yes, we are doing it correctly because I did feel the, at that time,we were doing it correctly.

GAFFNER: You indicated basically you met with the mayor numerous times a week, andsometimes even daily. During this time period, uh, was there discussion possiblyabout Chief Williams retiring and if so, who the possible replacement would be?

CULLEN: I didn’t have that discussion with the mayor.

GAFFNER: Had you ever heard anybody talking about Cliff Buscher possibly being areplacement...

CULLEN: Oh, they talked, they, there were rumors flying all over the place...

GAFFNER: But, but never from the mayor?

CULLEN: No, no,

GAFFNER: Which would have been the person that had that,

CULLEN: Right,

GAFFNER: Decision right?

CULLEN: Absolutely, yes. No, I, I never had any discussion with the mayor about, about that,uh,

Page 798


February 20, 2014

IL13AA09938

GAFFNER: Did you have one with Cliff Buscher about it?

CULLEN: I don’t think so. I, my discussions with Cliff were not, usually not substance ofdiscussions. I mean I,

GAFFNER: Did he, did you have discussion with him about his file getting shredded?

CULLEN: No.

GAFFNER: Alright.

HOSTENY: Okay.

GAFFNER: Well thank you very much. It’s 3:41, we’ll go ahead and stop.

(END OF INTERVIEW)

Page 799


DII Investigators

Report ID: 526709






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 25, Interview of Willis Logan Jr., 2/21/14






No Photo

Page 800






Telephone


Person Interviewed : Willis H LOGAN Jr.DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: Willis H LOGAN Jr.Maiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: Black / Not Of Hispanic OriginDOB


Height/Weight: /Build: MediumEye Color:Facial Hair:Complexion:Hair Color:Hair Length/Style:Dominant Hand:Citizenship:Place of Birth:


No Photo




Cell PhoneEMPLOYMENT INFORMATION


Springfield, IllinoisOccupation: Executive Assistant to the

MayorEmployed From: 05/01/2011 to PresentManager Name:


Vehicle



4222

Page 801



NARRATIVE SECTIONThis investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Executive Assistant to the Mayor, WillisH. Logan Jr. The interview was conducted February 21, 2014, at 10:55 p.m., and took place atLogan's office located at 800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois. The interview was conducted byLieutenant Scott Gaffner #4222, and ISP Legal Counsel John Hosteny. The investigation began whenon May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation (DII) was requested bythe State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a SpringfieldPolice Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers' internalinvestigative files. Logan was interviewed to determine the extent of his knowledge with the shreddingincident. Logan provided consent for the interview to be audio recorded, with the original maintainedin the case file. The following report is a summary, and not verbatim.

Logan previously worked for the Springfield Housing Authority from 1997 until he retired in 2003 andhas been in his current position since May 2011. As the Executive Assistant, Logan often works withoutside constituency groups, Directors in the Mayor's office and numerous committees. These dutiesfrequently allow him to interact with Chief Williams and Mark Cullen as their department heads.

On April 25, 2013, Logan recalled walking into Cullen's office while a meeting was in progress withDeputy Chief Clifford Buscher, Chief Williams and Mark Cullen. Logan learned at that time that amemorandum of understanding (MOU) had been signed by Chief Williams with the Police Benevolenceand Protective Association (PBPA). Logan indicated he frequently stops by the offices of departmentheads throughout his weekly activities. At the meeting, Logan first learned of the reduction ofretention of records being reduced from 5 to 4 years and the ability of Chief Williams to sign an MOUwithout the Mayors input. Logan recalled Chief Williams question Cullen if Buscher's file would bedestroyed with the signing of the MOU. Buscher indicated that most people were aware of the incidentsurrounding his IA file and his file could be withdrawn from the destruction list. Cullen did not indicatehis intentions with Buscher's file at that time. Logan was questioning the process surrounding thedestruction of files and Geanette Wittendorf was called briefly into the meeting to advise Logan sheindicated there was not a legal problem destroying the IA files. Logan said much of the discussionwith Cullen and Wittendorf contained legalese that he did not fully understand, but was provided theimpression they had done the proper research before they came to their conclusion with the MOU.

Logan did not speak with the Mayor at that time, but was going to present the information at the nextweekly meeting with him. Logan was unaware documents were going to be destroyed that day ashe knew that nothing happened quickly working in government. Logan did not become aware of thedocuments being destroyed until he returned to work the next week.

Logan did not have additional information and the interview ended at 11:32 a.m.

Page 802


DII Investigators

Report ID: 527547






1 1 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 26, Interview of Mayor John Michael Houston, 2/21/14






No Photo

Page 803






Telephone


Person Interviewed : John Michael HOUSTONDEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Name: John Michael HOUSTONMaiden Name:Nickname:Sex: MaleRace/Ethnicity: White / Not Of Hispanic OriginDOB


Height/Weight: /Build: Slight/ Slim/ ThinEye Color:Facial Hair:Complexion:Hair Color: Gray Or Partially GrayHair Length/Style:Dominant Hand:Citizenship:Place of Birth:


No Photo




Telephone (217)789-2200EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION


Springfield, IllinoisOccupation: MayorEmployed From: 04/29/2011 to PresentManager Name:


Vehicle



4222

Page 804



NARRATIVE SECTIONThis investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Mayor, John Michael Houston. Theinterview was conducted February 21, 2014, at 11:40 a.m., and took place at Mayor Houston's officelocated at 800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois. The interview was conducted by Lieutenant ScottGaffner #4222, and ISP Legal Counsel John Hosteny. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013,the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation (DII) was requested by the State's AttorneysAppellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a Springfield Police Department (SPD)Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers' internal investigative files. MayorHouston was interviewed to determine the extent of his knowledge with the shredding incident. MayorHouston provided consent for the interview to be audio recorded, with the original maintained in thecase file. The following report is a summary, and not verbatim.

Mayor Houston indicated he has served in the banking industry for 24 years and was the President andCEO of Town and Country Bank in Springfield. He became Springfield Mayor April 1979 to December1987 and again April 29, 2011 to the present time. Mayor Houston indicated Springfield governmenthas two branches of government consisting of the legislative with the city council and the executiverepresenting the Mayor.

Mayor Houston said he first became aware of documents being shredded by SPD was when hereceived an email from Stephanie Barton on the Sunday following the shredding. Barton indicated amemorandum of understanding (MOU) had been entered between SPD and the Police Benevolenceand Protective Association (PBPA) and she had not been involved with the negotiations. A meetingwas held the Monday following the April 25 shredding which included Willis Logan, Mark Cullen, ChiefWilliams, Deputy Chief Buscher and Stephanie Barton. Mayor Houston then learned about the eventswhich led up to the MOU. Chief Williams indicated he had been approached by the PBPA requestingthe reduction of file retention from 5 to 4 years. Chief Williams also had expressed his concern withnumerous files being disclosed through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and wanted to slowthe subsequent release of files. Mayor Houston indicated he was extremely upset SPD had enteredan agreement without his involvement and the city not receiving anything in return for the MOU.

Rumors that Chief Williams was going to retire in 2013 and that Buscher would then become the nextchief was presented to Mayor Houston during the interview. Mayor Houston said Chief Williams hadrequested for Buscher to be the Assistant Chief prior to the April 25 shredding incident, which MayorHouston denied. Mayor Houston said the denial should have sent a clear message that he was notgoing to be placing Buscher in the position as a chief. Mayor Houston said he wanted all departmentheads to be willing to stay on for a longer term commitment than what Buscher could have providedwith his pending retirement. Mayor Houston indicated he did not know family members of Buscherand was not aware of any family member holding a fundraiser for his candidacy.

Page 805



NARRATIVE SECTIONOn May 6, 2013, Lieutenant Chris Mueller met with Mayor Houston and provided a timeline of eventsthat led up to the destruction of the documents. After the meeting, Mayor Houston requested theIllinois Attorney General to investigate the events that led up to the destruction of the IA files.

Mayor Houston confirmed he did not have any knowledge of the agreement with the PBPA, intent toshred documents to avoid a FOIA request and had not intended to promote Buscher to Springfieldchief. Mayor Houston confirmed he had requested the resignations of Chief Williams, Cullen andtermination of Geanette Wittendorf. The interview ended at 12:17 p.m.

Page 806


DII Investigators

Report ID: 539199






1 2 No No No





04/26/2013 12:00Action Date





REPORT TITLE/PURPOSETN 27, Transcribed May 27, 2013, Springfield Executive Session Meeting






No Photo

Page 807






Telephone

Subject : Government - Springfield City CouncilName: Springfield City CouncilOrganizationType:

Government Department:

ADDRESS INFORMATIONAddress, City, Township, County, State, Zip, Country

800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701, United States of America (USA)



Vehicle



4222

NARRATIVE SECTIONThis investigative report reflects the transcription of the May 7, 2013, Springfield City CouncilExecutive Session meeting. The recording was originally obtained September 12, 2013, anddocumented on TN 11. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Divisionof Internal Investigation was requested by the State's Attorney Appellate Prosecutor Director, PatrickJ. Delfino, to investigate a Springfield Police Department Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the shreddingof police officers' internal investigative files. The following report is a summary of the transcript whichis attachment 1.

On May 7, 2013, the Springfield City Council held an Executive Session, for the purpose of discussing

Page 808



NARRATIVE SECTION

Page 809



NARRATIVE SECTION

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Transcribed May 7, 2013 Exec SessionFile Name : CityCouncil.ExecSession.May7,2013..pdf

Page 810

SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCILMEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION

MAY 7, 2013

Voice Identification:Houston: J. Michael Houston, Mayor Tumulty: Cecilia Tumulty, City ClerkEdwards: Frank Edwards, Alderman Simpson: Gail Simpson, AldermanTurner: Doris Turner, AldermanLesko: Frank Lesko, Alderman Cahnman: Sam Cahnman, Alderman Jobe: Cory Jobe, Alderman McMenamin: Joe McMenamin, AldermanTheilen: Kris Theilen, Alderman Dove: Steve Dove, Alderman Griffin: Tim Griffin, AldermanCullen: Mark Cullen, Corporation Counsel Barton: Stephanie Barton, Labor Relations Manager Davis: Joe Davis, City Council Coordinator


1Page 811


2Page 812


3Page 813


4Page 814


5Page 815


6Page 816


7Page 817


8Page 818


9Page 819


10Page 820


11Page 821


12Page 822


13Page 823


14Page 824


15Page 825


16Page 826


17Page 827


18Page 828


19Page 829


20Page 830


21Page 831


22Page 832


23Page 833


24Page 834


25Page 835


26Page 836


27Page 837

I-CASE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTDII Investigators

Report ID: 567315




Case Title

Chief Robert Williams, Springfield Police Department

REPORTING OFFICER/APPROVING SUPERVISORRole Name Date and Time Last

Submitted/Approved

Officer GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators) Submitted - 07/24/2014 12:21Supervisor FARO, Casey Star # 5176 (DII Investigators) Approved - 07/28/2014 07:41

Recommended Status Case Active 30 Days

NARRATIVE SECTIONOn June 30, 2014, ISP legal Counsel John Hosteny and Lieutenant Scott Gaffner met with Director Patrick Delfino andmembers of the State ' s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor at their Springfield Office. They requested additional informationto assist in making a determination as whether they would seek charges in relation to the shredding incident.

On July 7, 2014, John Hosteny sent a letter to Springfield Corporation Counsel, Todd Greenburg, requesting hard drives,electronic or paper copies of any internal affairs files shredded on April 25, 2013. The letter is attachment #1 and isattached to this report. Also requested was any internal affair summaries or evidence logs created and maintained byAngela Fyans-Jimenez.

On July 22, 2014, John Hosteny transferred computer hard drives a box believed to contain c.d ' s which had been cut inhalf as part of the destruction of internal affair records, to the State ' s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutors. John Hostenywas asked to determine if the Buscher c.d ' s that had been transferred to the FBI or an independent company could beobtained. On the same date, John Hosteny wrote another letter to Todd Greenburg requesting the status of the Buscherc.d retrieval.

On July 24, 2014, Todd Greenburg advised John Hosteny the c.d ' s were still on the possession of CPR Tools Inc., 905Industrial Blvd, LaBelle, FL 33935, (844) 674-3282, and no information had been recovered.

ATTACHMENTSType : Other Scanned DocumentName : Springfield Corp Counsel letterFile Name : Spd Counsel Letter.pdf

Type : Other Scanned DocumentName : Springfield Corp Letter 2File Name : Spd Counsel Letter 2.pdf


1


2


1

illinois state police report on springfield shredding incident

Documents

special investigation

case active

government agency offense

official misconduct

criminal offenses offense

il13aa09938 case status

lieutenant colonel joann

lieutenant colonel kimbe