City prevails against TRO

Judge Feetterer ruled this afternoon in favor of the City of Woodstock and denied the preliminary injunction requested by Ofc. Jim O'Doherty. Judge Feetterer reviewed certain provisions of the Municipal Code at 65 ILCS 5/10-21.1-17 and of the negotiated contract between the police officers and the City that was approved with an effective date of May 1, 2008.

He referred to the procedure to be followed by the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) in the above section of the Municipal Code. In fact, he read the section in the courtroom.

It seems to me that what might be construed initially by Jim O'Doherty as a loss today, when Judge Feetterer denied the temporary restraining order, is actually a win. The BOFPC is required by Illinois law to grant Ofc. O'Doherty "an opportunity to be heard in his own defense." That has never been provided. But that did not come up today.

The BOFPC is to do so when discipline is "removal or discharge." Removal from duty, being charged with misdeeds that, if successfully made by the Chief, would lead to discharge, suspension without pay, ordered to stay off City property - wouldn't this constitute "removal"?

And, so, where was the opportunity to be heard in his own defense?

Further, the BOFPC is required, under State law, to conduct a "fair and impartial hearing" within 30 days.

Perhaps, rather than spending a few thousand dollars on special counsel to assist a partner attorney from the office of the City Attorney, the City ought to figure out how to move through procedural steps in a fair manner. To date, it has not done so.

In talking with Jim after court, I learned that the City is going to cancel his health insurance. He hasn't been fired; he is still an employee of the Woodstock Police Department. The reason for the insurance cancellation? He has been on a Leave of Absence for more than 30 days. It seems not to matter to the City that Jim never requested a Leave of Absence!

Is this notice to every employee of the City of Woodstock that it has the right to "give" you a "Leave of Absence" for 30 days and then cancel your health insurance?

There is a standard of fairness that needs to exist. And it surely doesn't at this time!