Illinois State Police Report On Springfield Shredding Incident

Report ID: 457739
I-CASE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

Div Of Internal Investigation
DII Investigators
(This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the agency listed above. It and its contents are not to be disseminated outside your agency.)
I-CASE No. IL13AA09938
Case Status: Case Active 30 Days
Case Title
Chief Robert Williams, Springfield Po lice

Department
Report Status: Approved
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Last Offense Classification/Re-Classification
Inchoate Code
Internal Investigations - Case Type - Special Investigation (Southern Command)
Offense As Cited
Internal Investigations - Administrative Codes - 6317 - Special Investigation
Offense As Cited
Internal Investigations - Offense Codes - 3920- Official Misconduct
Offense As Cited
Internal Investigations - Offense Codes - 6005- Referral From- Assistance To Other Government Agency
Offense As Cited
Internal Investigations - Offense Codes - 5000- All Other Criminal Offenses
Offense As Cited
INCIDENT INFORMATION
Address 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 12:00
Officer Arrives / Case Open
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Incident Assigned By
ASSISTANCE REQUESTED BY
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title
Officer Contact Number
REPORTING OFFICER/APPROVING SUPERVISOR/PRIMARY INVESTIGATOR

Role
Name
Date and Time Last Submitted/Approved
Officer
GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators)
Submitted - 07/02/2013 17:24
Supervisor
WEYFORTH, Stuart Star # 4258 (DII Investigators)
Approved - 07/08/2013 15:34
Investigator
REPORT TITLE/PURPOSE
TN 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 requested
by the State'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' personnel
files. On April 26, 2013, DII had anonymously been provided documents that described an incident
in 2008, which resulted in the arrest of SPD Commander Clifford Buscher by the Taney County
Sheriff's Department in Missouri. The incident was subsequently investigated by SPD resulting in the
suspension and demotion of Buscher. The internal investigative reports generated by the investigation
of Buscher were alleged to have been included in the personnel files that were shredded.
Printed By: "" Annette McCarthy (DIIMCCARTA )"" - "02/05/2015 12:52"
Page 1 of 2
Page 1
I-CASE No: IL13AA09938

Report ID: 457739
NARRATIVE SECTION
Attached to this report is a memorandum written by Lieutenant Colonel JoAnn D. Gumz describing how
DII obtained the anonymous documents and her contact with FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC), Dave
Harmon. An email correspondence from Lieutenant Colonel JoAnn D. Gumz to Colonel Agnes KindredJohnson. 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 shredded
the IA case file last night to avoid it being released under foia thanks Doug". The last item attached
is the anonymous documents describing an incident in Taney County Missouri and computer copies
of the court disposition.
Attachment 1, the memorandum consists of two pages, Attachment 2, the email correspondence and
3, the text message, consists of one page each and Attachment 4, the anonymous
correspondence consists of 9 pages for a total of 13 pages.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Other Scanned Document
Name :
Anonymous Letter
File Name :
Anonymous Letter, Memo.pdf
Page 2 of 2
Page 2
Page 3

Page 4

Page 5
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
1
Page 6
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
1
Page 7
Attachment 4
IL13AA09938
1
Page 8
Attachment 4
IL13AA09938
2
Page 9
Attachment 4
IL13AA09938
3
Page 10
Attachment 4
IL13AA09938
4
Page 11
Attachment 4
IL13AA09938
5
Page 12
Attachment 4
IL13AA09938
6
Page 13
Attachment 4
IL13AA09938
7
Page 14
Attachment 4
IL13AA09938
8
Page 15
Attachment 4
IL13AA09938
9
Report ID: 457751

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 07/09/2013 16:35
Supervisor
WATKINS, Scott Star # 5593 (DII Investigators)
Approved - 07/09/2013 16:43
Investigator
TN-2 Spfld Mayor, A.G., App Pros, & ISP Letters of acceptance
NARRATIVE SECTION
On June 6, 2013, Illinois State Police (ISP) legal counsel, John Hosteny, provided me, Master Sergeant
Scott Gaffner, a copy of a letter from Springfield Mayor J. Michael Houston dated May 6, 2013, written
to 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" had
occurred surrounding the implementation of a reduced time period on retaining police disciplinary
records. 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 the
retention of the records as it may be a violation of criminal law and should be referred to the Sangamon
County State's Attorney's office. The third attachment is a copy of the request from the State's
Page 1 of 2
Page 16

Report ID: 457751
NARRATIVE SECTION
Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick Delfino for the ISP to investigate the allegations of
Springfield Police Department shredding police officer's personnel files. The last document is a copy
of the letter from the ISP Director, Hiram Grau to Director Delfino accepting the investigation and
directing the Division of Internal Investigation (DII) to conduct the investigation. The above documents
proceeded the alleged shredding of police officers' personnel files by Springfield Police Department
Officials 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.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Mayor Houstons letter of request
File Name :
Spfld Mayor, A.G., App Pros, ISP letters.pdf
Page 2 of 2
Page 17
Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
1
Page 22
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
1
Page 23
Attachment 4
IL13AA09938
1
Report ID: 459329

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 07/09/2013 16:40
Supervisor
Approved - 07/09/2013 16:58
Investigator
TN 3 Document Taney County Sheriff's Dept. Reports, 6/7/13
Suspect : Robert WILLIAMS

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Black / Not Of Hispanic Origin
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Physical Description:
Page 1 of 2
Page 24

Report ID: 459329

RESIDENCE INFORMATION
Address Name
Address, City, Township, County, State, Zip, Country
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
NARRATIVE SECTION
On June 7, 2013, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner requested copies of the Taney County Missouri
Sheriff's Department reports from an incident that occured on March 23, 2008, which resulted in the
arrest of Springfield Police Officer, Clifford R. Buscher. The purpose of obtaining the documents
resulted from a request on May 30, 2013, where the Illinois State Police (ISP) Division of Internal
Investigation (DII) was requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick
J. Delfino, to investigate Springfield Police Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the
shredding of police officers' personnel files. The internal investigative reports generated by the
investigation of Buscher's Taney County incident were alleged to have been included in the personnel
files that were shredded. This investigative report reflects obtaining Taney County Missouri official
reports from records clerk Vickie Rogers computer files and for the paper file stored in long term
storage.
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.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Buscher Taney County Reports
File Name :
Buscher Taney County Rpts.pdf
Page 2 of 2
Page 25
Page 26

Page 27
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
1
Page 28
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
2
Page 29
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
3
Page 30
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
4
Page 31
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
5
Page 32
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
6
Page 33
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
1
Page 34
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
2
Page 35
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
3
Page 36
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
4
Page 37
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
5
Page 38
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
6
Page 39
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
7
Page 40
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
8
Page 41
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
9
Page 42
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
10
Page 43
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
11
Page 44
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
12
Page 45
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
13
Page 46
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
14
Page 47
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
15
Page 48
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
16
Page 49
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
17
Page 50
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
18
Page 51
Attachment 3
IL13AA09938
19
Report ID: 459359

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 08/07/2013 15:43
Supervisor
Approved - 08/07/2013 15:49
Investigator
TN:04 Interview of Retired SPD Commander Daryle Douglas Williamson
NARRATIVE SECTION
This 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. at
the Illinois State Police (ISP) Central Headquarters, office of the Division of Internal Investigation (DII). The interview was
conducted by DII Acting Investigative Commander, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner, and myself, DII Southern Commander
Lieutenant Stuart Weyforth. Also present in the interview was ISP Legal Counsel John Hosteny. The interview was
conducted pursuant to a request by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate
an allegation of the shredding of a disciplinary file of current SPD Deputy Chief Clifford Buscher. On April 26, 2013, DII had
been provided documents that described an incident in 2008, which resulted in the arrest of Buscher by the Taney County
Sheriff's Department in Missouri. The incident was subsequently investigated by SPD resulting in the suspension and
demotion of Buscher. DII received information that Williamson was the person who provided the documents anonymously
Page 1 of 3
Page 52

Report ID: 459359
NARRATIVE SECTION
to the ISP. At the onset of the interview of Williamson, he provided consent to audio record the interview. The following
information 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 while
employed by the SPD; including being a crime analyst, a sworn patrol officer and a detective. He was promoted up the
ranks to sergeant, lieutenant and eventually promoted to deputy chief in 2007. Williamson was demoted to commander
in November of 2010 for use of sick time. Williamson resigned from the SPD on October 1, 2011. Williamson resigned
from SPD as a result of health reasons and has been on duty related disability. Williamson is currently working part-time
security for the Springfield Sliders Baseball at Robbin Roberts Staduim and has been attending Springfield city hearings
concerning his pension. Williamson admitted he was the person who provided the ISP with an envelope containing
information pertaining to a 2008 incident in which Cliff Buscher was arrested in Taney County Missouri for discharging a
weapon (See TN:01). Williamson relayed the envelope to the ISP Central Headquarters, addressed to Lieutenant Colonel
Kim Cochran, on April 18, 2013. The envelope contained a synopsis of events occurring on March 22 and 23, 2008 in
Taney County Missouri. Williamson drafted the document which was then reviewed by his brother, SPD Lieutenant Greg
Williamson, 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 Missouri
along 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 other
SPD command officers who were present on the trip were then Commander Cliff Buscher, Williamson's brother Lieutenant
Greg 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 the
group, and believed to be in town consuming alcoholic beverages. Buscher was described as a heavy drinker who had
an anger problem. Buscher returned to the campsite and was observed consuming one (1) beer. The group proceeded
into the nearby town where they entered a restaurant known as the Frosted Mug, where there is also a bar. The group
traveled to the restaurant in two vehicles, one of which was operated by Kurt Banks since he does not consume alcoholic
beverages. At the restaurant Buscher was observed consuming three (3) more beers. Williamson believed Buscher had
been drinking all day. While in the restaurant, a woman patron verbalized she was offended by a t-shirt being worn by
Buscher's son. The t-shirt was of the rabbit from the Trix cereal commercial, and the shirt read' "Silly Fagot, Dick's are for
Chicks." Buscher became argumentative with the woman who had complained about the t-shirt. Buscher used profanity
towards 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 from
his weapon at the campsite. Williamson, along with his brother and Kurt Banks, proceeded back to the campsite where
he observed the kids had scattered and they were hiding from Buscher. Williamson observed the kids had jumped out
of screened windows. Williamson received information concerning the incident from Banks and his sons. Williamson
learned that Buscher had retrieved his service weapon (a Sig Sauer P229 .357) from the glove compartment of the truck
which Buscher and Banks were traveling in. Buscher expressed a desire to return to the Frosted Mug to confront the
woman. Buscher was heard saying he wanted to return to the Frosted Mug and he wanted to "kill the bitch." Buscher
had pointed his weapon at Williamson's son
in an attempt to take the van. While at the campsite, Buscher fired his
weapon, striking the ground approximately 5 feet from Williamson's son
Buscher was pointing the weapon in all
directions. At one point, Buscher had pointed his weapon at
who had his leg on a bench and Buscher was
heard saying, "You want to lose that leg mother fucker?"
Page 2 of 3
Page 53

Report ID: 459359
NARRATIVE SECTION
Williamson arrived back at the campsite and located Buscher inside one of the cabin's where he was observed seated
in a chair. Buscher stood from the chair and Williamson tackled Buscher to the floor. Williamson heard Banks say he
had 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 reported
someone was firing rounds and threatening people. Williamson also telephoned SPD Chief Ralph Caldwell to report the
incident. Taney County Sheriff's police deputies arrived at the campsite and appeared to be taken aback. The officers
had a "powwow" and decided to only take statements from Banks and
Williamson felt the incident was being
minimized and those who completed the statements didn't document the entire incident. Williamson had wished Banks
and
had documented exactly what had happened. Additionally, Buscher reported to the deputies that Williamson
had punched him in the face. The officers also questioned Williamson regarding if he had punched Buscher. Williamson
denied punching Buscher. Taney County deputies arrested Buscher and he was charged with a felony for discharging his
weapon 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 SPD
Deputy Chief Michael Geiger and Lieutenant Stephen Peters assigned to Internal Affairs. Williamson was interviewed
by Chief Caldwell and Deputy Chief Geiger. Williamson refused to allow his sons to be interviewed. Williamson recalled
the only juvenile interviewed was
who had witnessed the incident and alleged Buscher had pointed the
weapon at him and threatened to shoot him. Williamson recalled Buscher's discipline was a 30 day suspension, pending
termination. The Mayor of Springfield over turned the decision and demoted Buscher to Lieutenant. Williamson himself
received 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 his
pension hearing had concluded. Williamson was informed by his brother, Greg Williamson, the FOIA end date was
June 29, 2013. Williamson received information that on April 5, 2013, Banks filed a FOIA request to SPD for the Buscher
file. Williamson was informed by Banks that the FOIA request had been denied. Banks was going to file an appeal, but it
was learned from Greg Williamson that the file had been shredded. Williamson received information the file was shredded
by 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 recent
court 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 be
transferred electronically to a compact disc (CD) and will be placed into evidence at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Doug Williamson Transcript
File Name :
Williamson Transcript 2008.pdf
Page 3 of 3
Page 54
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
1
Page 55
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
2
Page 56
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
3
Page 57
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
4
Page 58
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
5
Page 59
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
6
Page 60
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
7
Page 61
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
8
Page 62
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
9
Page 63
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
10
Page 64
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
11
Page 65
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
12
Page 66
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
13
Page 67
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
14
Page 68
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
15
Page 69
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
16
Page 70
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
17
Page 71
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
18
Page 72
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
19
Page 73
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
20
Page 74
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
21
Page 75
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
22
Page 76
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
23
Page 77
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
24
Page 78
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
25
Page 79
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
26
Page 80
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
27
Page 81
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
28
Page 82
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
29
Page 83
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
30
Page 84
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
31
Page 85
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
32
Page 86
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
33
Page 87
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
34
Page 88
Case #IL13AA09938
TN:04
Attachment 1
35
Page 89
Report ID: 469753

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 08/08/2013 10:36
Supervisor
Approved - 08/28/2013 14:44
Investigator
TN 5 Interview Christopher Mueller, 6/19/13

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 5
Page 90

Report ID: 469753

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Witness : Christoper S MUELLER

Name:
Christoper S MUELLER
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White / Unknown
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Cell Phone
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS
Document Type
Document Number
State
Country
Employee Id
Lieutenant
Illinois
United States of America (USA)
Expiration Date
EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION
Employer
Address
Contacts
Springfield Police Department

Occupation:
Supervisors, Police And

Detectives
Employed From:
07/15/1991 to Present
Manager Name:
Additional Involved Employees

Agency Name
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
Responding
Vehicle
Page 2 of 5
Page 91

Report ID: 469753
Div Of Internal
Investigation

Case Management Officer
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
NARRATIVE SECTION
On June 19, 2013, at approximately 9:41 am, Illinois State Police (ISP) legal counsel John Hosteny, Division of Internal
Investigations Southern Commander Stuart Weyforth, #4258 and I, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner, #4222, interviewed
Springfield 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 an
investigation related to Springfield Police Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the premature shredding of
police officers' personnel files which occurred April 25, 2013. The following interview was recorded with the consent of
Mueller 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 with
Internal Affairs (IA). Mueller had been working IA since 2009 and had previous investigative experience as a detective from
2001 until 2007, was promoted to sergeant in 2007 and lieutenant in 2009. Mueller currently works IA with Lieutenant Greg
Williamson and Secretary Susan Canny.
Mueller was not with IA when an investigation was conducted from an incident that occurred in Taney County, Missouri
during March 2008 involving Commander Clifford Buscher, Deputy Chief Daryle Douglas Williamson, Lieutenant Greg
Williamson and Lieutenant Wendell Kurtis Banks. During 2008, IA Deputy Chief Michael Geiger did not have previous
investigative experience, but was the case agent due to the rank of the officers being investigated, while IA Lieutenant
Stephen Peters directed the majority of the investigation due to his previous investigative experience. Mueller was not in IA
during 2008 but said he was aware of the investigation through casual conversations with Peters and Geiger when Mueller
started IA in 2009. Mueller indicated he was made aware of criminal conduct by Clifford Buscher when he discharged
his 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 April
25, 2013. Mueller recalled Morgan wanted a copy of the IA statement from Banks to satisfy a Freedom of Information Act
request (FOIA), made by Banks. Mueller said Morgan could have signed out and taken the entire case file, but on this
occasion it remained with Mueller, while a copy of Banks statement was made. The individuals that had access to secured
IA files were Mueller, Greg Williamson, Communications Director Mike Madery, Michele Dodson and Chief Williams. Chief
Williams 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's
file. On April 23, the new SPD Assistant Corporation Counsel, Geannette Wittendorf, sent Mueller an email inquiring if
Mueller or Greg Williamson would be "around on Thursday morning." Mueller replied that he and Greg Williamson would
Page 3 of 5
Page 92

Report ID: 469753
NARRATIVE SECTION
be in class that day. Wittendorf then requested Mueller to call her which resulted in a conversation with Wittendorf advising
Mueller she needed he or Greg Williamson to be present at the office to shred some files prior to 5 pm on April 25 in order
to "not lie" while responding to a FOIA request. Once Mueller hung up from the call, he had the instant thought that the
pending shredding must revolve around the Buscher case and he wanted to provide Wittendorf some background on the
case since she was new to her position. Mueller was at the office when he was preparing to call Wittendorf and advised
Greg Williamson to leave the office in order for him to speak openly with Wittendorf. Mueller advised Wittendorf that he
believed the push to shred the files revolved around the Buscher IA case and Mueller believed the individuals involved
with having the IA files shredded may be trying to alleviate issues with promoting Buscher to Chief upon the departure
of Chief Williams. Mueller warned Wittendorf that they may use her inexperience with the department if there was fall out
from 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 speak
freely. Once Chief Williams granted permission to speak freely, Mueller indicated that what was transpiring with the
potential shredding of files "does not pass the smell test." Mueller explained that he believed it was his duty to advise the
Chief what he believed was a mistake that could become a large scale issue which could disgrace Chief Williams. Mueller
described an incident in which an officer had left the department under dishonorable circumstances and had subsequently
passed away. Chief Williams had denied the honor guards presence at the departed officers funeral due to the manner
he left the department. Mueller advised Chief Williams he wanted to leave the department with integrity and wanted the
honor guard present at his funeral and hoped Chief Williams wanted the honor guard at his funeral too. Mueller advised
Chief Williams that he did not want to be involved with the shredding of files even if Mueller had to be removed as Acting
Deputy Chief of IA. Chief Williams indicated he did not plan to remove Mueller from his position and did not appear to be
concerned while stating he had checked with city legal who had approved the pending destruction of the files.
th
On April 25 , at approximately 11:20 am, Mueller was training in Bloomington and received a text from Wittendorf that
read, "everything is ready to go." Mueller texted back, "So we are going to shred everything over 4 years old?" Wittendorf
responded, "Except pending cases." Mueller said he received an email from Wittendorf that was forwarded from Mark
Cullen, 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 sent
an email request to Wittendorf to provide the legal approval of the shred request and an email to Chief Williams to provide
the order. Mueller received approval from Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen through email and a phone call from Chief
Williams giving the order. Mueller indicated he proceeded to shred at 4:15 pm and completed after 10 pm with the Buscher
case being destroyed after the 5 pm deadline. Mueller described a call he received from Banks at approximately 9:43 pm
asking if the Buscher case had been shredded. Mueller advised him it had been destroyed but was aware that two compact
discs were still available with one derived from a copy of the paper file that was stored in the vault and one was a copy
of the paper file in the internal affairs office. Mueller eventually cut the discs in half with scissors and placed them in a
box 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 4 of 5
Page 93

Report ID: 469753
NARRATIVE SECTION
to city legal where Angela Fyans-Hemenaz took custody of them. Fyans-Hemenaz advised Mueller they would be sent to
the 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 monthly
and listed all cases coming up to the five year and one month period and then forwarded to Mueller. Mueller would sign
off on the list and then it was sent to city legal for review and granting approval for the files to be shredded. The list was
returned to Lt. Greg Williamson, who eventually pulled the files returning them to IA for Canny to take apart the binders and
eventually shred the documents. Mueller said they had never coordinated obtaining destruction certificates from Donna
Brown during the normal course of shredding documents and were never directed to shred documents immediately. The
files would usually be shredded within a couple week period of getting approval from city legal. Attached to this report are
a copy of the original list of files city legal reviewed and a copy of the list city legal provided hand written notes on prior
to 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 Monday
May 6, Mayor Houston requested a meeting at 11 am with Mueller in which Mueller provided him the same time line and
information on the shredding incident he had provided the ISP. Mueller indicated that Mayor Houston indicated they were
looking 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 the
MOU was not part of the negotiations the union had requested of the city. Mueller said there was not a doubt in his mind that
the purpose of the reduced time for shredding was to get rid of Buscher's file and allow him to become the chief. Mueller
advised 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, Robert
Williams, Mike Houston and the list of internal files sent to legal for approval for shredding and the return list from legal
with notations.
47 pages of attachments
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Mueller time line and email correspondence
File Name :
Mueller timeline, emails.PDF
Page 5 of 5
Page 94
Page 95

Page 96

Page 97

Page 98

Page 99
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
5
Page 100
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
6
Page 101
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
7
Page 102
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
8
Page 103
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
9
Page 104
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
10
Page 105
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
11
Page 106
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
12
Page 107
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
13
Page 108
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
14
Page 109
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
15
Page 110
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
16
Page 111
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
17
Page 112
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
18
Page 113
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
19
Page 114
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
20
Page 115
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
21
Page 116
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
22
Page 117
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
23
Page 118
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
24
Page 119
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
25
Page 120
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
26
Page 121
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
27
Page 122
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
28
Page 123
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
29
Page 124
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
30
Page 125
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
31
Page 126
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
32
Page 127
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
33
Page 128
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
34
Page 129
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
35
Page 130
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
36
Page 131
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
37
Page 132
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
38
Page 133
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
39
Page 134
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
40
Page 135
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
41
Page 136
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
42
Page 137
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
43
Page 138
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
44
Page 139
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
45
Page 140
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
46
Page 141
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
47
Report ID: 470055

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 08/08/2013 11:11
Supervisor
Approved - 08/28/2013 14:48
Investigator
TN 6, Michael A Geiger Interview, 6/20/13

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 3
Page 142

Report ID: 470055

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Witness : Michael A GEIGER

Name:
Height/Weight:
Michael A GEIGER
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White / Unknown
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
NARRATIVE SECTION
Investigations Southern Commander Stuart Weyforth, #4258 and I, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner #4222, interviewed
retired Springfield Police Department Commander Michael A. Geiger 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 an investigation related to Springfield Police Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the premature
shredding of police officers' personnel files which occurred April 25, 2013. The following interview was recorded with the
Page 2 of 3
Page 143

Report ID: 470055
NARRATIVE SECTION
consent of Geiger with the original recording retained in the case file. The following report is written in essence and is
not 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 his
career. Geiger recalled a case that occurred in Taney County, Missouri during 2008 that involved Commander Clifford
Buscher, 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 prior
to the completion of the criminal case. During the case, it was learned that Buscher was intoxicated and discharged his
weapon 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' statements
were "less specific" factually. Geiger did not believe this was an attempt to deceive the investigators, but felt they were
vague 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. Geiger
said 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 secretary
or Lieutenants with IA would shred the files. Geiger said they would be done routinely within a 30 to 60 day period but
there was never a sense of urgency to shred any files immediately.
The interview ended at approximately 8:41 am.
Page 3 of 3
Page 144
Report ID: 469755

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 08/29/2013 14:42
Supervisor
Approved - 09/02/2013 10:02
Investigator
TN 7, Interview of Stephen R. Peters, 6/20/13

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 4
Page 145

Report ID: 469755

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Witness : Stephen R PETERS

Name:
Height/Weight:
Stephen R PETERS
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White / Unknown
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Cell Phone
Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
NARRATIVE SECTION
Investigations Southern Commander Stuart Weyforth, #4258 and I, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner, #4222 interviewed
retired Springfield Police Department (SPD) Lieutenant Stephen Peters 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 an investigation related to Springfield Police Department Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the premature
shredding of police officers' personnel files which occurred April 25, 2013. The following interview was recorded with the
Page 2 of 4
Page 146

Report ID: 469755
NARRATIVE SECTION
consent of Peters with the original recording retained in the case file. The following report is written in essence and is
not verbatim.
Peters began his career July 1991 until he retired in 2011, and held the positions of Patrol Officer for seven years, drug unit
member 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 investigations
in 2011 before he retired.
Peters recalled a case that occurred in Taney County, Missouri during 2008 while he worked IA that involved Commander
Clifford Buscher, Deputy Chief Daryle Douglas Williamson, Lieutenant Greg Williamson and Lieutenant Wendell Kurtis
Banks, their sons and a friend of the boys,
Peters was advised of the situation by his supervisor, Deputy Chief
Michael Geiger. Peters recalled the facts of the investigation and described how Buscher had discharged his duty weapon
while intoxicated at the camp site in Taney County, Missouri. Peters and Geiger responded to the scene arriving the day
after the incident and learned many of the potential witnesses had already departed. IA was unable to locate any additional
evidence at the scene. IA interviewed the Taney County Deputies who responded to the crime scene and obtained their
reports. Peters learned the incident originally occurred at a bar when a lady was offended by a t-shirt Buscher's son was
wearing and an argument ensued. Buscher was taken from the scene by Banks back to the cabin when Buscher retrieved
his departmental weapon and expressed his desire to return to the bar to confront the lady. Banks prevented Buscher
from returning to the bar but Buscher proceeded to discharge his weapon at the camp site and threatened to shoot the leg
of
Peters said this fact was later learned from
when he was interviewed, but Taney County was apparently
unaware of the threat. Peters said he believed Banks must have been extremely concerned for the safety of the children
to depart the campground while Buscher was still present to retrieve Greg and Douglas Williamson for assistance with
the situation. IA also went to the bar where the initial encounter occurred but they were not as cooperative and it did not
produce 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 the
incident in an attempt to alleviate Buscher from receiving the full consequences of his actions. Peters said he did not
have facts to support this belief, but just had a "feeling." Geiger was assigned the case due to the rank of the SPD officers
involved but Peters was actively involved due to his knowledge of conducting criminal investigations. The only juvenile
interviewed 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 case
was completed it was taken to a non-union supervisor who reviewed the case, made a recommendation and forwarded
up to their command. Peters said because Buscher was a commander and Williamson was his supervisor, he believed
that current Assistant Chief Robert Williams would review the case and forwarded a recommendation. Peters believed that
Buscher 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 the
corporation counsel's office. Cases were retained for five years, department crash reports were retained for three years
and written reprimands were retained for one year. Routinely the IA secretary would review case files if they are past the
Page 3 of 4
Page 147

Report ID: 469755
NARRATIVE SECTION
five year period and forwarded the information to city legal on a letter format. City legal would determine which case would
be retained and which could be shredded. Peters would obtain the approved list and retrieve the case files from the vault
and return them to their IA office to prepare to shred. Peters said it would routinely take a couple weeks before the files
would 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 referenced
the reduced period to shred documents.
The interview ended at approximately 9:56 am.
Page 4 of 4
Page 148
Report ID: 470065

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 09/03/2013 09:50
Supervisor
Approved - 09/03/2013 15:33
Investigator
TN 8, Interview of Wendell Kurtis Banks, 7/1/13

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 7
Page 149

Report ID: 470065

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Witness : Wendell Kurtis BANKS

Name:
Wendell Kurtis BANKS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White / Unknown
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Cell Phone
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS
Document Type
Document Number
State
Country
Employee Id
Lieutenant
Illinois
Expiration Date
Employer
Address
Contacts

Occupation:

Detectives
Employed From:
Manager Name:

Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
Page 2 of 7
Page 150

Report ID: 470065

NARRATIVE SECTION
On 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 Sergeant
Scott Gaffner, #4222, interviewed Springfield Police Department Lieutenant Wendell Kurtis Banks 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 an investigation related
to Springfield Police Department (SPD) Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the premature shredding of
police officers' personnel files which occurred April 25, 2013. The following interview was recorded
with the consent of Banks with the original recording retained in the case file. The following report is
written in essence and is not verbatim. For report writing purposes, Greg Williamson will be referred
to 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 promoted
to sergeant in the proactive crime unit, worked in the crimes against persons unit, was promoted to
lieutenant 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 father
and 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 which
was
Banks said they had been taking the trip for over 10 years at the Edge Water Beach
Resort which usually occurred over Father's Day. Banks said the group consisted of more than eight
different father and son combinations over the years. Banks was staying in a trailer with Buscher
and their children while the Williamsons stayed in a separate cabin with their children. During the
stay, they had decided to go to The Frosted Mug in Forsyth, Missouri to eat pizza as a group while a
few of the older children went driving through the small town. Banks recalled hearing a disturbance
in the bar area and walked toward the area observing Buscher in a verbal argument with a female
patron. (Banks proceeded to retrieve a copy of his administrative interview to refresh his memory and
provided the copy which is attached to this report.) Buscher was walking toward Banks and indicated
that 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 had
prearranged to drive Buscher's truck due to Buscher being intoxicated.
, the son of
Williamson,
the son of Greg, and
the son of Buscher, were present in the back seat of
Buscher's truck. Buscher had already entered his truck in the driver's seat which prompted Banks
to convince Buscher to let him drive since Banks had not been drinking. While Buscher was arguing
about driving, Banks observed Buscher had his duty weapon unholstered and in his hand. Banks
repeatedly requested Buscher to put the weapon away with Buscher eventually departing the driver's
Page 3 of 7
Page 151

Report ID: 470065
NARRATIVE SECTION
side for the passenger side. Buscher stated that he wanted to return to the bar and confront the
lady because she disrespected and spit in his face while she was yelling during the encounter. This
dialogue continued during the drive back to the resort as Buscher still had possession of the weapon
and was demanding to return to the bar. When they arrived at the resort, Banks was concerned with the
safety of the children and ability to communicate with the Williamson brothers as cell phone coverage
in the area was unavailable.
Because of Buscher's irrational behavior, Banks decided to formulate a plan to keep the children out
of harms way and get Buscher to his trailer quickly. He was going to have Greg's oldest son, who was
driving the van, take the kids directly to their cabin. Banks proceeded to escort the kids out of his truck
to the van when Buscher exited the truck and entered the passenger seat of the van with his weapon
and ordered Greg's son to take him back to the bar. Banks immediately intervened and informed
Greg's son to get out of the van and Banks proceeded to enter the van and drive the kids to their
cabin. Upon arrival, Banks went to the back of the van and was speaking with some of the older kids
when he heard a gunshot coming from the front of the van. Banks immediately responded to the front
of 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 some
of them jumping through screens on the open windows. Buscher proceeded to walk through the
cabin and out the opposite door and discharged another round outside the cabin. Banks believed the
police would be responding to the cabin because of the shots fired and was attempting to persuade
Buscher to give Banks his weapon. Buscher refused his requests and exited the front door. Banks
later learned this was when Buscher threatened to shoot
in the leg. Buscher proceeded to fire
multiple 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 Buscher
passed out, Banks quickly drove to the bar and retrieved Williamson and Greg. Banks described
what occurred and they formulated a plan to get the gun from Buscher. Once they arrived at the
resort, Williamson stopped to speak with his son while Banks and Greg walked to the cabin and found
Buscher still passed out. Greg proceeded to retrieve the weapon from Buscher without waking him
and Banks made the weapon safe and took it to another room. Banks heard a loud commotion in the
room where they left Buscher and returned hearing Williamson telling them to get the weapon from
Buscher as Williamson had tackled Buscher thinking he still had the weapon. Banks separated them
and advised Williamson they had already obtained the weapon.
Williamson proceeded to call the SPD chief and Taney County Sheriff's Department to report the
incident. Banks stated he was initially reluctant to provide a statement to the responding officers
Page 4 of 7
Page 152

Report ID: 470065
NARRATIVE SECTION
as Buscher was his supervisor and it would provide a "black eye" for all the officers involved. The
written statements provided to the Sheriff's Department were only completed from details they had
been asked by the deputies. Banks did not volunteer additional information that may have shown
Buscher 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 investigation
with Buscher eventually receiving a demotion and 30 day suspension, while Williamson received an
unknown disciplinary proceeding. Buscher's criminal case was completed with a reduced charge and
an extended probation. Banks conveyed that a couple of months after his probation was served, Chief
Williams promoted Buscher to Deputy Chief of Investigations.
Banks' relationship with Buscher had diminished since the incident and he believed he was
getting passed over for opportunities with investigations since Buscher was promoted in charge of
investigations. Banks had been advised by Deputy Chief Bob Markovich that a general order had been
written to release all IA records to the general public. Banks was waiting for this to be implemented
but realized the IA files from the incident was getting close to being eligible for shredding and decided
to request the documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on April 5. Banks received a
response on April 8 that indicated part of the request had been approved and part denied, (with a copy
of the response attached to this report). Banks wanted the file to prevent Buscher from retaliating
against him for the incident that occurred in 2008 even though they attempted to insulate Buscher
from a severe consequence. Banks believed that Buscher continued to blame the other officers for
the charges from his actions. Banks met with Chief Williams on April 11 and advised him the reason
for the request. Chief Williams said he was not aware of the FOIA request even though he advised
Banks that he had of copy of Calvin Christians FOIA request that referenced Banks' request. Chief
Williams facilitated a meeting with Banks and Buscher with Banks explaining why he requested the
FOIA. Buscher only responded "I wish they were already shredded," when Banks referenced the IA
file.
On approximately April 18, Banks did not think Springfield Corporation Counsel's response to
his request applied and learned from SPD Lieutenant Bill Neil that Attorney Don Cravens was
knowledgeable about the laws surrounding FOIA. Banks briefly spoke to Cravens who advised him to
provide Cravens with all the documents Banks possessed and he would review them prior to Banks
deciding if he wanted to retain Cravens. Banks said he provided Cravens all the correspondence and
documents that same day. Cravens called Banks the week of April 22 and advised him of case law
that Judge Kelly presided over which confirmed the referenced section 7(1)(n) did not apply to FOIA
and Banks should have received the requested file. Banks had been corresponding with Corporation
Counsel Megan Morgan who had denied his request. Morgan left her position with Corporation
Page 5 of 7
Page 153

Report ID: 470065
NARRATIVE SECTION
Counsel and on April 22 Banks met with Corporation Counsel Geannette Wittendorf. Banks provided
the case law and explained how he believed they were erroneous in their decision. Wittendorf advised
Banks he had a 60 day appeal period and could retain counsel to assist with his appeal. Banks
asked 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 by
Lieutenant Carl Crawford during the evening and was advised that IA was shredding the files Banks
had requested. Banks called Lieutenant Christopher Mueller with IA who confirmed there was an
MOU agreement and he was ordered to destroy the files. Banks then spoke with Deputy Chief Robert
Markovich, and advised him the files had been destroyed. Markovich advised Banks they would
not 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 been
shredded. 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 Calvin
Christian, who advised Banks he was aware the files had been shredded. Banks did not provide
Christian any information and indicated he believed Cravens notified Christian of the shredding which
left Banks frustrated. Christian later asked Banks if he wanted to join his suit against SPD as Cravens
would represent him "pro bono." Banks advised Christian he was not interested in profiting off his
request from SPD. Banks said a news reporter from channel 20 had attempted to speak with him at
his house but was unsuccessful.
Banks described his previous relationship with Buscher as being close friends, professionally and
personally, before the incident in 2008. Banks felt Buscher later became vindictive toward the officers
who attended the retreat when they had attempted to protect him from the full consequences from his
actions. Banks believed Buscher would continue this attitude if Buscher were to become the chief
and 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 sent
indicating there was a FOIA request for memos, statements, emails and other information pertaining
to the 2008 incident. Banks said he and Greg had their transcribed IA interviews available and advised
Wittendorf they were willing to provide them in order to satisfy the FOIA request. Wittendorf acted
as if she did not hear them and continued to advise them that if they could not find them, they would
not be required to produce them. Banks and Greg repeatedly advised Wittendorf they possessed the
transcripts, but it appeared Wittendorf did not want them to produce the documents. Banks advised
Wittendorf she still should have the documents on her computer too as she had emailed them to Banks
previously. Wittendorf denied possessing the documents on her computer. Wittendorf then began
Page 6 of 7
Page 154

Report ID: 470065
NARRATIVE SECTION
lecturing Banks and Greg that she believed someone was trying to hurt the department with the FOIA
requests. 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 Protective
Association(PBPA) which reduced the retention of IA files from five to four years, was written by
Markovich at Chief Williams request. When the agreeent was signed on April 25, Markovich was not
at the meeting but union President Don Edwards, Vice President Josh Stuenke, attorney Ron Stone
and SPD Chief Williams, Buscher and Wittendorf were present. Banks denied possessing or having
knowledge 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 consisting
of 14 pages.
Attachment 2: IA interview of Banks from 2008 consisting of 36 pages.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Banks FOIA request
File Name :
Banks FOIA.PDF
Page 7 of 7
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

Page 170
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
15
Page 171
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
16
Page 172
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
17
Page 173
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
18
Page 174
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
19
Page 175
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
20
Page 176
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
21
Page 177
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
22
Page 178
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
23
Page 179
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
24
Page 180
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
25
Page 181
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
26
Page 182
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
27
Page 183
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
28
Page 184
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
29
Page 185
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
30
Page 186
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
31
Page 187
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
32
Page 188
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
33
Page 189
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
34
Page 190
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
35
Page 191
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
36
Page 192
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
37
Page 193
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
38
Page 194
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
39
Page 195
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
40
Page 196
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
41
Page 197
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
42
Page 198
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
43
Page 199
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
44
Page 200
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
45
Page 201
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
46
Page 202
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
47
Page 203
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
48
Page 204
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
49
Page 205
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
50
Report ID: 474425

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

Department
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
510 E Allen, Springfield, Sangamon, Illinois, United States of America (USA)

Location Type
Police Department /
08/08/2013 16:18
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 08/22/2013 11:02
Supervisor
Approved - 08/28/2013 16:41
Investigator
TN 9, Deliver Use Immunity to Chris Mueller, 4/8/13

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 3
Page 206

Report ID: 474425

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Witness : Christopher MUELLER

Name:
Height/Weight:
Christopher MUELLER
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
/ Not Of Hispanic Origin
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Illinois
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Cell Phone
Telephone
Employer
Address
Contacts

Occupation:

Detectives
Employed From:
Manager Name:

Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
Page 2 of 3
Page 207

Report ID: 474425
NARRATIVE SECTION
On August 8, 2013, at approximately 4:18 pm, I, Master Sergeant Scott Gaffner, #4222, of the
Illinois 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 the
communication with Mueller revolved around a SPD Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the premature
shredding of police officers' personnel files which occurred April 25, 2013, and subsequent request
to 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 Appellate
Prosecutors Office that had been secured for him during a previous interview with him on June 19 (see
report TN 5). Mueller advised me he had been subpoenaed for a deposition on August 22 in reference
to a civil case against the City of Springfield from Calvin Christian, case number 2013-MR-341 and
wanted to ensure he had a copy of the Use Immunity for his record. I provided Mueller a copy of the
immunity agreement.
Attachment 1: Use Immunity consisting of 5 pages.

Attachment 2: Civil case 2013-MR-341 consisting of 109 pages.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Mueller Use Immunity
File Name :
Mueller use immunity.pdf
Type :
Name :
Christian Civil Suit 2013-MR-341
File Name :
Christian Civil Suit.pdf
Page 3 of 3
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

Report ID: 474473

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

Department
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 10/03/2013 11:45
Supervisor
MCCARTHY, Annette Star # 17418
Approved - 10/03/2013 14:25
Investigator
TN 10, Waiver of Attorney Client Privilege, 8/16/13

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 2
Page 324

Report ID: 474473

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
NARRATIVE SECTION
On May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation 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 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 August 16, 2013, a response
to the waiver request was answered by Mayor Houston granting a limited waiver of attorney-client privilege and provided
the audio CD of the May 7, 2013, executive session of the Springfield City Council meeting. The audio CD and original
response 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.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
File Name :
ISP request of waiver atty privilege.pdf
Type :
Name :
Response to requested Waiver of Privileges
File Name :
Waiver Atty Prov & audio closed session.PDF
Page 2 of 2
Page 325
Page 326

Page 327

Page 328

Page 329

Page 330

Report ID: 485889

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 10/04/2013 16:14
Supervisor
WILLIAMS, Tad Star # 4738
Approved - 10/22/2013 11:53
Investigator
TN-11, Receipt of 64GB flash drive containing Springfield PD documents, 9/12/13.

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 5
Page 331

Report ID: 485889

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Subject : Government - Springfield Police Department

Name:
Organization
Type:
Government
Department:
ADDRESS INFORMATION
800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701, United States of America (USA)
CONTACTS
Name:
RAHN, Steven C
Title:
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Address:
800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701,

Contact on
Scene?
No
Contacts:
Additional Info:
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Person Contacted : Steven C RAHN

Name:
Steven C RAHN
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
Marital Status:
Hair Color:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
No Photo
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:

Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
Page 2 of 5
Page 332

Report ID: 485889
NARRATIVE SECTION
On May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police, Division of Internal Investigation, was requested by the State's Attorneys
Appellate 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 August
16, 2013, a response to the waiver request was answered by Mayor Houston granting a limited waiver of attorney-client
privilege.
On August 16, 2013, Mr. Ed Parkinson, Assistant State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, sent a letter to Jon Gray Noll from
the Noll Law Office who is representing the City of Springfield on case 2013-MR-394. The contents of the letter requested
specific 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 disposal
of City records.
3. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Springfield and the Police Benevolent and
Protective 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 3 of 5
Page 333

Report ID: 485889
NARRATIVE SECTION
1. Negotiation or Execution of the MOU dated April 25, 2013, between the City of Springfield and PBPA Unit #5 concerning
the 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 affairs
files, 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 Deputy
Chief 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 Buscher
concerning an incident in March 2008.
6. FOIA Request #11048 by Calvin Christian for a copy of IA investigations against every Springfield Police Department
Officer.
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 Police
Legal Counsel, John Hosteny, which was addressed to Mr. Ed Parkinson, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor from
Springfield Assistant Corporation Counsel, Steven C. Rahn, along with a 64 gigabyte universal serial bus (USB) flash
drive containing 23.8 gigabytes of data stored in six primary folders. The data provided was in response to the August
16, 2013, request of documents and files from Springfield Police Department. The letter appeared to have been originally
drafted in response to a FOIA request by Calvin Christian and did not completely comply with the requested information
and documents specifically outlined.
The six folders contained:

*Springfield Network email searches: The results of searches conducted by the City's Information Services Division for
emails 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 additional
documents.
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 4 of 5
Page 334

Report ID: 485889
NARRATIVE SECTION
Attachment 2: Letter to State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor from Assistant Corportaion Counsel Steven Rahn
consisting of one page.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Requested Springfield Files
File Name :
Spd Request of information.pdf
Type :
Name :
64 GB flash drive information
File Name :
64gb documents SPD.PDF
Page 5 of 5
Page 335
Page 336
Attachment 1
IL13AA09938
1
Page 337
Attachment 1
IL13AA09938
2
Page 338
Attachment 1
IL13AA09938
3
Page 339
Attachment 2
IL13AA09938
4
Report ID: 511431

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 01/16/2014 14:44
Supervisor
Approved - 01/16/2014 14:48
Investigator
TN 12, Meeting with Steve Rahn & James Sullivan, 11/6/13

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 4
Page 340

Report ID: 511431

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Person Contacted : Steven C RAHN

Name:
Steven C RAHN
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
Marital Status:
Hair Color:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
No Photo
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Person Interviewed : Steve RAHN

Name:
Steve RAHN
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
No Photo
Facial Hair:
Male
Complexion:
Race/Ethnicity:
approxim
55 Years
Hair Color:
Marital Status:
Unknown
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
Employer
Address
Contacts

Occupation:
Lawyers And Judges
Employed From:
Manager Name:
Page 2 of 4
Page 341

Report ID: 511431
Person Interviewed : Steve RAHN

Person Interviewed : James SULLIVAN

Name:
Height/Weight:
James SULLIVAN
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White / Not Of Hispanic Origin
Complexion:
approxim
47 Years
Marital Status:
Unknown
No Photo
Hair Color:
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
Employer
Address
Contacts
Springfield City
Occupation:
Supervisors, Computer
Equipment Operators
Employed From:
Manager Name:

Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
NARRATIVE SECTION
On November 6, 2013, at approximately 2:00 pm, Illinois State Police (ISP) Legal Counsel John
Hosteny, 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 and
Springfield City Water, Light and Power Supervisor of Technical Support, James Sullivan. The meeting
was 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) flash
drive containing 23.8 gigabytes of data stored in six primary folders that was obtained on September
12, 2013, see TN 11. DII became involved in an investigation when on May 30, 2013, the ISP DII
was requested by the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate
Page 3 of 4
Page 342

Report ID: 511431
NARRATIVE SECTION
a 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 sent
on August 16, 2013, as reported in TN 11. Rahn indicated the six folders were compiled from
searches from FOIA requests, email and computer searches and the May 7 Executive Session of
the Springfield City Council, to provide for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
(ARDC) Investigation, Calvin Christian lawsuit and ISP investigation. Sullivan provided insight to how
he searched for the files on their system and individual computers to compile the documents. At
the conclusion of the meeting, DII requested for the city to review the requested items and forward
all requested documents as well as deposition transcripts from the Calvin Christian litigation. The
meeting ended at 2:45 pm.
On November 29, 2013, a follow up letter was written to Rahn again requesting the documents that
had 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 a
one page letter, attachment 2. The letter was dated September 4, 2013, from the Office of Corporation
Counsel, but was received on December 6.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
December 6 Corp Counsel Ltr to ISP
File Name :
Dec 6 Corp Counsel Ltr to ISP.pdf
Type :
Name :
Follow up request of documents
File Name :
Nov SPD follow up request.pdf
Page 4 of 4
Page 343
Page 344
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
1
Page 345
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
1
Report ID: 506101

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 01/08/2014 13:13
Supervisor
Approved - 01/08/2014 15:09
Investigator
TN 13, Interview State Archives Director David Joens, 11/20/13

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 5
Page 346

Report ID: 506101

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Person Interviewed : David JOENS

Name:
Height/Weight:
David JOENS
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
No Photo
Facial Hair:
Male
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
DOB
Hair Color:
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Person Interviewed : Gloria HUSTON

Name:
Gloria HUSTON
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Female
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
approxim
60 Years
No Photo
Hair Color:
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
NARRATIVE SECTION
On November 20, 2013, at approximately 1:00 pm, Illinois State Police Legal Counsel John Hosteny
and I, Division of Internal Investigation Lieutenant, Scott Gaffner interviewed the Director of the Illinois
State Archives, David Joens and Archival Program Administrator, Gloria Huston. The interview was
Page 2 of 5
Page 347

Report ID: 506101
NARRATIVE SECTION
conducted at the Norton Building in Springfield, Illinois with the purpose of the interview to assist in
understanding the process involved with the destruction of documents pursuant to the Local Records
Act. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal
Investigation 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 police
officers' 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 cover
all 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 Records
Commission. This consisted of the Springfield Police Department's original Application for Authority
to Dispose of Local Records in 1978 (78:395, consisting of 5 pages, attachment 1), amendments to that
Application in 1987 (87:025, consisting of 84 pages, attachment 2) and the most recent one submitted
September 5, 2012 (12:235, consisting of 43 pages, attachment 3). The latest application was submitted
after Donna Brown, Springfield Police Department's record disposal coordinator, advised Huston their
previous applications did not cover internal affairs files, among other documents. Huston stated
Application 12:235 Item 1200, entitled Internal Affairs Investigations (Electronic), would cover both
electronic and hardcopy records. Huston indicated she has had conversations with Brown on several
occasions and believes Brown fully understands the Local Records Act but her advice may not have
been taken during discussions leading up to the destruction of the Springfield Police Department
files. Also provided were copies of every Record Disposal Certificate filed by the Springfield Police
Department under each Application. Once an agency submits the Application for Authority to Dispose
of Local Records, and the Application is approved by the Local Records Commission, the agency must
still file a Record Disposal Certificate with the Commission for authority to dispose of records covered
in the Application. The agency must wait 60 days after submitting a Record Disposal Certificate before
destroying documents, unless denied by the Local Records Commission. The agency is advised they
may not dispose of records if there is pending litigation or a freedom of information request, among
other reasons.
Huston recalled receiving a phone call from Springfield Assistant Corporation Counsel Geannette
Wittendorf, on May 1, 2013. The discussion revolved around the memorandum of understanding
the Police Benevolent and Protective Association and Springfield had signed, internal affairs files
and the Personnel Record Review Act. Huston documented the date and conversation she had with
Wittendorf because this was after Springfield had shredded the internal affair files and the media had
been reporting the incident. Huston stated Wittendorf strongly believed she was allowed to destroy the
internal affairs files under the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act. Huston disagreed, and provided
Wittendorf her interpretation of the act and understanding that all documents to include internal
Page 3 of 5
Page 348

Report ID: 506101
NARRATIVE SECTION
affair files could not be destroyed prior to submission of an Application for Authority to Dispose of
Local Records covering the records in question, approval of the Application from the Local Records
Commission, and then approval of a Record Disposal Certificate covering the specific batch of records
to be disposed. Huston said an agreement between a municipality and union organization to diminish
the 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 any
Record 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 respect
to the retention period for internal affairs files on May 1, 2013, but per correspondence dated June
5, 2013,the Commission declined to act upon the request due to the pending litigation (attachment
3). Huston felt Wittendorf believed she had properly followed the Personnel Record Review Act in
spite 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 there
were many government bodies that did not fully comply, but was unaware of anyone being prosecuted
for violating the act.
After the interview had been completed, Huston forwarded an email correspondance she previously
had with Assistant Appellate Prosecutor, Charles Zalar and her document in response. Attached to
this report is the email and letter.
The interview ended at approximately 1:52 pm.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
12:235
File Name :
SPD App12-235.pdf
Type :
Name :
78:395
File Name :
SPD.App78-395.pdf
Type :
Name :
87:025
Page 4 of 5
Page 349

Report ID: 506101
File Name :
ATTACHMENTS
Local.Record.Comm.SPD.App87-025.pdf
Type :
Name :
Huston email
File Name :
Zalar and Huston communication.docx
Type :
Name :
Huston Letter to Zalar
File Name :
Huston letter to Zalar.doc
Page 5 of 5
Page 350
Page 351
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
1
Page 352
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
2
Page 353
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
3
Page 354
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
4
Page 355
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
5
Page 356
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
6
Page 357
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
7
Page 358
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
8
Page 359
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
9
Page 360
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
10
Page 361
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
11
Page 362
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
12
Page 363
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
13
Page 364
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
14
Page 365
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
15
Page 366
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
16
Page 367
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
17
Page 368
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
18
Page 369
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
19
Page 370
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
20
Page 371
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
21
Page 372
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
22
Page 373
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
23
Page 374
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
24
Page 375
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
25
Page 376
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
26
Page 377
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
27
Page 378
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
28
Page 379
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
29
Page 380
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
30
Page 381
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
31
Page 382
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
32
Page 383
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
33
Page 384
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
34
Page 385
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
35
Page 386
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
36
Page 387
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
37
Page 388
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
38
Page 389
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
39
Page 390
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
40
Page 391
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
41
Page 392
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
42
Page 393
IL13AA09938
Attachment 3
43
Page 394
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
1
Page 395
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
2
Page 396
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
3
Page 397
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
4
Page 398
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
5
Page 399
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
1
Page 400
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
2
Page 401
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
3
Page 402
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
4
Page 403
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
5
Page 404
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
6
Page 405
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
7
Page 406
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
8
Page 407
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
9
Page 408
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
10
Page 409
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
11
Page 410
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
12
Page 411
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
13
Page 412
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
14
Page 413
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
15
Page 414
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
16
Page 415
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
17
Page 416
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
18
Page 417
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
19
Page 418
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
20
Page 419
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
21
Page 420
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
22
Page 421
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
23
Page 422
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
24
Page 423
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
25
Page 424
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
26
Page 425
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
27
Page 426
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
28
Page 427
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
29
Page 428
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
30
Page 429
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
31
Page 430
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
32
Page 431
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
33
Page 432
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
34
Page 433
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
35
Page 434
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
36
Page 435
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
37
Page 436
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
38
Page 437
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
39
Page 438
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
40
Page 439
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
41
Page 440
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
42
Page 441
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
43
Page 442
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
44
Page 443
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
45
Page 444
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
46
Page 445
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
47
Page 446
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
48
Page 447
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
49
Page 448
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
50
Page 449
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
51
Page 450
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
52
Page 451
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
53
Page 452
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
54
Page 453
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
55
Page 454
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
56
Page 455
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
57
Page 456
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
58
Page 457
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
59
Page 458
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
60
Page 459
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
61
Page 460
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
62
Page 461
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
63
Page 462
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
64
Page 463
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
65
Page 464
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
66
Page 465
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
67
Page 466
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
68
Page 467
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
69
Page 468
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
70
Page 469
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
71
Page 470
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
72
Page 471
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
73
Page 472
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
74
Page 473
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
75
Page 474
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
76
Page 475
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
77
Page 476
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
78
Page 477
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
79
Page 478
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
80
Page 479
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
81
Page 480
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
82
Page 481
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
83
Page 482
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
84
Report ID: 513977

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 02/06/2014 09:32
Supervisor
Approved - 02/06/2014 10:02
Investigator
TN 14, Interview of Megan Morgan, 12/10/13

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 4
Page 483

Report ID: 513977

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Person Interviewed : Megan MORGAN

Name:
Height/Weight:
Megan MORGAN
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Female
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White
Complexion:
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
No Photo
Hair Length/
Style:
Unknown
Dominant Hand:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Cell Phone
Employer
Address
Contacts
Illinois Secretary of State

Occupation:
Secretary of State Inspector

General
Employed From:
Manager Name:

Name:
Megan MORGAN
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
Marital Status:
Hair Color:
No Photo
Page 2 of 4
Page 484

Report ID: 513977

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

Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
NARRATIVE SECTION
On December 10, 2013, at approximately 1:27 pm, Illinois State Police (ISP) Legal Counsel John Hosteny and I, ISP Division
of Internal Investigation Lieutenant, Scott Gaffner interviewed former Assistant Corporation Counsel for Springfield Police
Department (SPD), Megan Morgan. The interview was conducted at the ISP Central Headquarters in Springfield. The
purpose of the interview was to determine Morgan's knowledge of the events that led up to the shredding of SPD internal
investigative files. The ISP investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Division of Internal Investigation was requested
by 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 not
verbatim. 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 March
2012 when she began working as a Police Legal Advisor. Morgan resigned April 11, 2013 when she began working for
the Secretary of State, Inspector General. Morgan described her primary responsibilities while with Springfield Police
Department was to train officers in regards to legal aspects, respond to FOIA requests and represent officers in federal
court. Morgan would occasionally work with records division supervisor, Donna Brown and Commander Gregg Williams
with 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 5
year retention period after which time a request was made to dispose of the records. This request was initiated by the
Internal Affairs (IA) secretary and forwarded through the IA Lieutenants to SPD legal with Morgan. Morgan would review
the cases to determine if pending litigation existed or a valid FOIA existed. The document would be returned to IA after
legal review with Morgan indicating which cases needed to be saved. Morgan was not aware the city was shredding IA
files on a routine basis as she did not understand that expungement was interpreted as shred. Morgan thought the city
was expunging the documents by removing the officer's names, not shredding the documents. Towards the end of her
employment with the city, Morgan said she eventually became aware that documents were being destroyed. Morgan had a
brief conversation with Angela Fyans-Jimenez, the previous police legal advisor, about discovering the documents were
being destroyed, but she never followed up on the issue.
Page 3 of 4
Page 485

Report ID: 513977
NARRATIVE SECTION
Morgan described a change in Springfield's manner of releasing documents which occurred January 2013. Springfield had
lost a FOIA lawsuit filed by Calvin Christian to include approximately $17, 000 in attorney fees, and another such lawsuit
was pending. Springfield had made decisions to fully deny FOIA requests prior to January 2013. Morgan explained the
city 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 general
order to presume I/A files were public record and subject to release under a FOIA. Morgan recalled a couple meetings to
work on the language for the general order with Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen, PBPA representative Ron Stone, Union
President, Don Edwards and Chief Williams. They were attempting to agree upon the language and have it implemented
prior to Morgan's departure, but it never was finalized. Morgan recalled Ron Stone requesting to shorten the retention
period to retain documents, but he never specified a time period and Morgan did not recommend reducing the retention
period, and she did not relay Stone's suggestion to anyone. Morgan was present during the contract negotiations and
did not recall a formal proposal requested from the PBPA to shorten the retention period. Morgan received an email from
Buscher during the discussions indicating he did not like the recommendation to release all IA files but was in agreement
with her work on the general order.
Morgan was not aware of a Memorandum of Understanding which was agreed upon by the PBPA and Springfield which
reduced the file retention period from five to four years. Morgan recalled having a conversation on two occasions with
Buscher in which he was suggesting his desire to have the time period to retain IA files shortened. Morgan did not recall
the time period the first conversation occurred, but believed the second conversation occurred between March and April
of 2013. Morgan advised Buscher he would have to wait until July, 2013, when his five year retention period would be
completed. Morgan was aware Lieutenant Banks requested Buscher's I/A file in a FOIA prior to her departure and the city
claiming exemptions against releasing the documents but allowing him to have his IA statements. By Morgan addressing
Banks FOIA, she became aware of the date of Buscher's five year period. Morgan did not have a discussion with anyone
pressuring 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 on
the 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 Records
No. 12:235 approved September 5, 2012, and explained it to her. Morgan stated Wittnedorf never approached Morgan
for guidance with respect to expungement of IA files. Morgan described Wittendorf's conduct as being contentious with
Fyans-Jimenez and recalled Cullen speaking with Wittendorf on two occasions about her conduct reference an ongoing
child 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 4 of 4
Page 486
Report ID: 512991

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 01/21/2014 08:23
Supervisor
Approved - 01/21/2014 20:01
Investigator
TN 15, Interview of Assistant Attorney General Matt Hartman, 12/10/13

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 4
Page 487

Report ID: 512991

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Person Interviewed : Matt HARTMAN

Name:
Height/Weight:
Matt HARTMAN
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Unknown / Unknown
Complexion:
approxim
38 Years
Marital Status:
Unknown
No Photo
Hair Color:
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Employer
Address
Contacts
Attorney General Office

Occupation:
Attorney
Employed From:
Manager Name:

Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
Page 2 of 4
Page 488

Report ID: 512991
NARRATIVE SECTION
On December 10, 2013, at approximately 3:06 pm, Illinois State Police Legal Counsel John Hosteny
and I, Division of Internal Investigation Lieutenant, Scott Gaffner interviewed Public Access Counselor
(PAC)Assistant Attorney General, Matt Hartman. The interview was conducted on a teleconference
with Attorney General employees Karen McNaught, Bureau Chief of the General Law Bureau, Sarah
Pratt, 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 recalled
a 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 Internal
Investigation 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 police
officers' 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 members
of the general public to obtain general guidance about the Freedom of Information Act and Open
Meetings Act. Hartman indicated he did not receive instructions from the Attorney General's Office
on a standard response to questions but would provide general guidance, convey binding opinions
or refer to court cases when responding. Hartman did not keep detailed notes of conversations he
had involving inquiries.
On October 15, 2013, ISP Legal Counsel John Hosteny drafted an electronic email letter to the Attorney
General 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 Access
Counselor Hotline, 1/ 877- 299-3642 or other number, from Springfield Assistant Corporation Counsel
Geannette Wittendorf, on or about April 24, 2013, through Apri126, 2013, inclusive, to any and all
employees of the PAC." On October 22, 2013, the Attorney General drafted a response granting in part
and denying in part the request from ISP. Attached to this report are the documents to include a letter
dated August 28, 2013, to Ester J. Seitz from Donald M. Craven Law Office, P.C., a page documenting
the date of 4/25/13, time and the number which called the PAC and time period elapsed with the rest
of the document being redacted, and a note page with four lines of minimal notes with the rest of the
document redacted, attachment 1.
Hartman had previously been provided his notes from attachment 1 and was asked if he recalled
receiving a call from Wittendorf on April 25, 2013. Hartman believed he did talk with Wittendorf
on that date, but did not have specific recall of the conversation. Hartman confirmed that the
documents contained in Attachment 1 were the only records that exist concerning his conversation
with Wittendorf. Attachment 2 is an interdepartmental memorandum drafted May 1, 2013, to Mark
Cullen. The memorandum was in response to an email Wittendorf had sent to Cullen documenting
Page 3 of 4
Page 489

Report ID: 512991
NARRATIVE SECTION
a conversation with Hartman by indicating, "I did talk to them about it this morning. They said WE
cannot request a PAC opinion, only the FOIA requester can. I asked". Wittendorf's memorandum
documented the date and time she called Hartman. Hartman indicated during April of 2013, paralegals
answered the hotline but would forward requests to him they were unable to answer. Hartman had
been forwarded this call from a paralegal but did not recall the specific conversation. DII read Hartman
Wittendorf's email which stated: "What do we do if we receive a FOIA request, but during the response
period, before we respond, the records are subject to expungement? Are we mandated to retain the
documents and tum them over or can we expunge them before we respond as long as its pursuant to
valid expungement?" Wittendorf further stated that Hartman responded with "Go ahead and get rid of
the files". Hartman denied giving this advise, and said he would not have advised Wittendorf to get rid
of files but would have advised her to make copies of the requested documents and provide them to the
requester. Hartman stated he would not provide hotline callers with legal advice pertaining to statutes
other than the FOIA or Open Meetings Act, but might refer them to the other statutes. Hartman was
also asked if he received any further communication from anyone after Wittendorf. Hartman said no.
The interview ended at 3:26 pm.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
ISP FOIA to AG
File Name :
Oct 15 AG FOIA ISP.pdf
Type :
Name :
Wittendorf Memo to Cullen
File Name :
Wittendorf Ltr to Cullen.pdf
Page 4 of 4
Page 490
Page 491
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
1
Page 492
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
2
Page 493
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
3
Page 494
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
4
This was redacted before ISP

received.
Page 495
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
5
Page 496
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
6
Page 497
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
1
Page 498
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
2
Report ID: 518323

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
COPSEY, Randall E Star # 5908 (DII Investigators)
Submitted - 03/19/2014 15:48
Supervisor
Approved - 03/19/2014 15:55
Investigator
TN 16, Interview of Stephanie Barton
Person Interviewed : Stephanie L. BARTON

Name:
Stephanie L. BARTON
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Female
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White
Complexion:
DOB
No Photo
Hair Color:
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 7
Page 499

Report ID: 518323
Person Interviewed : Stephanie L. BARTON

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Cell Phone
NARRATIVE SECTION
This investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Labor Relations Manager Stephanie Barton. The interview
was 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. The
investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation was requested by the
State'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 that
Barton's name was on documents related to the above mentioned shredded documents. At the beginning of the interview
Barton gave consent for the interview to be audio recorded, and the following information was provided by Barton, which
is 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 four
collective bargaining agreements. She also addressed grievances before they reached an arbitrator. Departments
contacted Barton about labor related issues before contacting a union, and she was the Labor Adviser to the Mayor. Before
this, Barton was with the Central Management Services (CMS) Deputy General Counsel of Labor Relations from November
2009, to June 2012. Barton was advised that her name appeared on correspondence with Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen
reference 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 Protective
Association (PBPA) contract was in the middle of negotiations, after having been closed for five years. Barton's
predecessor Jim Gates had reached some tentative agreements, and in August 2012, Barton took over the
negotiations. 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 for
modifications to the contract, but the issue of changing the retention period of files from five years to four years was never
requested (see attachment #2). Barton also looked into previous contracts, and could not find any requests to change the
retention 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 labor
issues. Barton was not available at the time, and called Chief Williams back. Chief Williams advised he thought they had it
taken care of, and he would call Barton if she needed to be involved. On April 25, 2013, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Barton
spoke to Chief Williams on the phone, and he advised the SPD had come to an agreement with the PBPA. Chief Williams
told Barton it was an issue the PBPA wanted for a long time, and would improve the efficiency of the department. Barton
Page 2 of 7
Page 500

Report ID: 518323
NARRATIVE SECTION
advised Chief Williams she was not available at the time, but she wanted to discuss the issue and labor impact at a later
time.
On April 26, 2013, at approximately 9 a.m., Barton was in a weekly meeting between Labor Relations and the legal
department, which included Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen, Assistant Corporation Counsel Geannette Wittendorf, Steve
Rahn, and Angela Fyans-Jimenez. This was the first time, Wittendorf was involved in the meeting. Barton previously
received an email from Wittendorf, on April 16, 2013, advising Wittendorf was the new Police Legal Adviser, and Barton
had requested Wittendorf involve her in all labor issues (see attachment #3). At the meeting, Wittendorf handed Barton a
copy of the signed MOU, reducing the retention period of disciplinary files. Barton asked Wittendorf what she attempted
to achieve with the MOU, and Wittendorf stated it modified the contract. Barton asked Wittendorf what authority she
had to modify a contract, and Wittendorf became "huffy." Barton then asked Cullen, "Is this an attempt to destroy
documents?" Barton came to the conclusion that the MOU was an attempt to destroy documents because it indicated an
officer's file was expunged four years from the date of suspension, instead of the previous five. Cullen did not answer
the question, so Barton asked why she was not involved. Cullen said she should have been, and he told Wittendorf she
should have received something in return for the MOU. Barton stated, "If this is an attempt to destroy documents, you
need to give Chief Williams a direct order right now to not destroy anything." Cullen responded that it was probably
already done. Wittendorf asked Barton what was wrong with the MOU, and Barton asked if she knew about retention
statutes. Barton then cited statutes such as Personnel Records Retention and Local Records Commission Statutes, at
which 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 an
officer after five years. The agreement was not meant to destroy an officer's entire file. The MOU added language specific
to IA files, knowing there was a pending FOIA request. In addition, the MOU included a change to the City's General
Orders, so it now covered both union and non-union employees. By doing so, DC Buscher's IA file was included in the
agreement for expungement. Barton said her understanding of the term expungement meant to destroy, but no other
bargaining agreement used the term. Barton stated the use of the word expunge in a bargaining agreement was based
on the bargaining parties understating of the word, and past practice. Barton advised her office had nothing to do with
the process of destroying any files.
Barton told the remaining individuals that they needed to put a stop to any expungement. The meeting then ended and
Barton 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's
actions were wrong, and possibly illegal. Barton spoke to Chief Williams and expressed her concerns. She asked Chief
Williams if this is what he called her about on April 23, 2013, and he stated it was. Chief Williams stated he understood
her concerns, but he received confirmation to go ahead and destroy the files from the legal department. Barton asked
Chief Williams to include her in any future labor issues. Barton then called Deputy Commander Robert Markovic, who
was involved in the contract negotiation process as a subject matter expert, to learn why she was not involved in the MOU
process. Markovic had taken the day off after having a disagreement with Chief Williams concerning the MOU. Markovic
said 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 addressed
together, to which Chief Williams agreed. Markovic drafted the MOU, and did not hear anything else about it until a
representative of the PBPA called and advised the MOU was effectuated. Markovic went to Chief Williams' office, and
Page 3 of 7
Page 501

Report ID: 518323
NARRATIVE SECTION
asked why the MOU was signed without his or Barton's involvement, and Chief Williams advised that the legal department
handled it.
On this same date, Barton contacted PBPA President Don Edwards. Barton asked about the MOU, and Edwards stated he
was called off his post and ordered to go to city hall immediately. Edwards then called PBPA Attorney Ron Stone, and they
went to Chief Williams' office. While in Chief Williams' Office, Wittendorf entered, introduced herself as the new SPD Legal
Adviser, and handed them a piece of paper. Wittendorf said she was giving them a gift as an "olive branch" to her new
position, and she knew it was something the PBPA wanted. Wittendorf also mentioned they needed it due to a pending
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Edwards said it was not his call on whether or not to include Barton. Barton
then 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 period
reduced 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 and
expungement 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 she
knew. Barton brought the MOU posted on-line by Springfield Leaks, since she never received a copy. Barton asked Mayor
Houston if he had seen the article, but he had not. She told him the website had the MOU signed by Wittendorf, which
modified the collective bargaining agreement, and expanded on terms never negotiated. It was Baton's understanding that
based on a pending FOIA request by Christian, documents were destroyed. Barton was concerned because Wittendorf
had 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 Office
was involved in the shredding of documents with a pending FOIA request. Mayor Houston only wished for Barton to have
a 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 Communications
Nathan Mihelich. At the meeting, Chief Williams expressed the necessity for the MOU for efficiency, due to the high volume
of FOIA requests. Barton stated she was concerned with the legality of the incident, since Wittendorf extended the time
period 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 request
was denied, to maintain the documents until the end of the appeal process. Barton added she also had an issue with
Wittendorf stating she received approval from the AG's Office to destroy the files. Wittendorf advised she told them there
was a pending FOIA request, and the documents were scheduled for destruction. Barton pointed out that the files were
only scheduled for destruction because Wittendorf modified the MOU. When questioned concerning her communication
with the AG's Office, Wittendorf could not provide the full name of the person she spoke with over the phone, and had
nothing in writing from them. When Barton asked Wittendorf about getting disposal certificates from the Local Records
Commission, Wittendorf stated she checked with local municipalities, who said they did not get disposal certificates
either. 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 4 of 7
Page 502

Report ID: 518323
NARRATIVE SECTION
be held to address the issue. Barton and Cullen agreed to look further into the legal issues of the situation, and confirm
the 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 Records
Review 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 it
was not consistent with the Personnel Records Review Act, and only the Local Records Commission could authorize the
destruction of records.
On this same date, Barton received an email from the Office of Budget and Management Director William McCarty reference
a 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 PBPA
members. Edwards replied that he did not know she had to be present at negotiations, since she was not there when
an MOU was fast tracked because of a FOIA deadline. Mayor Houston was included in this email conversation, and on
May 3, 2013, Mayor Houston signed an Executive Order, which stated the Labor Relations Manager would be included in
any 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 involved
in negotiations to resolve differences. Barton's third comment was in regard to the statement that the use of the MOU is
consistent with the Labor Relations Act, City Code, and past practice, which Barton again disagreed. The fourth comment
indicated 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 the
memorandum at an executive session with some of Barton's corrections. No one at the meeting was allowed to retain
a 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. During
the meeting, Cullen continued to argue that the MOU was valid. Fyans-Jimenez later provided Barton with notes from the
meeting, 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 a
copy of an Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission request for investigation, which Barton completed against
Wittendorf (see attachment #9).
Barton explained that in 2007, a Springfield Alderman wanted to access an ISP investigation, and the PBPA filed a
temporary restraining order against the City of Springfield to block distribution of the file. On April 11, 2013, Stone withdrew
the 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 had
knowledge of the shredding of documents before it occurred. She also thought Cullen would rely on his attorneys
to research laws, and would trust what they said. Cullen probably was under the impression that once the MOU was
Page 5 of 7
Page 503

Report ID: 518323
NARRATIVE SECTION
signed, it had to be upheld. Barton also had no knowledge of Buscher's involvement in the incident. She felt that she
was intentionally left out of the MOU process, because it would not have been done so quickly, and she would have
said no. Barton also stated she had no involvement in the shredding of documents, and her office would not have
handled 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.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Memo
File Name :
Barton Attch 1.pdf
Type :
Name :
Contract Proposals
File Name :
Barton Attch 2.pdf
Type :
Page 6 of 7
Page 504

Report ID: 518323
ATTACHMENTS
Name :
GW Email
File Name :
Barton Attch 3.pdf
Type :
Name :
Original MOU
File Name :
Barton Attch 4.pdf
Type :
Name :
Barton Email
File Name :
Barton Attch 5.pdf
Type :
Name :
Executive Order
File Name :
Barton Attch 6.pdf
Type :
Name :
Meeting Notes
File Name :
Barton Attch 7.pdf
Type :
Name :
ULP
File Name :
Barton Attch 8.pdf
Type :
Name :
Req for investigation
File Name :
Barton Attch 9.pdf
Type :
Name :
ULP withdrawal
File Name :
Barton Attch 10.pdf
Page 7 of 7
Page 505
Page 506
Attachment #1
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 507
Attachment #1
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 508
Attachment #1
IL13AA09938
Page #3
Page 509
Attachment #2
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 510
Attachment #2
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 511
Attachment #2
IL13AA09938
Page #3
Page 512
Attachment #2
IL13AA09938
Page #4
Page 513
Attachment #3
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 514
Attachment #4
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 515
Attachment #4
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 516
Attachment #5
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 517
Attachment #5
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 518
Attachment #6
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 519
Attachment #6
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 520
Attachment #6
IL13AA09938
Page #3
Page 521
Attachment #6
IL13AA09938
Page #4
Page 522
Attachment #7
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 523
Attachment #7
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 524
Attachment #7
IL13AA09938
Page #3
Page 525
Attachment #7
IL13AA09938
Page #4
Page 526
Attachment #7
IL13AA09938
Page #5
Page 527
Attachment #7
IL13AA09938
Page #6
Page 528
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 529
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 530
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #3
Page 531
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #4
Page 532
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #5
Page 533
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #6
Page 534
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #7
Page 535
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #8
Page 536
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #9
Page 537
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #10
Page 538
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #11
Page 539
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #12
Page 540
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #13
Page 541
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #14
Page 542
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #15
Page 543
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #16
Page 544
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #17
Page 545
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #18
Page 546
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #19
Page 547
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #20
Page 548
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #21
Page 549
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #22
Page 550
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #23
Page 551
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #24
Page 552
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #25
Page 553
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #26
Page 554
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #27
Page 555
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #28
Page 556
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #29
Page 557
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #30
Page 558
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #31
Page 559
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #32
Page 560
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #33
Page 561
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #34
Page 562
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #35
Page 563
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #36
Page 564
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #37
Page 565
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #38
Page 566
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #39
Page 567
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #40
Page 568
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #41
Page 569
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #42
Page 570
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #43
Page 571
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #44
Page 572
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #45
Page 573
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #46
Page 574
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #47
Page 575
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #48
Page 576
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #49
Page 577
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #50
Page 578
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #51
Page 579
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #52
Page 580
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #53
Page 581
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #54
Page 582
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #55
Page 583
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #56
Page 584
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #57
Page 585
Attachment #8
IL13AA09938
Page #58
Page 586
Attachment #9
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 587
Attachment #9
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 588
Attachment #10
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 589
Attachment #10
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 590
Attachment #10
IL13AA09938
Page #3
Page 591
Attachment #10
IL13AA09938
Page #4
Page 592
Attachment #10
IL13AA09938
Page #5
Page 593
Attachment #10
IL13AA09938
Page #6
Report ID: 518585

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 02/06/2014 10:33
Supervisor
Approved - 02/06/2014 10:54
Investigator
TN 17, Interview of Donna Brown, 1/28/14

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 5
Page 594

Report ID: 518585

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Person Interviewed : Donna BROWN

Name:
Donna BROWN
Maiden Name:
Nickname:
Build:
Heavy
Eye Color:
Sex:
Female
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White / Unknown
Complexion:
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
No Photo
Height/Weight:
Hair Length/
Style:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
(217)788-8337
Employer
Address
800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, 62701,

Occupation:
Records Manager
Employed From:
Manager Name:
WILLIAMS, Gregg
Contacts

Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
Page 2 of 5
Page 595

Report ID: 518585
NARRATIVE SECTION
On January 28, 2014, at approximately 1:43 p.m., Illinois State Police (ISP), Legal Counsel John
Hosteny, 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) Records
Manager 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 up
to 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, to
investigate SPD case #2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers internal investigative
files. The following report is written in essence and is not verbatim. Brown provided agents permission
to 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 manager
with the Police Records Section. Brown's responsibilities include the storage of police and crash
reports, entering reports and tickets into the records management system and providing copies to
agencies or the public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Brown indicated FOIA requests
can arrive in numerous manners to include the internet and in person requests. All requests are
eventually routed to the city clerk to be logged in with a FOIA number assigned and then forwarded
to the appropriate department and section. Brown indicated if a police report is requested she can
retrieve the report, redact the information and send it to the person without the police legal advisor
involved. 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 Jason
Brokaw. Brown indicated she does not handle photos, videos and IA files as that are outside her
section duties.
Brown provided insight to the manner in which she disposed of police reports. Brown said she
would look through all the reports to determine if the reports comply with the records disposal
application and statute of limitations. Once a report qualifies to be destroyed, Brown will fill a
certificate of disposal and obtain her supervisors' approval before the application being sent to the
Local Records Commission. Brown said she would receive a response back within 30 to 60 days from
the commission which would routinely approve the requested items to be destroyed. The documents
then are destroyed by Brown or a representative of the department who witness the documents to be
destroyed. Brown indicated she does not get involved with the destruction of IA files, which would
be 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 the
departmental sections and determine if they needed anything added to the Application for Authority
to Dispose of Local Records. Brown was advised by Lieutenant Mueller to add IA files, which Brown
Page 3 of 5
Page 596

Report ID: 518585
NARRATIVE SECTION
amended the application to add IA files approximately September 2012. Brown indicated she was not
aware of any steps the City took to implement a process for disposing of IA files in accordance with
the Local Records Act, after the City's Application was amended.
Brown indicated she received a FOIA request #10962 from Calvin Christian requesting Deputy Chief
Buscher'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 for
an additional five days was sought to review the documents requested. Brown indicated she wrote the
correspondence without seeking advice from Wittendorf but had been advised previously by a former
Police Legal Advisor that the response was routinely used to extend the time period. Brown said on
April 25, 2013, Wittendorf sent correspondence indicating the Buscher files no longer existed, which
contradicted Brown's previous correspondence to Christian. Attachment 2 is a FOIA request #11002
from John Myers requesting the records destruction policy for SPD and disposal certificates. Brown
indicated she forwarded this information to Mueller and Wittendorf asking for guidance. Brown
explained she had contacted Gloria Huston with the State Archives to obtain clarification on the
Local Records Act. Brown said she summarized her interpretation of Huston's comments in a
conversation with Wittendorf, which incorrectly indicated they appeared to be properly disposing
of IA records. Brown said Huston later called her to clarify Huston's comments after Huston had
talked with Wittendorf, and Brown then clarified with Wittendorf that IA files are covered under the
act. Attachment 3 is FOIA #11048 which requested internal affair files for every Springfield Police
Department officer. Wittendorf advised Brown to return the request and indicate the request was over
burdensome and to narrow the scope, which Christian never did.
When Brown became aware of the Memorandum of Understanding between SPD and the Police
Benevolence 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 reflect
the same time periods. After Brown submitted the application and it was denied, Mark Cullen sent an
email to Brown inquiring who gave her the authority to amend the application. Brown advised Cullen
she had initiated the amendment on her own as she thought it was the proper thing to do (Attachment
4).
Brown stated she did not advise Wittendorf or Mueller that they could not destroy IA files without first
obtaining approval of the Local Records Commission as she does for her records, because of the
following factors: (1) IA files were not under her section of responsibility; (2) her conversation with
Huston wherein Huston advised her some agencies destroy IA files in accordance with their collective
bargaining contracts; (3) she was not sure if IA files were different than records under her area of
Page 4 of 5
Page 597

Report ID: 518585
NARRATIVE SECTION
responsibility because the City had always done it this way; and (4) she was not privy to everything
that was involved in the decision making process, such as the MOU.
The interview concluded approximately 3:18 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Christian FOIA
File Name :
Brown 1.pdf
Type :
Name :
FOIA 11002
File Name :
Brown Attch 2.pdf
Type :
Name :
FOIA 11048
File Name :
Brown Attch 3.pdf
Page 5 of 5
Page 598
Page 599
ILAA1309938
Attachment 1
1
Page 600
ILAA1309938
Attachment 1
2
Page 601
ILAA1309938
Attachment 1
3
Page 602
ILAA1309938
Attachment 1
4
Page 603
ILAA1309938
Attachment 1
5
Page 604
ILAA1309938
Attachment 1
6
Page 605
ILAA1309938
Attachment 1
7
Page 606
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
1
Page 607
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
2
Page 608
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
3
Page 609
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
4
Page 610
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
5
Page 611
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
6
Page 612
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
7
Page 613
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
8
Page 614
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
9
Page 615
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
10
Page 616
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
11
Page 617
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
12
Page 618
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
13
Page 619
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
14
Page 620
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
15
Page 621
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
16
Page 622
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
17
Page 623
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
18
Page 624
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
19
Page 625
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
20
Page 626
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
21
Page 627
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
22
Page 628
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
23
Page 629
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
24
Page 630
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
25
Page 631
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
26
Page 632
ILAA1309938
Attachment 2
27
Page 633
ILAA1309938
Attachment 3
1
Page 634
ILAA1309938
Attachment 3
2
Page 635
ILAA1309938
Attachment 3
3
Page 636
ILAA1309938
Attachment 3
4
Page 637
ILAA1309938
Attachment 3
5
Page 638
ILAA1309938
Attachment 3
6
Page 639
ILAA1309938
Attachment 3
7
Report ID: 523421

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 03/18/2014 08:15
Supervisor
Approved - 03/18/2014 10:15
Investigator
TN 18, Interview of Donald Edwards
Person Interviewed : Detective Donald L. EDWARDS

Name:
Detective Donald L. EDWARDS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White
Complexion:
DOB
No Photo
Hair Color:
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 2
Page 640

Report ID: 523421
Person Interviewed : Detective Donald L. EDWARDS

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
SPD Extension 370
Telephone
(217)788-8345
Cell Phone
NARRATIVE SECTION
This investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Police Department (SPD) Detective (Det.) Donald Edwards. The
interview 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 Lieutenant
Scott Gaffner #4222, and myself, Special Agent Randall Copsey #5908. 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 Prosecutor Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a Springfield
Police Department Case #2013-MR-394, involving the shredding of police officers' internal investigative files. DII received
information that Det. Edwards was involved in the union agreement which resulted in the above mentioned shredding of
documents. 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 were
previously submitted to the Labor Board by the PBPA. The documents were sent to the Labor Board in response to the City
of Springfield#s charge of unfair labor practice (ULP), and were designated by exhibit numbers 1-37. Also provided was
the ULP charge against the PBPA, made by Springfield Labor Relations Manager Stephanie Barton, the PBPA#s answer to
the 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 above
mentioned documents will be maintained in this case file.
Attachment:
1. Index of exhibits, consisting of 6 pages.

ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Index
File Name :
Stone Index of exhibits.pdf
Page 2 of 2
Page 641
Page 642
Attachment #1
IL13AA09938
Page #1 of 6
Page 643
Attachment #1
IL13AA09938
Page #2 of 6
Page 644
Attachment #1
IL13AA09938
Page #3 of 6
Page 645
Attachment #1
IL13AA09938
Page #4 of 6
Page 646
Attachment #1
IL13AA09938
Page #5 of 6
Page 647
Attachment #1
IL13AA09938
Page #6 of 6
Report ID: 523823

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 03/19/2014 14:25
Supervisor
Approved - 03/19/2014 15:56
Investigator
TN 19, Interview of Deputy Chief Robert Markovik Jr.
Person Interviewed : Deputy Chief Robert E. MARKOVIC Jr.

Name:
Deputy Chief Robert E. MARKOVICHeight/Weight:

Jr.
Build:
Maiden Name:
No Photo
Eye Color:
Nickname:
Facial Hair:
Sex:
Male
Complexion:
Race/Ethnicity:
White
Hair Color:
DOB
Hair Length/
Style:
Marital Status:
Dominant Hand:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 3
Page 648

Report ID: 523823
Person Interviewed : Deputy Chief Robert E. MARKOVIC Jr.

Address Name
800 E. Monroe, Springfield, Illinois, United States of America (USA)

CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
(217)788-8331
NARRATIVE SECTION
This investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Police Department (SPD) Deputy Chief Robert Markovic. The
interview was conducted on January 30, 2014, at approximately 10:40 a.m., and took place at the Illinois State Police (ISP)
information that Markovic created documents related to the above mentioned shredded documents. At the beginning of
the interview Markovic gave consent for the interview to be audio recorded, and the following information was provided
by 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 combined
total of six years as Vice President and President of the Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA). As the
Deputy 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 Springfield
Assistant Corporation Council Geannette Wittendorf, and Deputy Chief Cliff Buscher. While there, Chief Williams asked
Markovic 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 the
meeting. Markovic completed the MOU the same morning as requested, and emailed it (see attachment #1). Markovic was
not aware of why the MOU was wanted so quickly. Wittendorf later returned the MOU to Markovic with revisions, and he
met Chief Williams in person to discuss it. Markovic expressed concern that the process was happening too quickly. At
the time there were other union issues being addressed by Markovic and Springfield Labor Relations Manager Stephanie
Barton, and from Markovic's experience, union issues should be addressed collectively. Chief William's agreed, so
Markovic 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 if
an MOU was signed, and the department was shredding documents. Markovic said he worked that day, and would have
been aware if that happened. Markovic then called PBPA President Don Edwards, who confirmed the MOU was in fact
signed and put into effect. Markovic could not recall if he called Banks back because he was extremely frustrated with
the situation.
Page 2 of 3
Page 649

Report ID: 523823
NARRATIVE SECTION
This upset Markovic, so on April 26, 2013, he confronted Chief Williams about the incident. Chief Williams explained
everything was fine, and the legal department had approved the MOU and shredding of files multiple times. Markovic asked
why he was not at the signing of the MOU, and felt he was intentionally left out because he would not have
approved. Markovic believed that Barton was intentionally left out of the meeting on the MOU also. Chief Williams
maintained that the legal department approved and told him the shredding was to occur immediately. Markovic
understood the legal department as Corporation Council Mark Cullen, and Wittendorf. He expressed his concern to
Chief Williams that it would be assumed the shredding occurred to destroy Buscher's IA file, but Chief Williams did
not respond. Markovic understood the union wanted the retention period reduced because it benefited the officer, and
in January or February 2013, Edwards had mentioned reducing the retention to four years. Markovic forwarded the
recommendation 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 IA
file, and Markovic was under the impression news departments already had the file anyway. Markovic did not even
consider Buscher's IA file when creating the MOU, because Buscher was not part of the PBPA. He believed the MOU
was created to include not only the disposition of an IA investigation, but the investigative file itself. Markovic had
been under the impression that IA files were maintained and destroyed by IA, and none of his subordinates had
any authority over them. The legal department had final say on whether a file was retained due to litigation or other
factors. Markovic was aware of the Local Records Act before the shredding incident, and that applications had to be made
to 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 for
not being included, so Edwards responded he did not know she had to be at all negotiations, since she was not there the
previous week when an MOU was signed to avoid a FOIA deadline. Markovic had nothing further to add, and the interview
was concluded at approximately 11:28 a.m.
Attachment:
1. Original MOU, consisting of 1 page.

ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Other Photo
Name :
MOU
File Name :
Markovic MOU.pdf
Page 3 of 3
Page 650
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 1 of 1
Page 651
Report ID: 526707

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

Department
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 03/14/2014 10:48
Supervisor
JACOBS, Jeffrey Star # 4622
Approved - 03/14/2014 11:21
Investigator
TN 20, Interview of Angela Fyans-Jimenez, 2/3/14

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 4
Page 652

Report ID: 526707

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Person Interviewed : Angela FYANS-JIMENEZ

Name:
Angela FYANS-JIMENEZ
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Female
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Unknown / Unknown
Complexion:
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
No Photo
Hair Length/
Style:
Married
Dominant Hand:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Employer
Address
Contacts
Springfield, Illinois
Occupation:
Assistant Corporation
Counsel
Employed From:
11/01/2003 to 10/01/2013
Manager Name:

Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
Page 2 of 4
Page 653

Report ID: 526707
NARRATIVE SECTION
This investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Employment Labor Attorney Senior
Litigation Counsel, Angela Fyans-Jimenez. The interview was conducted on February 3, 2014, at 2:03
p.m., and took place on a conference call due to Fyans-Jimenez living in Utah. The interview was
conducted by Lieutenant Scott Gaffner #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 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 learned that Fyans-Jimenez may have had knowledge of events
leading up to the above mentioned shredding of documents. Fyans-Jimenez provided consent for
the interview to be audio recorded, with the original maintained in the case file. The following report
is a summary, and not verbatim.
Fyans-Jimenez began working for Springfield on November 4, 2003 and held the positions of
Code 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-Jimenez
provided the process in which a valid FOIA request was handled. For regular police reports, this
included checking the case status, pending litigation, prosecution or an investigation. Once this was
completed, Fyans-Jimenez would make the appropriate redactions and then send the redacted copy
to the person requesting the file. Internal Affair (IA) files were not released with a valid FOIA when
she was employed as the FOIA officer.
Fyans-Jimenez then described the process of how IA files were destroyed. IA would forward a monthly
memo to Fyans-Jimenez which indicated the IA files that had passed the 5 year retention period and
SPD was seeking approval to destroy them. During a review of the list, documentation would be
made indicating which files could be destroyed and which files would need to be retained for pending
litigation or arbitration. The memo would then be returned to IA with the deputy chief of IA supervising
the destruction of the paper and electronic files. Fyans-Jimenez made no mention of complying with
the 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 FyansJimenez in her FOIA position and Fyans-Jimenez had been promoted as the Employee Labor
Attorney. Morgan asked about reducing the retention period of IA files from 5 years to 4 years. FyansJimenez did not agree with reducing the retention because it diminished the ability to review IA files
if additional disciplinary issues would arise, and make it more difficult to see a pattern of misconduct
for arbitration of discipline. Fyans-Jimenez had never been approached about the idea of reducing
the retention period from anyone else while she worked with SPD.
Page 3 of 4
Page 654

Report ID: 526707
NARRATIVE SECTION
Fyans-Jimenez recalled a legal/labor relations meeting on April 26, 2013, in which Geannette
Wittendorf, Mark Cullen and Stephanie Barton attended when Wittendorf indicated that she had
signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Police Benevolence and Protective Association
that reduced the retention period of police files from 5 to 4 years. This was done while there was
a pending FOIA request and she was going to approve the shredding of files. Wittendorf indicated
she had contacted the Attorney General's Office Public Access Counselor and they approved of
their course of action. Barton and Fyans-Jimenez were adamantly against the manner in which the
agreement had been negotiated without obtaining the counsel of Barton and Fyans-Jimenez with
labor. Fyans-Jimenez felt it was improper to destroy files which were responsive to a pending FOIA
request. During this meeting neither Cullen nor Wittendorf advised them that files had already been
shredded. Fyans-Jimenez followed up the meeting with an email to Wittendorf advising her to not
shred any documents until further review of the agreement. (Attachment 1) Wittendorf sent FyansJimenez a reply to her email, which indicated Wittendorf had done all the research and Fyans-Jimenez
should discuss the matter with Cullen. Fyans-Jimenez discussed Wittendorf's reply with Cullen in
his office later that afternoon, and during this discussion Cullen did not mention that the IA files had
already been shredded. Fyans-Jimenez learned about the report of the shredding of documents from
Stephanie Barton at a later time period, after which Fyans-Jimenez, Krista Appenzeller, and possibly
Barton 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 Wittendorf
state 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 IA
documents. As the SPD Legal Advisor she did not handle filings with the Local Records Commission
and was not familiar with the process, and thought Donna Brown was responsible for ensuring proper
destruction of records. Fyans-Jimenez indicated Wittendorf never asked her for guidance on any of
the duties of the SPD Legal Advisor position.
Fyans-Jimenez was not aware of additional information concerning the shredding incident and the
interview ended at 2:53 pm.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Email Correspondence
File Name :
Fyans-Jimenez.pdf
Page 4 of 4
Page 655
Page 656
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
1
Report ID: 523825

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 04/22/2014 09:10
Supervisor
Approved - 04/22/2014 09:49
Investigator
TN 21, Interview of Chief Robert Williams
Suspect : Robert L. WILLIAMS

Name:
Robert L. WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 4
Page 657

Report ID: 523825
Suspect : Robert L. WILLIAMS

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
NARRATIVE SECTION
This investigative report reflects the interview of retired Springfield Police Department (SPD) Chief Robert L. Williams. The
interview was conducted on February 7, 2014, at approximately 9:09 a.m., and took place at the Illinois State Police (ISP)
information that Chief Williams negotiated an agreement that resulted in documents being destroyed. Chief Williams
consented for the interview to be audio recorded, with the report written in essence and is not verbatim. The audio
recording 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 internal
investigation involving retired Deputy Chief Cliff Buscher, whose IA file was included in the above mentioned shredding
incident. Chief Williams was not involved in the investigation, but may have reviewed the case as part of Buscher's chain
of command. He recalled the incident involved inappropriate conduct, and an arrest of Buscher. Chief Williams was
eventually 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 Field
Operations. Before retiring, Chief Williams did not speak to Springfield Mayor Michael Houston about the transition, or
who would replace him when he retired.
Chief Williams described his understanding of the process of routine destruction of IA files, which he accomplished when
he was assigned to IA. On the five year anniversary of an internal investigation, the IA secretary would compile a list of
files eligible for disposal. Once a list of eligible files was created, it would be sent to the Chief to recommend if a file
should be kept. The list would then be forwarded to the legal department for their review and determination of which
files would need to be retained from pending litigation or other circumstances. The approved list would be returned to
IA with the files subsequently being destroyed. The process was the same when Williams was the Chief. When Chief
Williams reviewed the list of files eligible for expungement after the MOU was signed, he highlighted several files including
Buscher's, to recommend that they be retained. The Chief normally did not follow up with Legal on whether they accepted
his 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 2 of 4
Page 658

Report ID: 523825
NARRATIVE SECTION
but he was not actively involved in the negotiations. Chief Williams was later concerned after a request was made by
Springfield Alderman, Sam Cahnman for an IA file. Chief Williams inquired if an IA file could be subject to the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA). According to Chief Williams, the only thing preventing the release of IA files was an Unfair
Labor Practice (ULP) filed by the PBPA. Chief Williams decided to create a "united front" consisting of the Department
and PBPA, to prevent such a release of files. Once the ULP was dropped, Chief Williams believed the files were no longer
protected, which is why there was an urgency to make changes. Morgan knew the PBPA wanted to reduce the retention
period of IA files from 5 years to 3 years, so she suggested they concede to appease the union and create the united
front. Chief Williams and Morgan eventually agreed to offer a reduction to 4 years, so they could fight the release of files
with the PBPA. Morgan then began working on changing the general order which governed how the Department released
files. While attempting to change the retention time, Morgan left the legal department, and was replaced by Geannette
Wittendorf. 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 Memorandum
of 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 or
her predecessor Jim Gates with the negotiations. In hindsight, he believed Barton should have been included, but did
not recall Markovic recommending her inclusion.
Before the shredding incident occurred, Lieutenant Wendall Banks advised Chief Williams that he had filed a FOIA request
for Buscher's IA file. Chief Williams then spoke to either Wittendorf or Morgan, and learned that another FOIA request
had also been filed for all IA files. Chief Williams met with Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen, Wittendorf, and Buscher
concerning the FOIA requests. Corporation Counsel advised they would respond that the FOIA request for all IA files
was too burdensome. Chief Williams recommended they call the Attorney General's Office for advice, and Wittendorf was
assigned the task. Wittendorf was to explain to the Attorney General's Office that there was an MOU signed to reduce
the retention period, but there were FOIA requests pending for some files set to be shredded. Wittendorf advised she
spoke to the Attorney General's Office, and was advised to go ahead and shred the files, despite the FOIA requests. Chief
Williams said he would not have proceeded with the shredding of files without Corporation Counsel's approval. When
Chief Williams realized Buscher's IA file was eligible for destruction due to the retention change, he met with Wittendorf
and advised her why the file should be retained. Chief Williams later told Buscher that he recommended his IA file should
be retained. Chief Williams stated that during their meeting with Cullen and Wittendorf, Buscher did not recommend that
his 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 to
coach track. He was later called on that day by IA Lieutenant Chris Mueller, who wanted a direct order to shred the files
covered under the MOU. Chief Williams told Mueller that he was also not comfortable with shedding the documents, so
Chief Williams again called the legal department and confirmed the file shredding was authorized. Chief Williams then
called Mueller again and ordered Mueller to destroy the IA files covered under the MOU. Chief Williams did not expect
Mueller to immediately destroy the files that day.
Before the IA files were shredded, Chief Williams confirmed with Wittendorf and Cullen multiple times that it was
authorized.He also expressed to Buscher and Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Willis Logan that Buscher's IA file should
Page 3 of 4
Page 659

Report ID: 523825
NARRATIVE SECTION
not be destroyed, regardless of the change in retention period. Chief Williams did not know when Mayor Houston became
aware of the shredding and he did not advise him previously about the MOU. Chief Williams was also familiar with the
Local Records Act, and that a disposal certificate was to be completed for files maintained by the department before they
were destroyed. He was under the impression that Corporation Counsel applied for the disposal certificate for IA file
destruction. Chief Williams said he had never spoken to Wittendorf or Cullen about the Local Records Act. Chief Williams
stated he did not know the retention periods, and that he felt it was the Deputy Chiefs responsibility to know. He also did
not 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 that
his actions were done in the name of efficiency. He was surprised by how fast the shredding occurred after the MOU was
signed, and attributed a new IA software program with the efficiency. He believed he made a bad judgment in reducing the
retention period. Chief Williams understood that the incident looked bad, but added that the shredding was not done for the
benefit of one person. Chief Williams said he did not like the idea of having to release the IA files, but would have done so
if required by law. Chief Williams had nothing further to add, and the interview was concluded at approximately 11:18 a.m.
Page 4 of 4
Page 660
Report ID: 523587

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 04/22/2014 09:54
Supervisor
Approved - 04/22/2014 09:58
Investigator
TN 22, Interview of Deputy Chief Clifford Buscher Jr.
Person Interviewed : Clifford R. BUSCHER Jr.

Name:
Clifford R. BUSCHER Jr.
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White
Complexion:
DOB
No Photo
Hair Color:
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 3
Page 661

Report ID: 523587
Person Interviewed : Clifford R. BUSCHER Jr.

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
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 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. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division of Internal
Investigation 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 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 of
documents, despite a pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the file. At the beginning of the interview Buscher
gave consent for the interview to be audio recorded, and the following information was provided by Buscher, which is in
summary, 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 Commander
of Field Operations. In 2008, Buscher was involved in an off duty incident in Missouri which resulted in him being charged
criminally and administratively and was subsequently demoted to Lieutenant of Criminal Investigations. By 2012, Buscher
was promoted to Deputy Chief of Criminal Investigations. On January 13, 2014, Buscher retired from the Springfield Police
Department.
Before Buscher retired there was not an assistant chief, so if Chief Robert Williams was gone for an extended time, a
deputy chief would assume the role as acting chief. Buscher did not know when Chief Williams planned to retire, but was
under the impression it would not be until a Mayor was elected in 2015. Approximately six months before the shredding
incident, Chief Williams attempted to place Buscher in the assistant chief position, but Mayor Michael Houston denied the
request. Buscher did not believe he would ever be promoted to chief after the 2008 incident in Missouri and subsequent
denial to be assistant chief.
Prior to April 25, 2013, Corporation Counsel lost a fight to prevent the distribution of requested IA files through the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) and Assistant Corporation Counsel, Megan Morgan advised she was going to have to start
releasing IA files. The Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA) were made aware of this information, and
discussions between the PBPA and SPD began on how to prevent the release of IA files. During a staff meeting with Chief
Williams, Buscher, Deputy Chief Robert Markovic, Deputy Chief Dennis Arnold, and IA Lieutenant Chris Muller, ideas were
discussed on how to address the issue. An idea presented was to reduce the retention time of IA files from 5 years to
3 years, or only retain the outcome of the investigation and not the whole file. Chief Williams finally decided to attempt
to reduce the retention of IA files to 4 years.
Page 2 of 3
Page 662

Report ID: 523587
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 3
years retention. Ultimately, the Union agreed to accept the reduction to 4 years. Chief Williams then asked Markovic
to create a memorandum of understanding (MOU), between the department and the PBPA. Buscher became aware that
his IA file would be eligible for destruction if the retention period was reduced, and told Chief Williams the file should be
retained because of multiple pending FOIA requests. He could not recall who was in the room still when he made this
comment. 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 from
being released through the pending FOIA request.
Buscher was also approached by Lieutenant Wendall Banks, who stated he had submitted a FOIA request for Buscher's
IA file, in order to protect himself. According to Buscher, Banks was involved in the incident in Missouri, and afterward
Buscher did not trust him. Buscher said he did not care where Banks went in his career, but Banks would not work for
him. 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 Mark
Cullen, and Chief Williams stated he felt Buscher's IA file should be retained. In this middle of this meeting Executive
Assistant Willis Logan walked in and sat in the back of the room. With multiple FOIA requests pending for Buscher's IA
file, and one for all AI files, Buscher thought the only rush after the MOU was signed would be to meet the deadline for
Wittendorf to respond to the requests. At some point Wittendorf told Buscher that she contacted the Attorney General's
Office, 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 to
be ordered to shred the IA files. Mueller approached Buscher and said it was not personal, but he did not agree with
what was done to make Buscher the chief. Buscher said he did not take it personal, and he was never going to be the
chief. Mueller thought Buscher was going to be appointed chief because Chief Williams referred to Buscher as his number
two guy, and because Buscher's brother did fund raising for Mayor Houston. Buscher said he had heard the fundraising
rumor 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 also
believed the retention period was changed to protect all the officers IA files, not just his. Buscher said he did not find it
odd 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 to
know what she was talking about, and had taken all the necessary steps. Buscher stated he was not aware of the Local
Records Act until after the documents were shredded, and with nothing further to add, the interview was concluded at
approximately 2:22 p.m.
Page 3 of 3
Page 663
Report ID: 523589

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 04/22/2014 09:33
Supervisor
Approved - 04/22/2014 09:53
Investigator
TN 23, Interview of Geannette Wittendorf
Person Interviewed : Geannett S. WITTENDORF

Name:
Geannett S. WITTENDORF
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Female
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White
Complexion:
DOB
No Photo
Hair Color:
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 5
Page 664

Report ID: 523589
Person Interviewed : Geannett S. WITTENDORF

Address Name
508 S. Broadway, POB 17160, Urbana, Illinois, United States of America (USA)
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Roger Webber
Telephone
(217)253-2383
NARRATIVE SECTION
This investigative report reflects the interview of former Assistant Corporation Counsel Geannette S. Wittendorf. The
interview was conducted on February 10, 2014, at approximately 1:12 p.m., and took place at the Illinois State Police (ISP)
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 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 was
accompanied by her attorney Roger Webber of the Beckett & Webber law firm. At the beginning of the interview Wittendorf
gave consent for the interview to be audio recorded, and the following information was provided by Wittendorf, which
is 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 Winnebago
County as Assistant State's Attorney. Wittendorf later resigned from Winnebago County after she was held in contempt
after trying a rape case. The contempt was later overturned on appeal. From 2008 to 2010, Wittendorf was a solo
practitioner, until moving to Georgia for employment with Human Services. In 2011, she returned to Illinois and was
employed by Koepke & Hiltabrand in Springfield, and then the Macon County State's Attorney's Office, where part of
her duties included responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, before being hired by Springfield City in
March 2012. While employed by Springfield, Wittendorf was assigned to the Corporation Counsel's Office for insurance
defense litigation, civil litigation, and risk management. On April 15, 2013, Assistant Corporation Counsel Megan Morgan
left, 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 of
files 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 to
deny 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 and
litigate the issues later. She was also aware a judge had previously ruled in Calvin Christian's favor for obtaining an IA
file through FOIA. Wittendorf did not know about a previous conversation between Morgan and Corporation Counsel Mark
Cullen about eventually releasing all of the files. After assuming Morgan's role with FOIA, Wittendorf had to request a five
day extension for a FOIA request from Christian, because she would not be in her office that week. The extension moved
the 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 into
Springfield Police Chief Robert Williams' office with Deputy Chiefs Robert Markovic, and Cliff Buscher. She was told the
Department and Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA) had agreed to reduce the retention time of files from
Page 2 of 5
Page 665

Report ID: 523589
NARRATIVE SECTION
5 years to 4 years. Markovic was assigned to draft a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and they wanted to know if
it would be effective immediately. Wittendorf said she did not know, and would need to check with Cullen first. She then
walked to Cullen's office and explained the request. Cullen did not have an issue with the MOU, and said it would apply to
all files eligible immediately, not from now on. Wittendorf returned to Chief Williams' office, and relayed the information to
him 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 made
contact with an unknown male attorney and said they received a FOIA request, and during the pendency of the request
an expungement period occurs, and asked what they should do. The male told her there was no preservation clause, so
they could proceed with the expungement and respond that there were no documents. Wittendorf did not explain that
documents 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 documenting
the 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 requested
a legal memorandum about shredding records with a pending FOIA request. She also checked the city ordinances and
general orders to see if anything prevented the signing of the MOU, but was unable to find any that did. Wittendorf then
discussed the next steps with Cullen, and decided to make a list of files eligible for destruction if the retention period was
changed. Once a list was created, they would decide which files were not eligible due to pending litigation. Wittendorf then
contacted 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 files
should be retained or not (see attachment #3). At some time Wittendorf also text messaged Morgan to determine if there
was anything else she needed to look for to determine if a file was eligible to be destroyed, but Morgan advised there was
not. Cullen and Chief Williams also reviewed the list and confirmed the eligibility, but an AI file containing an investigation
of Buscher was not mentioned by them. She then returned the list to Mueller. That evening Mueller called Wittendorf at
home, and told her this was a conspiracy to get rid of Buscher's IA file, and told her to call Morgan. Wittendorf thought he
sounded like a disgruntled employee, and that it was a disagreement between employees. She advised Mueller to contact
the 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 then
had a meeting in Cullen's office with Chief Williams, Buscher, and Mayoral Executive Assistant Willis Logan. During the
meeting, 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, and
she only pushed for the quick shredding of IA files to answer the pending Christian FOIA request truthfully. She also knew
that the FOIA requested file was still in existence when the MOU was signed. Wittendorf assumed the Clerk's Office sent
Christian's FOIA response at the end of the day, and that the files were shredded by the end of the day. From previous
conversations 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 3 of 5
Page 666

Report ID: 523589
NARRATIVE SECTION
On April 26, 2013, Wittendorf attended a weekly meeting between the Corporation Counsel and Labor Manager Stephanie
Barton. Wittendorf recalled giving Barton a copy of the signed MOU, and that Barton was upset. Wittendorf did not know
if it was revealed at that meeting that the files had already been shredded, because she left early for court. After the
meeting, Assistant Corporation Counsel Angela Fyans-Jimenez emailed Wittendorf, and said to hold off on shredding
any documents. Wittendorf responded, and said to speak to Cullen, because he made the decisions. She was also asked
by someone if the MOU complied with the Personal Record Review Act, and she responded via email to Barton, FyansJimenes, Cullen, and Steve Rahn, that it did.
On April 30, 2013, Springfield Alderman Joe McMenamin asked the Corporation Counsel, via email, if a collective bargaining
agreement could be modified without the approval of City Council. Wittendorf responded to the inquiry that approval was
not 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, Cullen
drafted a memorandum explaining the events leading to the shredding of documents. Cullen sent the memorandum to
Wittendorf, 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 Commissions
Application. 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 the
local records requirements themselves, and did not follow up with Mueller about disposal certificates. Wittendorf never
contacted the Local Records Commission about the process of records destruction. She also could not recall if she had
discussed requirements of the Local Records Act with Cullen. Wittendorf never told Cullen or Mayor Michael Houston that
the 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 responded
that they had not, and everything was by the book. Wittendorf did send an email to Mueller to ensure he would be available
on April 25, 2013, to shred the documents. She did so to comply with the order to shred the files immediately, once the MOU
was signed. Her goal was to respond to the FOIA request truthfully. Wittendorf did not have any personal relationships
with anyone at the police department, and only became aware of the theory that Buscher's files were only being shredded
so he could become chief from Mueller the evening before the documents were shredded. She said she was not even
aware of what Buscher's IA file consisted of. Wittendorf had nothing further to add, and the interview was concluded at
approximately 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 4 of 5
Page 667

Report ID: 523589
NARRATIVE SECTION
4. Transcript, consisting of 68 pages.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
MOU
File Name :
Wittendorf MOU changes.pdf
Type :
Name :
Phone
File Name :
Wittendorf Phone Records.pdf
Type :
Name :
Memo
File Name :
Wittendorf Attch 3.pdf
Type :
Name :
Trans
File Name :
Wittendorf Trans 2.pdf
Page 5 of 5
Page 668
Page 669
Attachment #1
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 670
Attachment#2
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 671
Attachment#2
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 672
Attachment#2
IL13AA09938
Page #3
Page 673
Attachment#2
IL13AA09938
Page #4
Attachment #3
IL13AA09938
Page #1
Page 674
Attachment #3
IL13AA09938
Page #2
Page 675
Attachment #3
IL13AA09938
Page #3
Page 676
Attachment #3
IL13AA09938
Page #4
Page 677
Attachment #3
IL13AA09938
Page #5
Page 678
Attachment #3
IL13AA09938
Page #6
Page 679
Attachment #3
IL13AA09938
Page #7
Page 680
Attachment #3
IL13AA09938
Page #8
Page 681
Page 1
GAFFNER:
Alright, today is February the 10th, 2014, its about 1:12 p.m. My name is
Lieutenant 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 were uh, interviewing Geannette Wittendorf. Geannette

is 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 have
your full name please?
WEBBER:
Roger Webber, from Beckett and Webber in Urbana.
GAFFNER:
And is it W-E-B-E-R?
WEBBER:
Two Bs.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Roger do you have a phone number also?
WEBBER:
Sure ...
GAFFNER:
Thank you. Geannette, whats your date of birth?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
And middle initial?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
Okay, what address? Do you want us to use the uh, which address would we
use?
WITTENDORF:
Roger Webbers, at Becket and Webbers.
WEBBER:
The Urbana,
IL13AA09938
Page 682
Page 2
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 for
Springfield Police Department until just recently. If we can go back a just a
little 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 Springfield
Police Department, its just like Correction. Uh, I graduated from law school
in 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 Assistants 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 whatd 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?

IL13AA09938
Page 683
Page 3
WITTENDORF:
And then I moved to Springfield and I worked for Koepe and Hiltabrand for a
short time.
GAFFNER:
Whos 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 States Attorneys 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:
Its, I worked for a short amount of time at Koepe and Hiltabrand, a short
amount of time at uh, Macon County States Attorneys office, and in 2012 I
started for the, March 2012 I started City of Springfield.
GAFFNER:
So you think the Macon County was still 2011 though? Starting, starting 2011
going into 2012, or you,
WITTENDORF:
I am honestly not sure.
GAFFNER:
Dont 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 Springfield
PD, Springfield City. And with Springfield you were with Corporation
Counsels office, is that what it was?
IL13AA09938
Page 684
Page 4
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
GAFFNER:
And then what were you assigned to there?
WITTENDORF:
I was assigned to uh, I was Assistant Corporation Counsel doing uh, insurance
defense 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 for
the city, youre not working specifically for the police department?
WITTENDORF:
Thats correct.
GAFFNER:
So at any point in time, did you work specifically for the police department?
And Im not saying youre emp-, I know youre employed by the Corporation
Counsel, but do you not have, like youre either working for Public Works, or
the City Police Department, or somebody more than somebody else? Youre
not, you werent doing that?
WITTENDORF:
At one point after an assistant corporation counsel left, I gained some additional
duties which incorporated assisting um, the police department. But I was never,
youre never work for them.
GAFFNER:
Okay so, you talking about when Megan Morgan left?
WITTENDORF:
Thats correct.
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 or
just part of her responsibilities?
IL13AA09938
Page 685
Page 5
WITTENDORF:
Just some.
GAFFNER:
What, and specifically what would they have been?
WITTENDORF:
At that time, uh, Mark Cullen wasnt specific. I, it was, I was basically
whatever came up. Um, I know Krista Ep-, Eppenseller, also incorporated some
additional duties as did uh, Jason uh, Brokow.
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WITTENDORF:
Obtained some additional duties. They were kind of split up since we were
short one and a half people.
GAFFNER:
Okay, so like on your duties with, with, in particular the police department at
the time, what were you uh, designated to mostly take care of? Anything in
particular?
WITTENDORF:
Well I was kind of the uh, point person if they needed something at that
moment, they could come to me. Um, so it seemed.
GAFFNER:
For anything in particular or just everything? So in other words if they had

FOIA 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 wasnt necessarily gonna be long term, but, for that moment.
GAFFNER:
Um, how about destruction of, of files or records, stuff like that. Was that part
of 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.
IL13AA09938
Page 686
Page 6
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, I
know she got a list of these are the files that are scheduled to be destroyed,
GAFFNER:
Yeah, were, were gonna get into that.
WEBBER:
And,
GAFFNER:
Well get into that.
WEBBER:
Okay.
GAFFNER:
Specific stuff, I just, Im just trying to get a broad, broad idea some of the stuff,
just to make sure were, you know, all on the same page with that. Anything
else, FOIA request, destruction of police records, anything else?
WITTENDORF:
Unfortunately, Mr... isnt very specific, it was very up in the air, so I got what
came across my desk at the time until he sorted it out.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Okay. Um, Im gonna go back just a little bit on some of your previous
work history stuff. So, 2003 you graduated from where?
WITTENDORF:
University of Illinois, College of ... Urbana
GAFFNER:
Okay, and 2003, Winnebago Assistant States Attorney until 2008. How did
you, howd you leave there? Was it, I mean, is it a new election command or
what was,
WITTENDORF:
Yeah there was a new election and being a bilingual attorney I saw a good
opportunity 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 wasnt my question. Was there any other issues there at
Winnebago County that, that made you depart, was it vol-,
WITTENDORF:
...and I didnt get along with the new States Attorney, and I resigned.
IL13AA09938
Page 687
Page 7
GAFFNER:
Okay, so you did resign. Okay. Um, did it have to do with a case or anything
like that, that youre working up there, had to do with?
WITTENDORF:
Yes, there was a case that didnt go well.
GAFFNER:
I, Im gonna explain something to you, Geannette, first of all. Okay, and know
you got your counsel with you and actually I didnt, I didnt tell you at the very
beginning, but, and let me just clarify. This, this interview here, of course its
not administrative interview. We, we dont do Springfield PDs administrative
interviews. Okay. So, so, if there was an admin-, and I know youre not
working for Springfield any longer, so its not an issue, but anytime were called
in to do something, this is considered a criminal interview. We appreciate you
coming up here and talking to us, and hopefully youre gonna shine some light
on this stuff that were gonna talk about here. Just so we fully understand what
your job duties are and stuff like that. So were not trying to trick you up on
anything with this stuff. But its essential that whenever Im asking you
questions, I probably already know the answer to those questions Im asking
you. I just want to see how forth coming youre gonna be to me. Okay. And
dont, dont try to hide any of this stuff back here just cause you may be
embarrassed about it, whatever. It does, dont worry about it. Bring everything
forward, whether you think its relevant or not. And then, at the very end, we
can make a well informed decision. I know you have your legal counsel here
too to advise you, and thats, hes there for that. So if youre not sure, and you
can look to him and ask him as well. But, just try not to, for, were not gonna
trick you up on anything and stuff. Were gonna ask you some straight forward
questions, were trying to do a fact finding investigation . Uh, theres a lot of
information here and so, dont think were trying to get you on a gotcha. So
when Im asking about this, I already know the background on your history up
there, okay. I already know your background on all this stuff. It hasnt taken
us this long for us to go through this, to sit here and just kind of play games with
each other. So, just, go ahead, tell me a little bit about what happened with that
incident that led to your resignation, and then were gonna go through just a
couple of these things and go into the kind ... interview. Okay? Does that make
sense?
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
GAFFNER:
Okay. So what was, whats kind of the issue there with Winnebago County that
happened?
WITTENDORF:
There was a rape case that I was trying. I got held in contempt.
IL13AA09938
Page 688
Page 8
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WITTENDORF:
The contempt got overturned on appeal.
GAFFNER:
And then, after that occurred, did you have any other sanctions that came
against you?
WITTENDORF:
No.
GAFFNER:
Okay. So then you departed Winnebago County, went to solo practitioner for
a while, um, then, what happened with uh, Georgia, Department of Human
Services 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 hes up north.
GAFFNER:
Um, then for, then you had two jobs right back to back, um, with Hildebrant
and, whatever the name is. And then Macon County. Why the short turn
around on those too?
WITTENDORF:
Money. I kept getting better money. I was only making like 33 at Koepe and
Hiltabrand, and then Macon County, I was commuting, 45 minutes and I was
making 45. I had applied with Macon County in the city approximately the
same time, and then the city came and made me an offer for about 10 grand
more, 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 time
period had you had any experience in doing, uh, this is, again, tell me, I had
insurance,
WITTENDORF:
Insurance Defense.
GAFFNER:
Defense, okay. And civil litigation. Had you had any previous experience in
that area?
WITTENDORF:
Well when I was a solo practitioner, I did civil litigation. And when I worked
for Koepe and Hildebrant thats all they did is insurance defense.
IL13AA09938
Page 689
Page 9
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 for
Springfield, 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 working
there, I get the ap-, impression that you werent totally uh, apprized of what.
When you applied to Springfield, did they give you a job description of what
your job entailed? What do I want to say, a job uh,
UNKNOWN:
Written job duties or anything?
WITTENDORF:
No.
GAFFNER:
Im 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 to
be doing with Springfield?
WITTENDORF:
They told me I would be doing civil litigation, that I was being hired for my trial
experience.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Uh, so at any point in time did they show you any type of document that
outlined heres what were specifically, youre gonna be rated on these things.
Cause I mean,
IL13AA09938
Page 690
Page 10
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 down
with 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 to
understand your job duties were, and what did you spend most of your time
doing?
WITTENDORF:
Civil litigation. Insurance Defense, for the city, the city of Springfield is self
insured. So, trip and fall, pot holes, car accidents, water damage, electrical fire,
IL13AA09938
Page 691
Page 11
anything in which the city was being sued, we defended.
GAFFNER:
What did you spend most of your time doing? Im, Im not just talking about
that either, Im talking about maybe your, the FOIA, the destruction of police
records. Kind of, I dont know how youre, how much duties, or how much
time of your time is spent doing what duties.
WITTENDORF:
I didnt touch any of that until,
GAFFNER:
Till Megan left?
WITTENDORF:
April, yeah.
GAFFNER:
Oh, okay, Im 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 additional
ones. So, lets go then to April 15 time period, whenever you received those
additional duties. Compared to this insurance defense litigation, that compared
to the FOIA and all these other things, who, what took up the most of your time
I guess?
WITTENDORF:
I was doing both at the same time. Um, I was coming in early, working through
lunch, um, just to keep up. Cause I was still handling my civil litigation case
load, which is a full time attorney in and of itself, plus whatever else came my
way, um, with uh, the additional duties, whatever crossed my desk.
GAFFNER:
Um, what kind of training, whenever you took over Megans responsibilities,
did she give you any job description of what she did, kind of give you some
incite?
WITTENDORF:
Megan did come up with a list of what she believed her job duties were. And
um, she spent a couple hours with me the week before she left, you know, at my
request because otherwise, if we left that up to Mark, it would have never
happened. 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 premise
of this investigation, this case, of course revolves around the shredding incident
that occurred on April 25. Okay, so youre, April the 15th you come in there, so
you have basically ten days uh, where youre getting indoctrinated into what
IL13AA09938
Page 692
Page 12
youre suppose to do and this new FOIA stuff and destruction of police records
and stuff like that, were you familiar with any of this stuff prior to coming in
there 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 wasnt even there that full week, of the 15th.
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WITTENDORF:
Um, but, thats aside from the point I guess, but I was a FOIA officer for Macon
County.
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 whether
its from the PBPA or whether its from the city, um, to start looking into
reducing this, this reduction of time frames from five to four years. A
destruction of files, and FOIA requests coming in from Calvin Christian, all this
kind 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 she
was leaving because she was giving me some different responses that she had
prepared in the past, that I could use. And because there was pending litigation
with Calvin Christian over her prior denials, I guess, if I remember correctly
there was one, there were two other law suits he had filed, so, and so I think
there was gonna be a response that was due, when after she left so she wanted
to make sure I had that, and the type of response that she gave to those. And I
didnt find out, I didnt know anything about the um, doing the reduction until
April 23, when I got called into the Chiefs office. Thats the first I heard about
wanting to do a reduction to the expungement period.
GAFFNER:
So you were aware of the FOIAs prior to that. So Im gonna, Ill jump back to
April 23 in just a minute, but, so when Megans informing you or advising you
of 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
IL13AA09938
Page 693
Page 13
talking about?
WITTENDORF:
To deny them.
GAFFNER:
And using what verbiage? Cause that, is that what shes telling you basically,
WITTENDORF:
Yeah, the, what the, what citations to the FOIA statute she uses to deny the
FOIA request.
GAFFNER:
Would you recall at that time what particular ones they were using for this, for
his request at that time?
WITTENDORF:
Not off the top of my head I dont.
GAFFNER:
Do, did you draft the letters then in response to his FOIA, on, I know he had
numerous FOIAs that came in. Okay, while youre in, prior to you coming, um,
Im trying to think while youre there, did, did you draft all the letters in
response to his FOIAs or would somebody be drafting those letters?
WITTENDORF:
I didnt, I dont 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 I
drafted some FOIA responses, but not to him I dont think.
GAFFNER:
So if youre drafting a FOIA response, where does that go, usually?
WITTENDORF:
Should go through the FOIA system, through the clerks office.
GAFFNER:
Okay, and then the clerk sends it out?
WITTENDORF:
Yeah.
GAFFNER:
Okay. So it doesnt show that its coming from you, it will show that its
coming from the city clerk or something?
WITTENDORF:
I want to say it depends.
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WITTENDORF:
I dont really remember cause I wasnt doing it very long for them.
IL13AA09938
Page 694
Page 14
GAFFNER:
Um, so you dont specifically recall which Calvin Christian request he had on
file, 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 the
25, was there a FOIA response that needed to be, or a FOIA request that needed
to be responded to?
WITTENDORF:
Yes. There was one that I asked for more time because I was going to be gone
the week of the 15th,
GAFFNER:
Okay,
WITTENDORF:
And I wasnt going to be able to, I didnt 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, and
there 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 you
wanted to extend it?
WITTENDORF:
I dont think you have to give a reason. I just told Donna to request an
extension, I was going to be gone.
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WITTENDORF:
...
GAFFNER:
Um, so you know you have a pending request that you have to address. Youre
gone for a little while and then, do you get called in the Chiefs office on the
IL13AA09938
Page 695
Page 15
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 Chiefs office.
GAFFNER:
Who was there?
WITTENDORF:
Buscher and Markovick? I dont remember if Markovick was there when I first
was there, or if he was called in, but,
GAFFNER:
And Chief Williams?
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
GAFFNER:
What happened?
WITTENDORF:
So they told me that theyve been in negotiations with the union regarding the
reduction of the expungement period. That the union wanted it to be three
years, but they came to an agreement that it would be four, and that they were
going to do an MOU, Markovick would draft it. And they needed to know if it
would be effectively immediately or prospectively. I said Im not sure, Ill have
to run it by Mr. Cullen, see what he has to say about all this. They say okay, go
ahead. Thats what I did. I went to Mr. Cullens office. I told him this is what
they want to do, they want to do an MOU regarding the reduction of the
expungement period from five years to four. I told them, you know, the union
wanted three but they came to, I guess an agreement to do it for four. Do you
have any problems with this? No. What do you think about the exp-, whether
or not the expungements should be immediate or prospectively, meaning from
here on out when it occurs, you know for future or whether it should occur
immediately, meaning any that are of date. He goes, no, it should be
immediately, anything existing right now. I said okay, so I walked back down
the hall to Buscher and Cliff were still in the office, or ... Buscher and Williams
were in the office. I said alright Mr. Cullen said its to be effective
immediately. Said alright, well send you the MOU when its drafted. So I
went back to my office and um, knowing that there was the issue with the FOIA,
IL13AA09938
Page 696
Page 16
and given my history and knowledge of ..., Im very familiar with calling the
AGs office, the FOIA hotline, so thats 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 the
attorneys 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 I
explained to him the situation that we received a FOIA request, and during the
pendency of a FOIA request, an expungement period occurs, um, how should
we proceed? What should we do with the FOIA? He said well, there is no
preservation clause, there is no holding, uh, you should go ahead and proceed
with the expungement and respond that uh, theres no documents responsive.
GAFFNER:
See, okay, he said theres no preservation clause and what else?
WITTENDORF:
No holding, um, in essence...it was so long ago. Its paraphrasing, but, theres
no holding, um, clause. Theres nothing in the FOIA statute saying you have
to 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 theres no documents

responses. I said alright.
GAFFNER:
Let me, I know youre 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 dont know if you have it. That
might be more, um, accurate.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Yeah, well look at it here in a minute.
WITTENDORF:
Oh, okay.
GAFFNER:
Um,
IL13AA09938
Page 697
Page 17
WEBBER:
So you have it?
GAFFNER:
Sure, yeah, I mean, if you have there too, we can make sure were talking about
the same one eventually, but yeah. Uh, okay, so, you had the meeting with, with
Cullen and, this is the 23rd, did, what was the purpose, did Chief Williams
indicate what the purpose of having the meeting on that day was? Was it
something transpired prior to them setting down and talking about negotiations?
Or just out of the blue they said hey, were 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 AGs
office, uh, was that something you thought of on your own? Was that
something somebody else mentioned or?
WITTENDORF:
No, because of my experience as a FOIA officer, theyre 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 the
FOIA office and received kind of specific guidelines and guidance as well?
WITTENDORF:
Often.
GAFFNER:
So whenever you called the, whenever youve called the FOIA office, is that the
uh,
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?
IL13AA09938
Page 698
Page 18
WITTENDORF:
I always called it the FOIA hotline...
GAFFNER:
Okay, so in the previous times youve called the FOIA hotline or the PAC,
whatever,
WITTENDORF:
Um hum,
GAFFNER:
Um, have you asked them specifically for something, can you give me an
example maybe other things you specifically asked them for, and theyve given
you?
WITTENDORF:
I spe-, I know when you call, you need to identify yourself as an attorney and
ask to specifically speak to an attorney.
GAFFNER:
Otherwise, who you getting if youre 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 youve talked to
them about?
WITTENDORF:
Hum, oh gosh,
GAFFNER:
And Im talking more so, re-, you know, hey I got this specific question of you,
help me, give me some guidance on that, Id like to kind of understand what
kind of guidance they give.
WITTENDORF:
Youre putting me on the spot when youre asking me ... specific something at
that time.
GAFFNER:
...
WITTENDORF:
...
IL13AA09938
Page 699
Page 19
GAFFNER:
It doesnt, Im saying specific, I mean, Im just trying to help you recall maybe
a case or something you were working, and you asked them a question, you can
kind of give me a general response, but Im just,
WITTENDORF:
I know I called them even asking them about their frequent requester. Oh I
think I called them again about Christian, because um, whether or not he would
be considered a frequent requester. And if he could be denied, um, as a frequent
requester, whether or not its considered uh, because of his numerous requests.
Because he was requesting it under the guise of the newspaper. And you know
we talked specifically, the specific facts. And they were like no, you know, in
our opinion he still falls under the newspaper, even though he doesnt actually
publish any newspaper articles, you know, he still falls under this statute. I
mean we always ... I was very comfortable talking ... talk specific facts, and they
responded with specific. They were very helpful actually, you know, when they
had specific guidance, they would give it to me. Like if they had um, HG
opinions or something like that, they would, you know, show em to me. You
know and think it made a difference that, you know, after using them so often
I knew to ask for an attorney and identify myself as an attorney. I think those
are the, thats 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, how
would they do that?
WITTENDORF:
Well like when I worked in Macon County, they would actually like email them
to 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 working
for 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 dont remember. After this incident, I did learn, I did learn
my lesson and start writing down their names, yes, but,
GAFFNER:
Okay, so you received a response back from the Attorney Generals office,
IL13AA09938
Page 700
Page 20
whatever, whoever the attorney was, and was it, do you recall ... with Matt, first
name was Matt something?
WITTENDORF:
I honestly dont remember,
GAFFNER:
Dont know, okay. Uh, and this person, uh responded back that uh, you can get
rid of the, you can expunge the documents, respond back no documents
responsive. So what did you do then once you learned that information from
them?
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 to
find any case law in existence regarding FOIA, preservation of documents, um,
anything on FOIA. I couldnt find anything.
GAFFNER:
You couldnt find anything on FOIAs and stuff?
WITTENDORF:
On point with receiving a request in the preservation of documents or

independency.
GAFFNER:
Oh so in your, in your search of, and where would you look when youre trying
to 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, its in my head.
GAFFNER:
So a Wes Law search and youre looking specifically what you can do once a
IL13AA09938
Page 701
Page 21
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 documents

during 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 other
on that, the pending research?
WITTENDORF:
No.
GAFFNER:
Have you found anything since then?
WITTENDORF:
No.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Uh, So then whatd you do after you told Cullen about what you learned
from the PAC office?
WITTENDORF:
Um, I believe at some point we requested that a list be put together of who
would be in the expungement um,
GAFFNER:
When you say we, whos we?
WITTENDORF:
Well when Mark and I discussed it, you know, we discuss what the next steps
would be and I said, well, we need a list, I guess of who would be on this list so
we can go through and check whether or not whos eligible in terms of whether
or not theres any pending litigation and, so, figured that would take some time
to make sure we preserve of one who needs to be legally preserved. Um, and
so I believe I emailed um, Mueller, hes a high, head of Internal Affairs, and I
asked him to prepare a list from the case that the agreement went through
between the union and um, the administration.
GAFFNER:
You emailed, did you state that on your email to him or you just were asking
him for a list?
WITTENDORF:
Im not sure. I believe I sent an email but Im not positive. Maybe I just asked
him? I dont know.
IL13AA09938
Page 702
Page 22
GAFFNER:
Is this common for you to ask him for a list?
WITTENDORF:
I dont 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 the
expungement if the expungement went through.
GAFFNER:
What, whats your definition of expungement?
WITTENDORF:
With my current definition?
GAFFNER:
No. Like what was your definition of expungement when you were talking back
then?
WITTENDORF:
Well, um, well, I prepared the list of whoever they had, um, on the reprimands
and honestly, I had it all written down at the time. Its been so long since I
didnt need to use it anymore, I didnt 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 youre

sending this email is destruction of the entire record is the same as
expungement?
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
IL13AA09938
Page 703
Page 23
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 how
Megan Morgan did it, because I actually wasnt sure of how it was done. And
I believe I asked him, okay, now how do we, how is this done, how do I tell you
whats, whats appropriate and what isnt, and he sent me and email with some
attachments of how Megan did it. And so, based on that is how I then went
through 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 saw
which ones had pending cases, pending litigation. Went through all the names
and anyone who, uh, was involved in anything with the court systems, or, uh
pending litigation. I marked as having to preserve, and anyone who didnt I
marked as okay. I uh, texted Megan and I asked her again, you know, just
wanted to make sure that, for the expungement all I need to look at is, you
know, what is pending cases. And she said yeah, um, thats it. I said okay.
And then I, I dont 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 thats the
list that,
WITTENDORF:
I need to see the one with my handwriting on it. I couldnt tell you off the top
without 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, to
make sure that nobody had any pending legal cases. Nobody had any court
cases, I mean. Some of the names look familiar, sure, from working in the
department. But theres no way that I could I that I remember these from the
list, you know.
GAFFNER:
That memo Im showing you, is the one addressed to you from Chris Mueller
right?
IL13AA09938
Page 704
Page 24
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 Im showing it has
some handwriting on it. What, whats your telling Chris, or Lieutenant
Mueller?
Well, Im telling him that the ones that are okay to expunge, because they have
no pending court cases, no pending litigation. And the ones that need to be
saved because there is pending court cases, pending litigation, so we have a
legal obligation to preserve them.
WITTENDORF:
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 just
because theyre more familiar with these people. I didnt want to miss anything.
I didnt want to accidentally expunge a case that they knew was out there that
I, you know, cause I was relying on computers and data lists, and they actually
were there along the time, more than me.
GAFFNER:
Okay, so what did, did, either one of those two say anything about the people
on 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, did
they say anything about Buschers 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 did
they?
WITTENDORF:
Well on April 25th, Cliff Buschers name came up in a meeting in Cullens

office.
IL13AA09938
Page 705
Page 25
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 were gonna get some grief for
Buschers file being in there. And you know, why dont we pull it. Buschers
like I dont have a problem with that. And Mark Cullen said no, were not
gonna do that, press always needs something to talk about. Theres no reason
to do that, were not doing anything wrong. Leave it in, that was it.
GAFFNER:
Did you say anything at that time?
WITTENDORF:
I dont say much, just follow orders.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Um, so the day you, you have a date on here too, GSW 4/24/13, that,
thats your initial then and thats 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 responded
back to them. That same day then?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
That would be the day I looked it over. I dont know if thats the day I sent it
or not.
Okay. You dont have any idea when, whod 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 dont have any idea when it got sent back to him though?
WITTENDORF:
I dont. It would have been attached to an email Im assuming.
IL13AA09938
Page 706
Page 26
GAFFNER:
Alright, so, 24th you get this list. You look it over. You do your markings on
it, 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 having
correspondence with Mueller?
WITTENDORF:
Um, I think that might have been the night that Mueller called me. I know
Mueller 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 already
been in bed. I remember I was sick that week too, probably from being over
worked. And I, he woke me up, he was, he was uh, stressed out and uh, up,
sounded upset and its like Geannette, youre not from here. You dont know
these people. You know, I think theres, I dont know, he just sounded like
disgruntled 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 Buschers file, hes like you dont know
whats going on. Youre, you know, you know, you should call Megan. Uh, I
dont, I told him, you know, Chris if you really think somethings going on, you
need to take this to the Chief. You need to talk to the mayor, you and I are just
worker bees. I dont know what to tell you. Um, were both just following
orders.
GAFFNER:
So whenever he called you, I mean, did you not take that as hes trying to give
you a heads up on something, or additional information you may not be aware
because youre kind of new?
WITTENDORF:
He didnt sound very put together. Um, he, he, he didnt sound very rational.
He didnt have any facts or basis or, or, he honestly just sounded like a
disgruntled employee with a lot of uh, back stabbing theories, and it just
sounded discombobulated and I mean,
GAFFNER:
So it didnt rise to the level in your mind of being anything to consider,

whenever hes telling you this stuff?
WITTENDORF:
I gave him the best advice I could. I told him, Im not the one to go to. Im not,
Im nobody. You know, Im like you need to take this to the boss, you know,
IL13AA09938
Page 707
Page 27
GAFFNER:
What was, what was he warning you about though? I mean, give me some
specifics of,
WITTENDORF:
Just what I said that,
GAFFNER:
No, you didnt tell me what case or anything, you just said youre, you been
very vague in general.
WITTENDORF:
That theyre trying to destroy Buschers file.
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WITTENDORF:
Hide the truth, you know, hide what happened.
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WITTENDORF:
And thats the extent of it.
GAFFNER:
So when he, when he told you this information, what did you do with the
information?
WITTENDORF:
I told Mark that he had called me, that he told me this stuff, and Mark seemed
to have the same opinion of it as, I guess that I had, that it just sounded a little
you know, he expressed it sounded a little crazy and he doesnt think anything
of 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 dont. In the morning. I was very good about always going to Mark. I am
very much CYA.
GAFFNER:
When you say CYA, what, like,
WITTENDORF:
Cover your butt.

IL13AA09938
Page 708
Page 28
GAFFNER:
Yeah, so I, did the conversation, lets, lets stay on the 24th then, um, you said
uh, Mueller called you that night. Leading up to that night, why, why did he
call you that night. There had to be something going on that prior day, your
communications with him, stuff like that, that lead him to be concerned about
something.
WITTENDORF:
I honestly dont remember.
GAFFNER:
Had there been any correspondence or communication with you and Mueller
about asking him if he was going to be present the 25th to get rid of some files
or 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 dont remember.
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WITTENDORF:
Its possible. I dont know,
GAFFNER:
Just a little bit ago we talked about on the 15th, or uh, lets see, you extended
five days on the 23rd, no, you request a five day extension on, on uh, Calvin
Christians FOIA request. Um, one of them was coming up on the 25th, where
you had to respond back to that, correct?
WITTENDORF:
There abouts, yes, it must have been on the 25th, cause thats when I responded.
GAFFNER:
So on the 24th, youre, youre talking with uh Chris about these files in your
terms to be expunged, and youre having communications with him. Are you
asking him anything else, as far as, cause, whos, whos responsible for
expunging files or destroying files?
WITTENDORF:
Chris, and his,
GAFFNER:
So, IA
WITTENDORF:
Partner.
GAFFNER:
Is?
IL13AA09938
Page 709
Page 29
WITTENDORF:
Yeah.
GAFFNER:
So, if, if we had some correspondence where youre asking him if hes gonna
be around on the 25th, to be able to shred some files, because of this pending
FOIA is that make, would that be accurate probably?
WITTENDORF:
That makes sense.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Um, and so, you think thats a result then of Chris calling you and saying
hey, I want to give you some incite about one of these files that I have a concern
about.
WITTENDORF:
You mean is that why Chris called me?
GAFFNER:
Yeah, Im wondering if thats, if thats what motivated that call.
WITTENDORF:
I dont know. I cant say why Chris called me. I mean,
GAFFNER:
Well I mean, do you think Chris called you because youre new to that position
and then he wanted to make sure you werent blind sided with something? Or
maybe that you wouldnt be used as a fall person for this? I mean, Im just
asking cause, he didnt call Megan Morgan, he didnt call anybody else. I mean
he calls, he reaches out to you at the time. Im just trying to figure out what his,
what his purpose was of calling you. Was his purpose, something that Im not
reading?
WITTENDORF:
I dont,
GAFFNER:
Did he mention anything about being concerned that you could be used as a fall
person cause youre new and thats why hes wanting to bring you up to speed
on 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 dont know what he thought I could do. I mean, all I
could do was tell em, you need to go to your boss, is what I told him. You
need 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 Cullens approved this, I dont know
what 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 doesnt have Cullens initial on that list for the files to be expunged. So, in
all reality I mean, you do have a say so, so when hes telling you, if you wanted
IL13AA09938
Page 710
Page 30
to, you could have pulled any of those files off that list if you wanted to, is that
not 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 Im
talking about the 24th.
WITTENDORF:
No, the order was given the 23rd.
GAFFNER:
The order was given the 23rd?
WITTENDORF:
Thats the only reason that I went through that list. I wouldnt have had to go
through that list if Mr. Cullen hadnt made the decision,
GAFFNER:
Wheres, wheres this order at? Do you have an order?
WITTENDORF:
No.
WEBBER:
Youre talking about ...
WITTENDORF:
The conversation that the MOU was to be affective immediately.
GAFFNER:
Yeah, that, that, that didnt happen on the 23rd though. But I have, do you have
a record of something that happened on the 23rd?
WITTENDORF:
No. When I went to go speak to Mr. Cullen after the meeting, hes the one who
decided that the MOU was to be affective immediately.
GAFFNER:
Okay, well that ... is what youre saying?
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Thats fine. If somethings signed and its documented, I couldnt

understand. Youre saying it, it would be effective. But what are you saying
when thats becoming affective immediately? What does that mean? In your
mind? Whenever youre saying that MOU becomes affective immediately,
whats that mean?
WITTENDORF:
That those files would be expugnable,
IL13AA09938
Page 711
Page 31
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WITTENDORF:
Immediately.
GAFFNER:
Okay, what does that mean? Immediately?
WITTENDORF:
As soon as the MOU is signed.
GAFFNER:
So youre, youre taking this as whenever Cullen says this is effective right
now, that the files had to be shredded right then and there?
WITTENDORF:
That is my understanding.
GAFFNER:
Why, why would, I dont 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 the
25th or was there some other reason? Because youre a good soldier and if, I
know you signed youre gonna have something done immediately, upon sign of
it?
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 were
talking about is the agreement between the PBPA and the Department, which
reduces 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 there
a purpose,
WITTENDORF:
I had nothing to do when that MOU was signed. I did not make the
arrangements for it. I had nothing to do with the scheduling of it. All I was told
was to show up.
GAFFNER:
Well, but its your email correspondence though with Mueller indicating for him
to be available on the 25th,
WITTENDORF:
Thats because I was told,
GAFFNER:
To shred those documents immediately,
WITTENDORF:
It was gonna be happening that day.

IL13AA09938
Page 712
Page 32
GAFFNER:
Right,
WITTENDORF:
But I had nothing to do with any correspondence with the negotiations, with the
agreement, with when it was gonna happen, nothing. All I was doing was ... my
end and the legal aspect of it.
GAFFNER:
Okay, but Im trying to figure out why youre pushing so hard for Mueller to get
those documents shredded by the 25th.
WITTENDORF:
Because I needed to answer a FOIA truthfully.
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WEBBER:
I think shes planning to answer a FOIA on the 25th that says there are no
records. She knows theyre suppose to be destroyed upon the signing of the
MOU, and thats suppose to happen. So the MOU gets signed, every file that
would be expunged next year, you know in five years, that, that the is for four
and a half, four years, is gonna be destroyed that day, and shes gonna send out
the answer she wants to know that its actually done if shes saying these were
destroyed, or they dont exist.
GAFFNER:
Yeah, I understand what youre trying to do, but what Im saying is, you are
pushing to have this done for the fact that you didnt have to that FOIA and give
the information back to Calvin Christian right?
WITTENDORF:
No, I was doing it so I didnt have to lie on the FOIA.
GAFFNER:
Well, okay. I mean, the, were the records actually, shredded and gone whenever
you called Chris Mueller?
WITTENDORF:
When I called him?
GAFFNER:
When did you send that letter out then? When did you send the Calvin Christian
letter saying theres no records?
WITTENDORF:
I didnt send the letter out. The clerks office sent the letter out.
GAFFNER:
When did they send it?
WITTENDORF:
Im not sure. Im assuming the end of the day.
GAFFNER:
Okay, so how did you know those files would have been shredded by the end
IL13AA09938
Page 713
Page 33
of the day?
WITTENDORF:
It was my understanding that the shredding occurs immediately. Was my belief

that they would be shredded by the end of the day.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Were you aware of in the past how they shredded documents and stuff
like 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 hows this,
WITTENDORF:
No, just conversation.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Because, I mean, everybody weve talked to, thats been in IA, even to
include Chief Williams, whos been there, nobody indicated they do them
immediately like the same day. That any uh, approval gets done on them
whether from your office or wherever, so Im just trying to figure out whos,
WITTENDORF:
Chris indicated to me that it can happen immediately. Im surprised if he

indicated to you differently, to be honest.
GAFFNER:
No I didnt say he couldnt do it immediately. Im just saying thats not been

ever the past practice on doing it. It was, from reading the emails and talking
to these other people, it appears that somebody else was pushing it, which right
now it looks like youre the one pushing em, to get these documents shredded.
So Im just trying to understand , if youre not the one pushing and youre
saying somebody else is pushing you to push it, Im trying to understand who
that is.
WITTENDORF:
I was told that it was to occur immediately. I needed to answer a FOIA

truthfully. That was my goal.
GAFFNER:
Whos 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
IL13AA09938
Page 714
Page 34
FOIA,
WITTENDORF:
No, I was told that it needed to occur immediately. That was from Mark. I sent
him two emails to confirm this. If he had said something different, that it did
not need to occur immediately, I would have sent an alternative answer to that
FOIA. I would have sent the denial saying, you know, for these reasons your
FOIA is being denied. However, because Mark continuously responded that
this shredding needed to occur immediately, I wasnt going to send a false FOIA
response saying Im sorry, youre denied for these fraudulent reasons, knowing
the 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 the
25th, indicating that he needed to be available to shred these on the 25th?
WITTENDORF:
Possibly.
GAFFNER:
Okay, so, youre telling me though Mark Cullens telling you on the 25th you
need to do it immediately, but even prior to that, youre telling Mueller he has
to be ready on the 25th to shred them ...
WITTENDORF:
Because of Mark had told me from the 23rd, and Buscher and Williams can
confirm that I immediately obtained my orders from Mr. Cullen. This isnt
something Im going to do on my own.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Well probably come back to that then in a minute. Um,
WITTENDORF:
What time is it?
UNKNOWN:
Wanna take a break?
GAFFNER:
Yeah, lets just take a little break if you guys want to, and that way, its uh, its
2:18 right now. Well take a pause,
(INTERVIEW STOPPED)
(INTERVIEW RESUMED)
GAFFNER:
Okay, its 2:26, well, youre still aware Geannette that this conversations
IL13AA09938
Page 715
Page 35
being audio recorded and thats okay with you?
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
GAFFNER:
Okay. Um, I know we had just a couple follow up questions and then well get
into some of these documents. Were you able to get your 3 oclock pushed
back?
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 didnt know if it was here or Georgia. And then, in, while youre in
private 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 youre at Macon County, did you do FOIAs for the police
department or the sheriffs 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, its not where I learned about the Geekus case, I learned that
through my research, Springfield.
IL13AA09938
Page 716
Page 36
HOSTENY:
Okay. When Megan Morgan met with you for those couple hours to break you
in on the partial duties of the police legal adviser, did she give you the history
of the departments 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 couldnt remember the number or the section number, but
it was, was it the exemption have to do with adjudication of disciplinary
records, 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? Im, Im sorry, I didnt 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 lost
the 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 Judge
Schmidt, that we were in the middle of.
HOSTENY:
That, that ruling didnt come yet?
WITTENDORF:
No, and uh, there were different, there was a different exemption that hadnt
been ruled upon yet by the Appellate court that they had left open, that we
hadnt asserted yet, and I dont remember it off the top of my head. Um, they
had left open in the Appellate court, um, that we were going to be asserting
IL13AA09938
Page 717
Page 37
should have gone to that.
HOSTENY:
Okay, um, so, did Megan tell you that she had talked with Mark Cullen in
January and because of the adverse ruling from Judge Kelly, uh, they were
going to eventually change policy and just start releasing all these and not, not
fight them?
WITTENDORF:
No, because Megans the one who gave me the response that she wanted to use
to deny Calvin Christians newest request.
HOSTENY:
Okay. Did Mark Cullen ever tell you that eventually were gonna change the
general order and were gonna just start releasing all these IA files?
WITTENDORF:
No, Mark said that him and Megan had discussed it, the potential of it going that
way if they kept losing these cases.
HOSTENY:
Okay. Um, and then where did you learn of the Geekus case when you did the
research for this issue?
WITTENDORF:
When I was reading the cases, because I went back and I read um, I read the
first Calvin Christian case, and I was reading the second one, and then I started
doing my own FOIA research regarding the issues in order to prepare an
appropriate 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 dont just ... use other
attorneys work, I uh, research the issue and make sure that, the uh, exemptions
and 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, what
was that on?
WITTENDORF:
I went to Chicago, the afternoon and the 17th through the 19th, what was the uh...
HOSTENY:
Im just wondering if it happened to be on FOIA or?
WITTENDORF:
No. It was not.
HOSTENY:
Anything like that?
WITTENDORF:
It was,
IL13AA09938
Page 718
Page 38
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 I
understood you correctly, you had a meeting. Trying to find the right part of my
notes. In Mark Cullens office, the morning of April 25th, which was the day of
the shred, and the Chief recommended that we pull Buschers file. And by that
you mean, not destroy it, that we hold on to it?
WITTENDORF:
Thats correct.
HOSTENY:
Okay. And Buscher said Im okay with that?
WITTENDORF:
Thats correct.
HOSTENY:
And it was Mark Cullen that said no, lets go ahead and keep that with the ones
that were expunging?
WITTENDORF:
Thats correct.
HOSTENY:
Okay. And when you, um, initialed off on the list of cases to be expunged, as
far as you were concerned, that meant it was okay for them to actually put them
in the shredder right then and do away with them?
WITTENDORF:
Pending, given Marks 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 Cullens instructions, and I,
once I had which ones were okay to expunge, it was your understanding they
were going to be shredded right away?
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
HOSTENY:
Okay. Um, let me show you some, some documents. Um, and Ill, if its okay,
Ill just kind of paraphrase it and then hand it to you and take, take a minute to
IL13AA09938
Page 719
Page 39
familiarize yourself. But this is just an email that Donna Brown sent you with
um, Calvins Christians FOIA request for the Buscher IA file that he piggy
packed off of Wendell Banks.
WITTENDORF:
Okay.
HOSTENY:
And it in Donna says, you know, were, were gonna deny it under 7-1-N. And
obviously since it was extended, you didnt deny it right away. Did you tell
Donna not to go ahead and deny it right away, but lets hold on to it and look at
it?
WITTENDORF:
Probably, cause Im sure I had research, and like I said, I had to go through all
his, 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 dont just use legal responses
without reviewing them myself, for legal sufficiency. And I had to go through
all that research and I knew I was gonna be gone for two and a half days. So I
told 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, well just, and this is one from you to Stephanie Barton, where she makes
a reference, Stephanie made a reference to some new FOIA rulings, and you
asked her, and I high lighted it here, can you explain to me what new FOIA
rulings you are referring to. This was dated April 17, regarding IA
investigations. 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 was
referring to.
HOSTENY:
Right, but I mean, did you ever meet with her and go over those issues?
WITTENDORF:
I dont remember, I dont know, maybe.
HOSTENY:
Do you remember, um, when you became assigned to part of the police
department duties, that whether Stephanie said anything to you about, hey if you
have any issues on the collective bargaining agreement, come to me?
WITTENDORF:
Stephanie? Uh, I dont know if she said anything personally.
IL13AA09938
Page 720
Page 40
HOSTENY:
You dont recall her requesting that you go through her on collective bargaining
matters?
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 they
said this was happening. I went to Mark, immediately cause, like I said, I was
had these duties for two and a half days, and I was gone. They called me in 8
a.m. Monday. I didnt know, if, what they can and cant do, you know. Went
to Mark, Mark okayd it. Mark make a decision. I went back, I said okay, they
sent me the document, I forwarded it to Mark. Mark approved it. I made some
legal edits, sent it back.
HOSTENY:
You made legal edits to the MOU that Markovick drafted?
WITTENDORF:
Thats correct.
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 order
covers everybody, even those not in the union, so the issue would be by, by
including the general order, you made it applicable to people that were not in
the bargaining unit.
WEBBER:
So the red is what you put in?
WITTENDORF:
Um hum.
HOSTENY:
You have a document that shows your changes?

IL13AA09938
Page 721
Page 41
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, section
Roman numeral five, print A of the GO, rock number three add period. So I
assume thats addendum number four and section Roman numeral seven A of
the general order rock, number three addition, add, addendum five. And the ...
tracking system, uh, and then in paragraph three you added after the month of
the incident or the month upon which the incident is brought forward, whichever
is longer. Can we make a copy of this for later? Well put that in the pile. Um,
do you remember you talked about when that evening after you went through
all the stuff that you just mentioned, you know, talking to Mark Cullen and all
that, 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 dont 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.
IL13AA09938
Page 722
Page 42
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 and
what did she say to you?
WITTENDORF:
No, um, I basically asked her, you know, other than, you know, pending court
cases and litigation, is there anything else I need to look for in reviewing the
legal sufficiency of expungement. And she said no. Um, I dont recall our
other conversations.
HOSTENY:
Do you recall if you told her one of the files to be expunged under this new
MOU is Buschers?
WITTENDORF:
I dont think so. I dont 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, did
she recommend whether you expunge Buschers or not?
WITTENDORF:
I dont think we discussed that.
HOSTENY:
Heres an email on April 22, that Monday when you came back to work, from
Donna Brown with a new FOIA request. Um, by John Myers, for all the
retention records. The retention policies and all that. And its got some
attachments to it. Its got the FOIA request thats been put in the city website.
Then the general order. Then the last one is part 1200 of the local records
commission 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 were
listed 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
IL13AA09938
Page 723
Page 43
they did that on their end.
HOSTENY:
Um, had you ever dealt with the local records act in any of your previous
assignments, 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 for
Macon County or in private practice?
WITTENDORF:
Like of its 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 with
the local records act, when you got this email from Donna Brown?
WITTENDORF:
Quite frankly, I dont know what their steps are. I just always, you know, I
knew the law was there, and I just always, it was just always something that the
administration took care of on their own. Ive never done it, for any agency that
I 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 local
records 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, I
suppose. I dont even know we responded to this though. I know we had two
response.
HOSTENY:
Ive got one, um, I can show you that where Chris Mueller sent you the list that
you initial off on, wanting to know if thats responsive, if, if, I think hes trying
to say are these the destruction certificates? The, the disposal certificates.
IL13AA09938
Page 724
Page 44
WITTENDORF:
Right, I remember that.
HOSTENY:
Okay, let me show you that one and you can take that back. So, do you
remember 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. Either
mine or ones that Megan and him had done, I dont 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 not
he had any of the, cause in paragraph three Donna Brown is asking for the
approved records disposal certificates from the local records commission. Uh,
and Chris sent you those memos and you say no, thats not it, its, those are
attorney client privilege. Did you ever talk with Chris Mueller about, you
know, do you have the disposal certificates?
WITTENDORF:
I guess I didnt follow up on that.
HOSTENY:
Heres uh, heres one where he says if, in the body of the memo, or the email
from him, if the standards change, and by that I assume he means if the MOU
is signed?
WITTENDORF:
Uh, yes.
HOSTENY:
Is that your understanding of what hes referring to?
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
HOSTENY:
But then he says um, Ill need your approval to destroy them?
IL13AA09938
Page 725
Page 45
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
HOSTENY:
And so, when you initialed off on that, that was your understanding then that
they 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 Ive highlighted, you said you read the local records act and it only applies
to public records, which internal affairs files are not. So what research on the
local records act had you done?
WITTENDORF:
This was just a short, to the point response to Donna, where I wasnt going to
get into the legal explanation of the exemptions that we were claiming under the
FOIA act. I didnt mean under an attorneys um, definition that these werent
public 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 gave
a 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, theyre
not disclose able records? We dont disclose these because theres a FOIA
exemption for them?
WITTENDORF:
That is exactly what I meant to say.
HOSTENY:
But thats under FOIA so Im talking about under the, what makes you think
theyre not releasable under the, or theyre not public records under the local
records act?
WITTENDORF:
I miss, mistyped, I was rushed and receiving ten FOIAs a day, along with
everything 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, were not disclosing the IA files at that time. Uh, were exerting
our FOIA exemptions, um, rather than getting into a long legal discussion with
her. Oh, thats my alarm to pick up my son, Im 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.

IL13AA09938
Page 726
Page 46
HOSTENY:
Before the destruction of the records, on April 25th, or shred? When I say the
shred, Im talking about the afternoon of the April 25th, 2013.
WITTENDORF:
Uh, I dont know if I, I must, I believe I looked at it and read it in regards to

Myers, 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 the
secretary of states web site or anything?
WITTENDORF:
I did not.
HOSTENY:
Or look at the annotations in the statute, in west law?
WITTENDORF:
Uh, I dont believe so.
HOSTENY:
Heres what Im gonna give you, uh. This is one that Donna sent you, where
she called the state archives and asked them about the local records commission,
and this is Tuesday, April 23, and Id first like to ask you, did you ask Donna
to 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 it
was only for electronic records, and she said something to the affect that she
talked to them regularly because she does the applications for the um,
destruction of the records. So, um, I dont know how that specific conversation
came about, in terms of I dont know if I asked her to talk to them or if she did
it on her own.
HOSTENY:
Okay. But you, so you did know that Internal Affairs files for the police
department were covered at least, I mean are you making the distinction
between electronic verses hard copy?
WITTENDORF:
Based on the letter of the application, yes. Thats how I read it.
IL13AA09938
Page 727
Page 47
HOSTENY:
Okay. Um, why dont you go ahead and look at that email chain, and. So, if I
recall the email, she tells you that the local records person that she talked to said
if its not covered, you cant ever destroy it.
WITTENDORF:
Well, they kind of said both.
HOSTENY:
Is that how you took that?
WITTENDORF:
Dont you think? I know. Sound like it. It says on the one hand, if its not
listed, its permanent. On the other hand, theres no statute that defines the
retention period, so they cant enforce listing them on the application. It said
many police departments dont 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 was
something the police department, and like this, the other police departments do,
that they do administratively...legal department job to fill out the disposal
certificates.
HOSTENY:
Im not following you there. Who would have filled out, whos, whos
understanding 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 my
understanding. That was my understanding. As my understanding that that was
when I spoke to the other attorneys after the fact, that is what their
understanding was too, according to the other attorneys I talked to.
HOSTENY:
Did you ever um, before the shred, call anybody at the local records commission
and ask em, you know, about the process?
WITTENDORF:
I did not.
HOSTENY:
Uh, were you aware that once you filed the disposal certificate, you have to wait
IL13AA09938
Page 728
Page 48
for 60 days before you can destroy the records, so the archivist has a chance to
retain the records if he wants to? Um, did you ever talk with Mark Cullen about
the local records act before the shred?
WITTENDORF:
Well only to the extent of this FOIA. I would have given him the FOIA and
shown him, would have forwarded to him, and talk to him, discuss the FOIA
request with him.
HOSTENY:
Under the FOIA law, you talked to him about the legalities under FOIA, but Im
asking under the local, did you talk to him about the requirements of the local
records act?
WITTENDORF:
I honestly dont know.
HOSTENY:
Um, heres one, after the MOU was signed, Buscher was at the signing of the
MOU, wasnt 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 heres one that, after it went out, Donna Brown sent you a copy of the
response letter that was prepared, which was to the FOIA to Calvin Christians
FOIA, that says, we have no documents responsive. So did you, after the MOU
was signed, did you, or to your knowledge, did anyone else tell Donna Brown
to prepare that, thats how that was to be handled?
WITTENDORF:
Im sure I did.
HOSTENY:
And, so when you signed the MOU, when the MOU was signed the morning of
the 25th, you knew the files were still in existence?
IL13AA09938
Page 729
Page 49
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 date
on 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 what
a litigation hold is. If you have reasonable expectation even before the suits
filed, you have to retain records, correct?
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
HOSTENY:
So did that seem, uh, proper to you that you could destroy the records while the
FOIA was pending?
WITTENDORF:
Based on the very clear affirmative response I received from the AGs office,
and the fact that there was no legal research I found on point. The fact that the
statute 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 with
a false denial knowing that within a day or two those files would in fact be
destroyed, and we would be in the same position that we are in now. Or, send
a truthful response that the files had been destroyed.
HOSTENY:
You had uh, said earlier that you had, if the files, if the MOU wasnt negotiated
and the files werent destroyed, you had an alternate legal basis to deny and
what would that have been?
WITTENDORF:
That would have been incorporating what Megan Morgan had previously given
me.
HOSTENY:
The exemptions under 7-1-N and 7-1-F?
WITTENDORF:
Thats correct.
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?
IL13AA09938
Page 730
Page 50
WITTENDORF:
Thats correct.
HOSTENY:
Um, heres your memo, uh, about your conversation with the AG, and you sent
it to Mark Cullen on May 1.
WITTENDORF:
... theres a typo, I believe the dates a typo.
HOSTENY:
The date you had the conversation or the date that you, the date you had the
conversation 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 Illinois
Attorney Generals Office directory. Ones marked the AT&T Phone bill for,
Ill ask you just explain it to me, but its marked exhibit 11, looks like a
deposition exhibit. Is that what it is? Like it was marked in a deposition or
attachment 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 my
phone call to the ARDC.
HOSTENY:
Okay.
WEBBER:
To the Attorney General,
WITTENDORF:
I apologize, to the Attorney General.

IL13AA09938
Page 731
Page 51
HOSTENY:
To the PAC hotline, is that, FOIA
WITTENDORF:
FOIA hotline,
HOSTENY:
Hotline,
WITTENDORF:
Um hum,
HOSTENY:
Show, uh, theres some markings on there, so, when did the phone call take
place?
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 dont 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 stuff
down.
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, is
it accurate? Is the substance of the memo accurate?
IL13AA09938
Page 732
Page 52
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
HOSTENY:
Yeah, I have highlighted there, you had some other questions. Do you
remember 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 response
period. Before we respond the records are subject to expungement. Are we
mandated to return, retain the documents and turn them over, or can we expunge
them before we respond as long as its pursuant to a valid expungement. And
he did say yeah, go ahead and get rid of the files, then you respond no
documents responsive exist.
HOSTENY:
Did you tell him that you amended the contract during the pendency of the
FOIA 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, did
you 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 briefed
Mr. Cullen?
WITTENDORF:
No.
HOSTENY:
Or say for example, the meeting that you had, um, on Monday the 23rd when you
were called into the chiefs office, with Buscher and, on, would you have notes
of that meeting?
WITTENDORF:
No.
HOSTENY:
No? Um, the day after the shred, there was a regularly scheduled meeting that
they have ever week between the legal office and the labor manager. You recall
attending that meeting on Friday morning, the 26th, and giving Stephanie Barton
a copy of the MOU?
WITTENDORF:
Oh, okay. Okay.
HOSTENY:
You recall that meeting?

IL13AA09938
Page 733
Page 53
WITTENDORF:
Brief, or vaguely.
HOSTENY:
Do you recall she wasnt happy that she wasnt involved in the process?
WITTENDORF:
Stephanies 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 she
was upset because Collective Bargaining. Um, I had to go to court, so I dont
know what happened the rest of it. I left Mark to explain. In the end, from my
point of view, he was the decision maker, he made all the calls, I was the go to
girl, so,
HOSTENY:
Do you recall if either you or Mark Cullen told the other people in attendance
at that meeting that the files had actually been destroyed the same day as the
MOU was signed?
WITTENDORF:
I dont 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:
Heres an email that might help you. Its one from Angela ... basically telling
you 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 Angelas personality.
IL13AA09938
Page 734
Page 54
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 hes the
one who made the decisions.
HOSTENY:
Your response seemed a little testy to me. Were you a little upset that Angela
sent 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 we
already 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 generals office?
WITTENDORF:
As I said, I talked to the AGs office, talked to Mark. I told her she can talk to
Mark because in the end, its Marks decision. She, it wasnt my ...
HOSTENY:
Did Mark ever ask you for a memo, like a legal memorandum on, you know, the
issue 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
IL13AA09938
Page 735
Page 55
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, the
corporation council whether or not a collective bargaining agreement can be
modified without the approval of the city council. And he forwarded that to
you. And on April 30, you said Im getting you something. Did you ever
prepare a memo on that?
WITTENDORF:
Um, I remember I did, something short regarding, I think I did do just a short
synopsis of the laws in regard to, you know, unless it involves money or um,
pay changes, it doesnt need to go through council for council approval. Thats
what 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 didnt do anything before the actual shred?
WITTENDORF:
Well before that in regards to the MOU, I just looked at the ordinances, and the
orders to make sure that theres nothing preventing the signing of an MOU, a
contract, prohibiting, and there wasnt any.
HOSTENY:
You looked at the city ordinances and then the cities general orders.
WITTENDORF:
Um hum...
HOSTENY:
Okay. Heres an email, um, the day after the shred on Friday, April 26, and this
would have been after the morning meeting with labor, you sent to Stephanie
Barton, Steve Ron, Angela Fyans-Jimenez and Mark Cullen. The MOU now
complies with the personal record review act.
WITTENDORF:
Yeah, somebody at the meeting or in the emails, they were emailing during the
day, something about does this even comply with the personal record review
act? How many years is that? Bla-bla-bla, and I said yes it does in essence.
IL13AA09938
Page 736
Page 56
HOSTENY:
Do you, um, did you ever discuss with Mark Cullen the possibility that the
personal record review acts requires you to destroy these records after four
years?
WITTENDORF:
No, not that it, it doesnt require you to destroy them after four years, it just
doesnt allow you to, um, release them.
HOSTENY:
Because one of the alderman, and I dont know if it was
McMenamin or Candman, I think it was Candman, said that he was told by Mayor Houston, that
the personal record review act required you to destroy these records, so we were trying to see if
you were aware whether you or Mark Cullen ever told the mayor that?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
So did you,
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
...
Oh, from the state?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Get an attorney client waiver.
Pardon me?
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
About any of this.
There uh,
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Unfortunately, all my communications went through Mark. I did not

myself speak with the Mayor or the alderman.
About any of this?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
I did not.
Okay, you didnt advise Mark Cullen or Mayor Houston or anybody else in the
administration that the personal record review act requires you to actually destroy
records after four years.
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
I dont ...
Yeah,
We have a copy of it if you want.

IL13AA09938
Page 737
Page 57
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Um, there, when this came out in the press, there was a executive session that
Mark Cullen attended of the city council, were you present for that?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
No.
Um, one of the issues is who was pushing the change, the MOU prior to being
called into the chiefs office on that Monday morning. Were you aware whether or
not the union was requesting a change, of the five year retention period?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
I didnt even think,
Or do you know what the changes were?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
I remember I made some changes.
Would you have a copy of your changes?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
I remember he sent me, a memorandum, I dont remember the specifics of

it, but I do remember. He did send me a memorandum.
When you read the memorandum, do you recall having any concerns with the
accuracy of any of it?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
No.
And when, in preparation for that, Im assuming it was in preparation for that,
Mark drafted a memo explaining what happened. Do you recall seeing that
memo? Thats a draft of it.
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
No.
Um, Geannette if you can, speak up so we can,
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Okay.
I have no idea about anything.
Um, this doesnt have the complete, I didnt put the complete records disposal
application, but Donna Brown is sending you the 33 page application on, what is
that, May 1?
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
IL13AA09938
Page 738
Page 58
HOSTENY:
Why was she sending you that then? You recall?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Alright. Um, heres a email from you to Mark Cullen on Friday, May 3, which
sites some federal cases. You recall that email where you talk about people,
government employees shred records all the time?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
From Kelvin, for the shredding.
The one in front of Judge Schmidt?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
It was continuing research on the lawsuit, to defend the lawsuit.
Which?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
That was not my verbiage.
What prompted that email then, why, did Mark ask for that? What was going on
that he asked you to do some research?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
That was copy and paste.
Got it.
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Yes, thats a direct quote.
Oh, okay, its not in quotes though.
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Im sorry, this was a direct,
...this is all a quote...
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Oh, I was siting the case. That was a citation, that wasnt my uh,
Oh it was?
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
Maybe because I felt we didnt send a complete response to John Mayer?

That we needed to send him the complete application. I know we sent him
a supplement to the FOIA, his FOIA request.
No, it was a new one, for the, the shredding of the documents.
The new one, okay. Um, was that,

IL13AA09938
Page 739
Page 59
WEBBER:
This one?
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
Its the,
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
This is May 3rd.
May 3rd, oh Im sorry, I thought it was May 1st.
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
That was filed, May 2,
Was that research done that day of May 1? That you cut and pasted?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Yes.
Probably.
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:
GAFFNER:
Sure,
Then well head back. Its uh, 3:37.

(INTERVIEW STOPPED)
(INTERVIEW RESUMED)
WITTENDORF:
Oh, we got two tape recorders now,
GAFFNER:
Yeah, its always been two. Its 3:41, were restart the interview again, and this
will be the final time.
HOSTENY:
And I just had a couple more, did you have any roll or in recommending the citys
defense of the litigation that was filed on May 2nd? I mean did you work on
defending that with the city?
WITTENDORF:
No, when it first came out, I mean I did some legal research just, you
IL13AA09938
Page 740
Page 60
know, because as an attorney it just bothered me.
HOSTENY:
Did you recommend that the city settle that lawsuit or did they ever ask your
opinion?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Were you deposed in that?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Okay.
Thats not your understanding?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
Okay.
Or that legal said it was okay to shred so it was okay to shred.
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
The only thing that we surmised among ourselves was that we all assumed
that they were doing it on their end administratively like Donna does.
You know, Donna does it for them, we assumed they were doing it, and
we can only assume, pure speculation. I dont know who they assumed
was doing it cause Donna Brown does it. Maybe they assumed Donna
Brown was doing it for them too, I dont know.
They assumed you guys were doing it, legal.
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
That was my understanding.
Do you have an explanation for how that happened?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
No.
After the fact, the research that you did, did you find out the citys never
complied with the local records act?
WITTENDORF:
HOSTENY:
They kept me out of it.
I can only surmise that there was mis-communication going on. We had
wrong assumptions going on both ends.
Um, did you ever talk with Mark Cullen about once this all came out, and you
figured out, what was actually happening?
WITTENDORF:
I mean, very briefly while he was there, Im like, you know, Mark did
IL13AA09938
Page 741
Page 61
something go wrong here, what happened? Hes like no, nothing was
wrong. We did nothing wrong. Theres nothing wrong here. Its just the
media blowing things up. Everything was by the book.
HOSTENY:
I mean he never came to the realization you, the city was never complying with
the local records act?
WITTENDORF:
Mark kept insisting everything was fine.
HOSTENY:
Thats all I have.
GAFFNER:
Um, just kind of a couple things to wrap up with, in, one of your interaction had,
one meetings, when youre questioned about this uh, this shredding of the files
and allowing them to be shredded while this FOIA was um, pending, you
indicated basically the buck stopped with you. Um, what was your, what were
you indicating at that meeting?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
What I said at that meeting, is, you know, I did the research, I talked to the
AGs office, I will take responsibility for my actions. For my roll. I
didnt say Id take responsibility for everybodys actions or everybodys
roll, but, you know I think people need to be responsible for their actions
and for their roll. And I did do the research. I did talk to the AGs office,
but I also took all that to my superiors, and I made sure that their intent
and their orders were clear.
The concern from doing this investigation and from talking to all the people
weve talked to as well, and the thing we come into as of course you know youre
gonna be one of the last people we talk to. So all these other people that youre
mentioning and stuff like that, weve had conversations with em. The problem
comes into play is whenever we talk to people and youre adamant about talking
to the AGs office and them giving you clear, concise direction when the AGs
office persons specifically that you talked to, we had the conversation with denies
that, to the point that he would not have even given somebody that clear, concise
direction that youre alleging to have. Um, their information they rec-, that they
dole out, is not gonna be specific to cases, its gonna be general in nature. And so
whenever youre alluding to the fact on these memo and your interview here that
you were provided clear and concise direction from them, that is not what they are
conveying to us. Whenever you have people, uh, Stephanie Barton, uh, Angela
um, Greg, um Chris Mueller, um, other people that are trying to give you a
warning, say slow down, hold on, give you a caution sign, whatever you want to
say, and it appears you continue to move forward with uh, the shredding of these
documents, of responding back to this FOIA to say theres no records available.
IL13AA09938
Page 742
Page 62
You know, it creates a grey concern to us. That nobody else is doing it, but its,
its your signature on all these things, its your emails indicating this. You know
the people that youre claiming, you know, it should have been on their shoulders,
youre saying its not our responsibility. Donna Browns saying its legals
responsibility, which is you. You know, its all coming back on your shoulders,
and youre trying to push it off on Mark Cullen, to say hes the one who gave you
the direction. But on your emails and your correspondence, its showing that
youre the one thats really running the show. And even when people are trying
to say slow down here, listen to what Im trying to tell you, your new here, it
appears that youre not willing for some reason to listen to anybody elses advise
or input on this whole thing. Is there a reason why you keep going forward with
this full fledge without slowing down and trying to look at some of these things
that theyre telling you?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
You never, theres the thing though with Megan Morgan, youre saying that you
did reach out to Megan Morgan. Megan Morgans saying you never, she never
talked 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 would
you do in this situation here. But apparently you didnt do that, even though you
told us you did.
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
I just sent her a text asking her about the expungement, if theres anything
else I need to look for. She said I didnt do that?
Shes saying she didnt have any correspondence about this case in particular.
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
Stephanie and Angela didnt get involved until after the fact. So I dont
think you can take that into consideration.
Well I,
Thats not what shes saying.
WITTENDORF:
Right.
WEBBER:
Shes saying,
GAFFNER:
Hold on,
WITTENDORF:
Yeah, you asked me that, if I asked her about this case specifically and I
said no.
IL13AA09938
Page 743
Page 63
GAFFNER:
Okay. So you never had any conversations with anybody to get advice on this
case.
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
Yeah, you also said you talked to the Attorney Generals office,
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
Right,
Right, yeah, we have that. But I mean, we dont have, I mean, youre telling us
conversations took place where hes, hes uh, given you direction on, on this. As
far as,
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
Well you have the emails in black and white,
Okay, Im saying expunge immediately right?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
I dont know, but I know that hopefully Williams and Buscher backed up
at least the times and what I said I did, because,
So if Mark Cullen is denying these things that you kind of pushed on his
shoulders,
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
Well Im telling you what he said. I wish,
So what do you think, Mark Cullen has told us transpired?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
And I talked to the Attorney Generals office and if you found the person I
talked to, thats great, but, like I said, I dont remember the name of the
gentlemen. Maybe you can trace it by the phone number and the time?
That might be helpful.
Yeah, we talked to him.
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
I didnt because I was talking to my boss about this case. And this was
happening in a really short amount of time.
Williams and Buscher were in the room when they offered to withdraw,
their file. And he said no. Correct? Im assuming,
Thats what youre saying, yeah.
WITTENDORF:
Im assuming if you speak to them, theyre gonna tell you the same.
IL13AA09938
Page 744
Page 64
GAFFNER:
Okay.
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
Did you get a call from Chief Williams, um, prior to him giving a direct order to
Mueller to shred those documents? Did he, did he talk to you about that?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
See if he was gonna be available to comply with the order that they be
shredded, or expunged immediately ...
Okay, but this was prior to that order coming to you from Cullen.
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
I do recall asking him if he was gonna be around.
Okay, so what was the purpose of that?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
I dont recall telling him to be available immediately.
Do you recall having a conversation or email correspondence with him, asking if

hes gonna be around the 25th?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
I dont remember.
Well I guess when were looking at the totality of all the information we have,
and all the evidence. Uh, and your correspondence with, with Mueller, when he
was on training, he was training the 25th, and youre, youre requesting that he is
available to shred documents immediately. This is before Mark Cullens email
comes out. But youre, youre request for him to be available once the MOU is
signed to shred these documents immediately. Where did that come from?
Whered the direction come from for that?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
I dont know. I got many calls from them during...
Im talking about on the 25th? This would have been on the 25th.
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
And, Im assuming theyll also tell you that after I spoke to them I went
and spoke to Cullen and came back and told them what he said.
Right, so once Cullen gave the order, and I confirmed with him that he
wanted this done immediately, in order for me to respond to that FOIA
request truthfully, that was my goal. Is to respond to the FOIA request
truthfully.
Okay. Were you aware those documents actually were not shredded when you
IL13AA09938
Page 745
Page 65
called and asked him?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
Were you aware there was also a CD, uh, digital version of those files?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
Um, dont know any of these people. Im not from Springfield, I dont
have connections or ties to anyone. I have no reason to do anything or
anyone, I didnt know anything about this police department, or, you
know. I got put into some duties, I got called into some meetings. I did
the legal sufficiency duties, the legal duties I was asked to do, and that
was it for me. And everything I did, I went to my boss and Im sorry if
that was a mistake. If,
Did anybody direct you to make sure that those files were shredded by the 25th in
order for Cliff Buscher to be able to go in the Chiefs position. Have you ever
heard that as a reason why they were doing this?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
These people that are saying theyre not listening,
Well Muellers one of them. I mean, Muel-, he spoke with you about it, so hes,
hes saying youre not, you know, Donna Brown had conversations with you
about this whole totality of the local records act and stuff like that too, so I mean,
when Im talking people, Im not just talking about Angela and Im not just
talking about Stephanie.
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
No, it was my understanding they were so old that everything was paper.
Okay. Do you see the, do you understand kind of the concern when were
looking at this from the outside, uh, do, can you kind of see where for us, you
have these people that are at least, what appears to from all the things weve seen
and people weve talked throwing out kind of wondering why you dont talk to
them for advice, or the ones that are trying to reach out to you, are saying shes
not listening to us, were trying to convey this...
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
No.
I believe thats one of the things that Mueller was implying.
But nobody else besides Mueller? Like did you hear that from Chief Williams?
Did you hear that from Mark Cullen?
WITTENDORF:
No
IL13AA09938
Page 746
Page 66
GAFFNER:
Okay, none of those guys up there?
WITTENDORF:
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 records
were being, were exposed to released to any individual that requested them
because of the suit that was lost by the city? Was that kind of the push on this?
You understanding or not?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
When I knew that the files were gonna be destroyed, I knew that I wasnt
going to throw a red herring out there and lie today that oh, here were
denying it because, you know, these exemptions apply and then tomorrow,
these records are gonna be destroyed.
So youre, actually what Im hearing then, is youre actually pushing this more so
you dont have to use this other premise? Is that what Im hearing?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
Thats what I was told. I was told this is what we do by Megan Morgan,
she gave me these are the denials.
Right, right,
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
I, I didnt know there was a push. I didnt understand there was a push.
The only push for me was I needed to answer FOIA and I needed to
answer truthfully. That was my only thing.
Why couldnt you release it though? Why couldnt you release the records to
em? Who told you not to do that?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
I didnt,
Youre not aware of that either?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
No.
No, I knew,
I mean for this, when I say pushing it, pushing to have it done by the 25th. You
were pushing it more to have it shredded by the 25th, so you wouldnt have to
come up with it, saying hey, its either too cumbersome or hey, its uh, whatever
the other exemptions are within the,
WITTENDORF:
I was doing it so I didnt have to lie and mislead on a FOIA.

IL13AA09938
Page 747
Page 67
GAFFNER:
Right,
WITTENDORF:
COPSEY:
Did you know what was in the Cliff Buscher file? You know the seriousness of
the offense or?
WITTENDORF:
COPSEY:
No.
Okay. Um, when you were having that conversation were you relying on Mark
and the city, the chief and all the other people who were involved in creating the
um, memorandum of understanding, were you assuming that they were doing, that
that was a legal agreement that they were entered in to?
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
I was speaking generally.
Okay, you never mentioned a specific file or a specific FOIA request at all?
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
It, I had no idea. I knew nothing.
I want to clarify a couple, couple things. Geannette, when you called the
Attorney Generals hotline, did you specifically mention a file or did, were you
talking generally if we have a request for a file thats about to be expunged
legally do we have to save it or do we go ahead and destroy and respond?
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
I didnt know anything. No.
So to you it could have just been a rudeness complaint?
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
Because within, according to the order, according to the email I kept

getting, this was gonna happen immediately, and Cliff Buschers was
gonna be a part of it. And that was Marks orders, and those people in that
meeting better be telling you the truth and tell you thats what he said.
And I wasnt going to lie in a FOIA and say on this isnt gonna happen
and in 24 hours have that file be destroyed because then that would ...
Of course.
So when you made the call to the Attorney Generals office, you did not think
there was any legal reason that Buschers file couldnt 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,
IL13AA09938
Page 748
Page 68
WEBBER:
And when you went through the list and checked off, you know, keep this one or
dont keep that one, basically your approval to destroy meant, we dont have any
pending litigation that we need to keep these files for?
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
Did you ever look into local records act compliance before the destruction of
those files was to have occurred?
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
No.
When you assumed Megans responsibilities, were you instructed that it would
include compliant, checking compliance with the local records act?
WITTENDORF:
WEBBER:
Thats correct.
No.
You knew you were doing FOIA responses though?
WITTENDORF:
Yes.
WEBBER:
Think thats all I have.
GAFFNER:
Alright, it is 3:59.
UNKNOWN: Um, you always have a general question, is there anything else? Anything else
that we havent asked you that you, think we should know, or you want to say?
WITTENDORF:
GAFFNER:
No.
Okay, 4 oclock.
IL13AA09938
Page 749
Report ID: 523591

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 04/22/2014 09:53
Supervisor
Approved - 04/22/2014 09:56
Investigator
TN 24, Interview of Mark Cullen
Person Interviewed : Mark K. CULLEN

Name:
Mark K. CULLEN
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
White
Complexion:
DOB
No Photo
Hair Color:
Marital Status:
Hair Length/
Style:
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 4
Page 750

Report ID: 523591
Person Interviewed : Mark K. CULLEN

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Cell Phone
NARRATIVE SECTION
This investigative report reflects the interview of former Corporation Counsel Mark Cullen. The interview was conducted
on 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 Prosecutor
Director, Patrick J. Delfino, to investigate a Springfield Police Department Case #2013-MR-394, involving the shredding
of police officers' internal investigative files on April 25, 2013. DII received information that Cullen was involved in the
events leading up to the shredding incident. Cullen was accompanied by his attorney Rick Frazier. At the beginning of
the interview Cullen gave consent for the interview to be audio recorded, and the following information was provided by
Cullen, 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. Prior
to that appointment, Cullen spent 20 years as an attorney for Sorling Northrup Law Offices. He later left his position as
corporation counsel on September 1, 2013.
As Corporation Counsel, Cullen was the chief attorney for the city, and oversaw the law department. This included staff
attorneys, assistant corporation counsel, and support staff. Cullen was responsible for all legal affairs for the City of
Springfield, and all of his attorneys and support staff reported to him. All legal affairs were handled primarily by seven
assistant corporation counsel, whom he met with once a week to review their work. Cullen was responsible for all of their
actions, opinions, and duties. Cullen said he expressed early on that he could not review their work daily and they needed
to 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 Assistant
Corporation Counsel Geannette Wittendorf, Krista Appenzeller, Angela Fyans-Jimenez, and Jason Brokaw. Wittendorf
had worked for the city for approximately one year and handled primarily risk management, claims, and general litigation
before 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 Springfield
Police Lieutenant Wendell Banks requesting an IA file for Deputy Chief Cliff Buscher. The investigation concerned an
incident 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 Buscher
investigation with Wittendorf, but assumed he did. A short time later, Christian submitted a FOIA request for all IA files for
the City of Springfield. It was to be Wittendorf's job to review the requests, and determine how to respond. Bank's request
was ultimately denied, as they viewed IA files as exempt under FOIA. This belief was based on previous research done
Page 2 of 4
Page 751

Report ID: 523591
NARRATIVE SECTION
by 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 more
information would need to be disclosed from IA files. Morgan spoke about making changes, including changes to the
General Order.
On April 23, 2013, Wittendorf advised Cullen that Springfield Police Chief Robert Williams wanted to sign a memorandum
of understanding (MOU) between the department and Police Benevolent and Protective Association (PBPA), to reduce the
retention period of Internal Affairs (IA) files. This was the first Cullen learned of the MOU, but there had been discussion in
the past about reducing the retention time. The union wanted to reduce the retention time to three years, to be consistent
with the Personnel Records Review Act, but the chief was firm with five years. Chief Williams now wished to reduce the
retention time to four years, and assigned SPD Deputy Chief Robert Markovic to draft the MOU. The MOU was drafted
and forwarded to Wittendorf, who forwarded it to Cullen. After receiving the MOU from Wittendorf, Cullen asked her if
Chief Williams had discussed the MOU with the mayor, wanted to know who was pushing the MOU forward, and why they
needed it. Wittendorf did not know, and said she would speak to Chief Williams. On that same day, Cullen became aware
that 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 FOIA
request, 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 advised
Cullen 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. Cullen
said that was not how things were done, and that Chief Williams needed to talk to the mayor, or Cullen would. Cullen had
a 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 was
not 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 IA
Lieutenant Chris Mueller, went to Cullen's office. Cullen was advised the MOU had been agreed upon and signed by the
department and PBPA. Cullen was surprised, and this was the first he learned of the signed MOU. Cullen asked Chief
Williams what they received in return from the PBPA, but was not provided a coherent answer. During the meeting, Mayoral
Executive 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 said
the MOU was effective once it was signed, and created an obligation for the city to follow through with what was agreed
upon. Wittendorf was responsible for reviewing IA files, and determining if they would be retained or destroyed. Cullen
was never involved in the destruction of IA files, as it was handled by the police liaison corporation counsel, and Cullen
did not know when Wittendorf reviewed the eligible files. Mueller prepared a memo indicating which files were eligible for
destruction, and Wittendorf decided which files needed to be retained. Cullen did not know if she had any other role in the
process. Once Wittendorf signed off on the list of IA files to be destroyed, this provided authority for disposal. Cullen said
they did not discuss any specific file from the list of eligible files, including Buscher's IA file.
Page 3 of 4
Page 752

Report ID: 523591
NARRATIVE SECTION
On April 25, Mueller spoke with Cullen and expressed his concern about destroying the IA files. Mueller received an order
from Chief Williams, but wanted the legal department to confirm the MOU was effective immediately. Wittendorf then
explained 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 be
destroyed. 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 was
concerned that if they did not follow the MOU, they would face an Unfair Labor Practice charge. He denied making a
comment that they were not doing anything wrong, after being asked if they should destroy Buscher's file. Cullen would
have 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 the
documents 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 April
29, 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 the
shredding incident occurred. He also discovered after the documents were shredded that there were inconsistencies with
the established destruction process, as it related to the the Local Records Act. He said the Local Records Act did address
IA files, but only those in electronic form. He was also not aware of any discussions with Wittendorf, Mueller, or Springfield
Police Records Manager Donna Brown about disposal certificates.
Cullen said neither Wittendorf, Buscher, nor Chief Williams expressed concern over Buscher's IA file being shredded, and
he did not understand why people believed the shredding was done only to destroy Buscher's file, because the incident
involving Buscher was reported in the media and was "old news." Cullen said there was an allegation that he and Chief
Williams were in a dispute because the chief did not want to destroy the files, and Logan had to referee. Cullen said that
was untrue, and Chief Williams did not have to sign the MOU. He also believed Barton should have been included in the
whole process. He previously told Morgan, Wittendorf, and several directors throughout the city that Barton was to be
included in everything related to the collective bargaining agreement. Cullen believed that Barton was intentionally left out
of the MOU process, because she would not have approved the MOU. Cullen had nothing further to add, and the interview
was 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.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Trans
File Name :
Cullen Trans 2.pdf
Page 4 of 4
Page 753
Page 1
Interview of Mark Cullen
February 20, 2014
GAFFNER:
Well today is uh, February 20th, 2014, its about 1:38 p.m. Uh, we are actually at the
law 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 youre aware that this is being audio recorded, is that okay
if 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:
Thats 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, its a cell.
GAFFNER:
Cell?
IL13AA09938
Page 754
Page 2
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
Yes. I dont have a land line.
FRASER:
I would prefer any contact with Mr. Cullen of course be through his counsel verses
directly to him after this meeting.
GAFFNER:
And also, um, what Im gonna do is direct you back Mark to uh, take us back to
whenever you started working for Springfield city. And if you want to give us a little
history even prior to that, where you were, prior to that, but just go ahead and start
me in Springfield city because Im not sure how long ....
CULLEN:
Okay. Uh, I started uh, with the city, uh August 1, 2011. Uh, I was appointed by
Mayor Houston and confirmed by city counsel. Uh, prior to that I had worked for
20 years, uh, as a uh, attorney and share holder and director of Sorling Northrup Law
Offices, 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, I

worked there for about 20 years. Uh, prior to that, I worked for the First National
Bank 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 well probably come back to that here in a little bit. Whenever you were
uh, hired on with Springfield city, what was your title and what was your main duties
and responsibilities with the city?
CULLEN:
Uh, I was hired as corporation counsel. Uh, that is the chief attorney for the city of
Springfield. I oversaw the law department, including the staff attorneys, assistant
corporation counsels, as well as support staff. And I was responsible for all legal
affairs for the city of Springfield.
GAFFNER:
Okay. And in being a chief attorney, um, you were the person I guess that would be
responsible, and, in your corporation counsel, there, your assistants would be called
assistant corporation counsel, is that what they ...
CULLEN:
Thats correct.
IL13AA09938
Page 755
Page 3
February 20, 2014
GAFFNER:
So everybody underneath you basically, you were responsible for them to ensure that
they 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, were
direct reports to me. Uh, I also have support staff uh, in the office, that reported to
me. Uh, all of the legal affairs were handled principally by the assistant corporation
counsels. Uh, I would meet with them, review their work, uh, supervise their
activities, uh, but ultimately uh, they were handling most all of the matters. Uh, most
of my functioning was administrative and supervisor functions. Um, I tell people I
didnt do any legal work, everybody else did. Uh, but they all reported to me and I
was responsible for all their actions, opinions and, and uh, duties as assistant
corporation 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 OBrien,
Steve Ron, and uh, Krista Appenzellar were, were the attorneys. There were six of
them. Uh, ultimately I got approval to hire a seventh.
GAFFNER:
And they would not only deal with Springfield city police department issues, theyd
also 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 underneath
corporation counsels office.
GAFFNER:
Okay, and in particular uh, I guess when you first started back, who was responsible
for the Springfield city police department?
CULLEN:
For police department, Megan Morgan was uh, called the police liaison. Was not an
official title, she was assistant corporation counsel uh, but, ... we referred to her as
IL13AA09938
Page 756
Page 4
February 20, 2014
the police liaison. She was in that position I cant tell you how long uh, she was in
that 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 somebody
else took her place?
CULLEN:
Correct. She, she left for a position with, I believe was the Secretary of States
office, uh, doing internal investigations. And at that time, uh, I spoke with the police
chief about how we were going to handle things, and I was going to divide up her
responsibilities among several different attorneys. Uh, in the same respect that we
divide up every department in the city. No, no one has a particular attorney whos
responsible for a city department. Theyre responsible for certain activities, and, and
uh, 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 didnt have somebody specifically designed or is that
designated for Springfield city or?
CULLEN:
Correct. What I, what I did was, I had three different attorneys who took on uh, then
Megan Morgans 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 Kristas last name?
CULLEN:
A-P-P-E-N-Z-E-L-L-A-R, I believe, Appenzellar. I think thats correct.
GAFFNER:
And whenever you divided the ... these up, did you, did they have now a I guess a
clear 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 to
try to, to try to see how that would work. Uh, conceptually what, what Id broken
it down into was, um, Megans, one of Megans responsibilities was FOIA and so,
Jason Brokow and um, Geanette Wittendorf were going to take on FOIA
responsibilities. Uh, she also did legal updates which principally were cases or
statutes 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
IL13AA09938
Page 757
Page 5
February 20, 2014
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 of
employment, and I should have said this before, in terms of employment personnel
matters, those are gonna be handled by Angela Fyans-Jimenez, uh, who was our city
employment, uh, attorney.
GAFFNER:
So basically it was split in...
CULLEN:
It was really split into four, and I, and hadnt thought through the employment part
of it. Uh, rather than having the police, uh, you know a police liaison do that, I was
going 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 relations
manager. Uh, she was not ever uh, authorized to actual, actually represent the city
in any legal matters. Shes a licensed attorney, but uh, her responsibilities were to
be limited to labor relations manager, uh, as opposed to acting as an assistant
corporation counsel.
GAFFNER:
Okay, so when these, when these uh, duties were split up after Megan left, um, it
wasnt written out what they were suppose to do, but they should have known pretty
well 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 somebody
wasnt comfortable, didnt have an experience or, or was not capable of doing that
kind 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 it
out that way. And essentially what I, what I told them was the same thing as I talked
to 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, staffing
and resources that we had, we needed, we needed to spread it out so that people
would do work across their technical expertise rather than do everything for a
particular department.
GAFFNER:
Whenever Geanette was hired on after Megan left, did you hire her or how did she
...
IL13AA09938
Page 758
Page 6
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
I did hire her, but she had been, she had been with the city about a year before
Megan left. And I hired her actually to take the place of Lucritia Pitts, who did
primarily risk management and claims, uh, general litigation for the city. And thats
what I hired Geanette to do, and what she did all along up until I assigned her the
additional responsibilities. At the time I told her I could not afford to lose her and
her expertise in handling the claims and risk management side of it. So, yes, I was
going to add some responsibilities to her, but I was going to still expect her to do that
function at the same time, which is again, tying back to uh, I was not going to
appoint 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 she
have a background in FOIA or anything?
CULLEN:
She, she uh, had I believe eight or nine years as States Attorney, Assistant States
Attorney, in both uh, Macon and uh, whats Rockford, uh, no, it wasnt Rockford,
Winnebago County I think, is where, but she had done stints an Assistant States
Attorney in a couple of those, couple of those areas, so she did have a good
familiarity ... criminal justice system. And, oh, and Im sorry, you asked why did I
appoint her, she asked. She, she knew obviously of Megan leaving, uh, knew and
expressed a real desire to take on some of those responsibilities. And so again, that
lead me to the conclusion that we ought to divide up responsibilities because I still
needed her to do what I hired her for, which was the uh, litigation and uh, claims
management.
GAFFNER:
Um, so if Im understanding correctly then, all these attorney did these different
functions when theyre dealing with issues, how often do they come to you and let
you know what they are doing?
CULLEN:
Pretty much every day. Uh, you know, for an office that size, at uh most we have
seven attorneys. And I would see almost all of them every day. Usually about a
particular matter or particular question that they were working on. Uh, I told them
early on, you know, I cant look over your shoulder every day all day, so I gotta rely
on you to tell me whats important. You got to let me know whats going on and,
and what you need help with. I try to encourage a more collegial environment where
they 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:
Lets take you back to um, I know April 25th, is the time frame were kind of looking
at, when this shredding incident occurred. Uh, an actually, one thing I didnt hit on,
from the very beginning, and I, I know you have your legal counsel here with you,
IL13AA09938
Page 759
Page 7
February 20, 2014
and I didnt probably clarify this either, we, we of course, we dont do administrative
interviews for the city of Springfield. Were the State Police, we do anything when
were called in to, it be criminal in nature, when were looking at interviews. So,
you know, I know you have your legal counsel here, I know you volunteered to come
talk to us, you know your rights are still applicable, in this situation here. Any point
in time you dont feel comfortable talk to us, thats fine. But we would like to get
your side of kind of how this transpired.
CULLEN:
I came here, not only do I want to be cooperative, but Ill be honest, I want to be
exonerated. Im tired of being vilified by the media, by alderman, by anybody else
who thinks they know anything, and they dont. As, as obviously John knows I have
uh, ethical obligations so Ive just sat here and had to take it and Im tired of it. And
so I uh, I actually encourage the mayor. I wrote the first draft of the first letter
sending the matter out to get investigated. Not the least of which is cause I try to do
that and did do that for a short period of time after all this happened. Uh, uncovered
what I could, but I readily admit, Im not an investigator. I dont know how to do
those things, I just know how to uncover the facts, sift through everything and try to
figure out exactly what had happened.
GAFFNER:
So we kind of transitioned back to the main thrust of what were gonna talk about is,
is the incident involved, involving the shredding of police documents. This occurred
finally on April the 25th, but I want to go back, um, if you can, tell me when did this
first come up and what prompted even the discussion to start on whether you would
look 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 its ingrained in my brain.
On Tuesday the 23rd, was the first time I became aware of anything relating to it
because the uh, assistant, Geanette Wittendorf came in and told me that the police
chief wanted to sign an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, with the PBPA, the
Police Benevolent, for the purpose of reducing the holding period that we would
retain internal affairs files.
HOSTENY:
What day was that, Im sorry.
CULLEN:
That was Tuesday the 23rd, and I think I remember that very accurately, but I will beg
indulgences as to knowing for certain, but Im, 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
IL13AA09938
Page 760
Page 8
February 20, 2014
that I became aware was that the police chief had decided after quite frankly a long
time of holding firm at five years, that he wanted to reduce it to four years. He
assigned that to Deputy Chief Bob Markovick, to actually prepare the form of the
MOU. 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 this
time period?
CULLEN:
Im sorry.
GAFFNER:
So what,
CULLEN:
I apologize, I meant to put it on vibrate. Im sorry.
GAFFNER:
What kind of push, what kind of push forward the whole MOU thing in the fist
place? You were saying the chief did it.
CULLEN:
Right.
GAFFNER:
Was there any, do you have any understanding why?
CULLEN:
No, I dont. I la-, well, Ill ask you this, at the time, on April 23, it was a surprise to
me, because he had not talked to me and I had not talked with, uh, him or anyone
else about internal affairs files. About the retention period for the internal affairs
files. The only discussions we had had, uh internally, and this was with primarily
with 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 dont, I dont
remember his name. Its either Kurt or Wendell and he goes by the other, and I just
cant remember which is which. I just always say Lieutenant Banks. Um, but he had
filed a FOIA request specifically for Cliff Buschers IA file, from, I cant remember
exactly how he framed that FOIA request, but it was a specific FOIA request for the
Cliff Buscher file that related to the incident down in uh, uh, Missouri, when uh, the
Cliff, when uh, uh, Cliff was ultimately reprimanded and uh, demoted for the
IL13AA09938
Page 761
Page 9
February 20, 2014
activity. And he filed, Lieutenant Banks filed a request and for that specific IA file.
And at the time, and I cant remember whether it was still Megan Morgan in the
position or if Geanette had assumed those responsibilities at that point. Uh, but that
was the first uh, FOIA request that really directed toward internal affairs file. And
because it was by a member of the command staff to, or about another member of the
command staff, they, they uh, uh, again, I think it was Geanette let me know that we
received that FOIA request. And to me, that was a significant, its always significant
when you uh, get one member of command staff talking about another member of
command staff. Um, shortly after that, and I will say within a week after that
request, we got a request from Calvin Christian. It was notable only because Calvin
Christian in, in the first part of 2013, when I was still corporation counsel, submitted
no less than 50 FOIA request. Thats five zero in case, in case its not uh, clear on
the recording. Uh, 50 FOIA request, so yes, I would often be told, Calvin submitted
another one. Uh, and what it was about. This one came to my attention specifically
because it was exactly the same request as Lieutenant Banks, not too far later, you
know, within a week or so, after that. Um, then shortly after that request, Calvin
submitted another request that was for every internal affairs file of the city of
Springfield. And those, that now was going to become a huge project for the legal
department, because the legal department had specifically, would have been Geanette
Wittendorf, would have been reviewing the FOIA request to determine what, if
anything, we were gonna respond with on that request. Uh, those, those items were
uh, were pending and what then uh, was followed up with this MOU, the, the draft
MOU that Geanette gave to me.
GAFFNER:
So whenever they came in, she advised you of these ... FOIA, uh, did you make the
recommendation 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, about
most of them because she was still, uh, trying to ... into those job functions. So she
did come in and talk to me. Uh, I, I dont remember specifically, and I am gonna
clarify, I, I do believe that Megan Morgan responded on Lieutenant Banks request
because I remember her telling me she was gonna respond. She was gonna deny the
request. She was gonna give him a copy of his statement, uh, but not pursuant to
FOIA, pursuant to the uh, uh, officers bill of rights act that entitles an officer to a
copy 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 Christians request came
IL13AA09938
Page 762
Page 10
February 20, 2014
up, I am certain that Geanette talked to me about how she was gonna respond
because it would have been, she would have patterned that response after what
Megan Morgan had done with Lieutenant Banks request. And similarly when the
third request, the second request from Calvin Kirsten came in for every file, we
talked 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 Lieutenant
Banks, 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 been
talking with Megan Morgan about internal affairs files, FOIA requests. We had
gotten other FOIA request for other internal affairs files and the like, and she had
done a lot of research on FOIA, the exemptions that were applicable, and that was
based on her research that she said, this is, this is the way we need to respond to it,
and, and, I certainly, I dont, I cant tell you that I told her specifically yes go ahead
and do that or, or, what, but I certainly was aware of it, and I certainly approved of
the way that she had been responding to those request, and, and the fact that Geanette
was going to uh ... those same kinds of responses, was consistent with what the city
legal had, had been doing before.
GAFFNER:
Had, um, had the city had some recent, uh, litigation in reference to uh, AI files that
they had just recently lost? Actually ...
CULLEN:
Correct. We actually had two different cases that Calvin Christian had filed. We had
one that was, that was lost, and it was on the basis of a different exemption. And Ill
apologize in advance, I cannot remember, uh, exactly how it goes. I, I , I know that
there are a lot of records with it, but she had not utilized one exemption. She had
relied on something else. The court had specifically determined that the exemptions
she relied on was not sufficient to withhold an IA file, but because it had not been
claimed, reserved judgement as to other exemptions that might be applicable under
FOIA. And her, in her research she said this second exemption is what we need to
uh, use as the basis for not producing any internal affairs files per, pursuant to FOIA
requests.
GAFFNER:
Did Megan Morgan, at any time before she left, indicate to you though, from losing
either one or both of these cases that had been presented against the city, the fact that
IL13AA09938
Page 763
Page 11
February 20, 2014
the city was probably gonna have to actually change the protocol and start releasing
pretty well all documents that are being requested, was that a conversation that ever
took place?
CULLEN:
I dont recall her saying all documents. But yes, we talked about the state of the law
being in the flux and changing, and that there certainly was a direction that uh, court
cases were going that were gonna require disclosure of more information out of the
internal affairs files. And yea, we talked about uh, that there might be a possibility
in the future of us having to go through and redact, uh, information out of internal
affairs 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 the
city would need to start to respond according to the release of documents, or how
that would look?
CULLEN:
Honestly, I dont remember guiding her specifically or directing her on something

like that. Uh, but she was very much a self starter and if she had an idea and thought
it was something there, uh, I considered her having very well thought out opinions
and ideas, and I would have given her cart blanc to proceed. Um, I dont recall if at
the time she was working on anything in particular. Um, but at the same time it
wouldnt surprise me that she was having a lot of discussions among the command
staff an, and talking to them. She met with well, my, my understanding is she, from
what she told me, she met with the chief almost every day. She met with command
staff constantly. Uh, she was in their offices. And so I, I wouldnt be surprised that
yes, she was, she would have been working on something to try to figure out how we
were 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,
its the same, its the same general order and this is a tangent I know, but um, people
have asked me, you know why, why was this even applicable to Cliff Buschers file.
The general order I think that you are referring to covered all internal affairs file and
was for all sworn officers, not just uh, collective bargaining unit members. And, and
uh, we had talked about that, and about a need to change it. I dont know, whether,
IL13AA09938
Page 764
Page 12
February 20, 2014
to what extent she had done any work on that.
GAFFNER:
Whenever Geanette had been discussing the Calvin Christian FOIA request coming
in 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 basis
of FOIA exemptions.
GAFFNER:
Okay.
CULLEN:
Up until the point that again, uh, that the police chief said he was now going to be
amendable 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 were talking
about or maybe a different case, to where it felt the IA files uh, were kind of left
venerable 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 didnt I wasnt part of that. I dont remember that discussion. Um, we, we talked,
I know that Megan and I had a meeting with the chief with uh, uh, Don Edwards,
whos the president of the union, and um, Ron Stone, who was the uh, unions
attorney. Far before this had ever come up, I want to say even before they negotiated
the collective bargaining agreement, and, and the substance of that was, you know,
again, were getting, were getting FOIA request uh, we wanted to work with the
union because any change in the general order was certainly could be viewed as
affecting the terms and condition of employment, and so were obligated to negotiate
that in good faith with the union, uh, to the extent theres 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, youre saying,
Tuesday, April the 23rd, was the first time you became aware of this MOU that
Megan, or that Geanette Wittendorf provided you to look at. Which reduced that
time period down from the five to the four years. And prior to that, you had not had
any meetings with anybody else, uh, to have discussions about, about the MOU in
particular?
CULLEN:
Oh I, absolutely not. I didnt 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
IL13AA09938
Page 765
Page 13
February 20, 2014
think she emailed it to me, now that I say that. But no, I had not had any
conversations with anybody about an MOU. I do know that in the past, the union
had often brought up the idea of reducing that period. They wanted it reduced down
to three years, which I think was to be consistent with the personnel records review
act. Um, but that, I wasnt 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 that
we would retain files.
GAFFNER:
Okay, so April 23rd, you see an MOU that Geanette provides you reduces the time
period uh, of IA files from four to three years, and what happens then?
CULLEN:
Well I, thats, thats when I asked her specifically whether the police chief had any
discussions with the mayor about it, where this was coming from, what the reason
for 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 were
with Geanette.
GAFFNER:
Now is in writing or verbal?
CULLEN:
I dont remember anything in writing. I think it was all verbal.
GAFFNER:
Whatd she say?
CULLEN:
She said that, at first she said she was gonna check with the chief. Uh, she
eventually reported to me that the chief had not talked with the mayor about it and
I said that, thats not the way we do things. Were, you know, he needs to talk to the
mayor.
GAFFNER:
When you said eventually, whens this?
CULLEN:
Probably the next day...
GAFFNER:
So...
IL13AA09938
Page 766
Page 14
February 20, 2014
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 discussion
with the mayor about the situation. Uh, because I knew what the mayors reaction
was gonna be.
GAFFNER:
So when she, you to-, she told you the mayor was not advised, you told her he needs
to 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 and
talk to the mayor. I also said if the chief doesnt, 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 told
repeatedly, uh, everything that I know, Im gonna go and talk to the mayor. Thats
the way I go.
GAFFNER:
So youre saying then the Tuesday of that same week, you would have not told the
mayor because you didnt know about it until,
CULLEN:
Correct.
GAFFNER:
Actually, what was the 23rd?
CULLEN:
23rds I think a Tuesday.
GAFFNER:
Tuesday,
HOSTENY:
...what were the two days that you had regular meetings with the mayor?
CULLEN:
Monday and,
IL13AA09938
Page 767
Page 15
February 20, 2014
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, Im ta-, I said, the chief needs to talk to the mayor, period. And
um, I had had a number of discussions with the mayor because the chief wouldnt go
in 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, Im gonna go in and tell the mayor because Ive got
the meeting scheduled with him, but I said the chief needs to talk to him and explain
to 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, were
you familiar then after she told you...MOU and you, you felt ... comfortable with it
or what, what was your thoughts on it?
CULLEN:
No, I didnt inquire as to why, um, because I, I assumed that it was in response to,
uh, the unions 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 cant remember when they concluded it, but they were
uh, in the few months before, all of this happened, they were negotiating, I was not
involved in that. Uh, Megan Morgan represented the legal department and Stephanie
Barton, uh, was actually managing that was, uh, labor relations manager, uh, job
functions.
GAFFNER:
But you were in your position at the time whenever they negotiated there?
CULLEN:
I was, yes.
GAFFNER:
They dont come to you and tell, kind of premise?

IL13AA09938
Page 768
Page 16
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
Oh, they talked to me about things that were going on because, uh, between
Stephanie, I, I was meeting with Stephanie weekly, uh, along with two other
attorneys in the uh, in the legal department. Um, primarily to keep on top of
everything that was happening. She, she had at any time, uh, probably four or five
bargaining agreements that were in process. So I was meeting with her weekly. Um,
Megans office was, two down from me. My office, I had a division manager and
then, uh, who was a support personnel, and then I had Megans office. She was in my
office, again, maybe not every day, but about every day, talking about different
things. 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 abreast
of it, I also took that information and conveyed that to the mayor, again, at our
regularly scheduled meetings. So, I, I was aware of, I would say the significant
issues that were being negotiated out of the contract. I certainly was not aware of
every issue that was going on in the contract.
GAFFNER:
So, whenever they first come together, they put their wish list together, would you
be aware of that?
CULLEN:
No.
GAFFNER:
Okay. When you met with the mayor then on your weekly meetings, on Mondays
and Thursdays, do you have an itinerary that you talk to him about? Or is there notes
taken 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 always
relied on me to come up with a list of what we were gonna talk about and those
meetings would take, uh, typically 30 to 45 minutes, depending on what all we had
to talk about. Sometimes a lot longer, sometimes, sometimes even wed say, you
know, we dont need to meet. We, I dont really have anything to discuss. Um, I
didnt put together an agenda, but I did certainly itemize at least three or four or five
things 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 shouldnt say always. Was always scheduled to include, uh,
Bill Logan, whos executive assistant and Nathan Malach, whos the
communications director.
GAFFNER:
Is...
IL13AA09938
Page 769
Page 17
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
We were considered the mayors, I guess, we were all in the mayors office in the
bureaucracy 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 whats 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, heres what
was discussed, bla-bla-bla?
CULLEN:
I, we, we flew emails back and forth a lot, um, I, it would have been in response to
whatever tops were going on. I think I can say pretty definitively it never would
have been said, based on the meeting we just had. But it would have said, I would
have said, you know, on this matter heres, heres something going on, um, we did
a lot of that. Uh, at the same time, you know, I saw the mayor most every day. And
if there was something really important, I would, my office was right next to his, Id
go right over there and say, you know, can I see the mayor for five minutes, you
know, is the mayor busy doing anything right now and I could, I could give him
something very quickly. Uh, so it was a combination of, of uh, emails, I, I, I
remember doing a couple memos, uh, about different topics, but it was primarily
gonna be our weekly staff meetings and, and uh, I looked for ultimately getting
direction from him.
GAFFNER:
So the 23rd you received this MOU from Geanette Wittendorf, you advised her she
needs to tell Williams to advise the mayor whats going on here. Then what happens
after that?
CULLEN:
Uh, the next thing I was aware of was, uh, we, on Thursday morning they all came
in my office, and they all were uh, the chief, Geanette, uh, I believe Cliff Buscher
was there, and uh, possibly Lieutenant Mueller. Uh, I know he was in my office that
day, uh, I cant remember exact time frame, but early, Im gonna say about 8 oclock,
uh, they came into my office and said uh, we gotta talk to you about this. And they
told me that the MOU had been signed. And again, they, I dont remember
specifically who said it, it was probably the chief, but it may have also been Geanette
who told me the MOU had been signed.
HOSTENY:
Who else ... besides Geanette and the chief?
CULLEN:
Uh, I know uh, Cliff Buscher, but I cant remember, uh, if Lieutenant Mueller, I
IL13AA09938
Page 770
Page 18
February 20, 2014
dont know that he was in there at the start. He was in my office at some point that
morning talking about, talking about this, uh, MOU, but I cant remember exactly
what uh, time he might have showed up. Um, but thats the first point I knew that
the MOUd been signed, and that came as a surprise to me. And one of my first
questions was, Chief, what do we get for it? You know we reduced the retention
period, what do we get? Uh, and I never got a real firm answer about exactly what
do we get. Um, after uh, after that meeting had started, uh, Bill Logan came in my
office, uh, because every morning Bill Logan came into my office between about
8:30 and 9 oclock, and say hi and uh, talk about what we thought was on tap for the
day, 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 were all talking about. And, and uh, had
the 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 this
become affective. I said well, its affective when you sign it. Um,
GAFFNER:
Whos, whos they? You say they were asking you.
CULLEN:
Uh, it would have principally the chief. And that, that was what they want, what
they then wanted to know is what, what do we do now. Well, you sign the MOU.
Um, that creates an obligation on the citys part then to follow through with whats
in the MOU, and that was to review, you know, I then turned it back over to
Geanette, and she, she had the responsibility for, uh reviewing the files. This was
something 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 needed
to be expunged and destroyed or, or retained.
GAFFNER:
Whats your definition of expunged?
CULLEN:
Uh, just, deleting everything. Shredding the hard copy, uh, destroying any electronic
records.
GAFFNER:
Okay, complete destroy of records.
CULLEN:
Correct.
GAFFNER:
What day, whenever they came in your office, 8 a.m. that day, that morning, what
day was this?
IL13AA09938
Page 771
Page 19
February 20, 2014
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 youre telling
him well it should become affective now. Um,
CULLEN:
Right. I, I think I would have said something like, we dont have a choice. We now
have to abide by the terms. Um, the, uh, policemans benevolent was always
proactive about enforcing the terms of the agreement and I said, we, we need to start
that process, that we, we now have an obligation and, we need to look at it.
GAFFNER:
When did you become aware that Cliff Buschers files was in among these files that
were 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 dont remember any discussion about any particular file. Uh, what I, what I
remember talking about was, we now have a bunch of files that are between four and
five years old. They now have to be reviewed. That was gonna be Geanette, she
needed to review them. She needed to go through that process, and, and we, there
was a process that was set out. Uh, I dont know the whole process but I know that
Megan had a specific process and that she had trained Geanette so that Geanette
would be aware of what the process was now for uh, reviewing and determining what
files to be destroyed and what files uh, should be retained.
GAFFNER:
So youre saying, you became aware of Buschers file being part of that ... Tuesday,
the 23rd, but you never had any discussion or nobody brought this to your attention
specifically talking about the Buscher file and having concerns with the Buscher file
being in there, to be destroyed?
CULLEN:
I dont recall any conversation before then, at all. Because I was, I wasnt, I was
IL13AA09938
Page 772
Page 20
February 20, 2014
aware of the FOIA requests, um, but I wasnt, I wasnt focused on how old Buschers
file was.
GAFFNER:
Okay, so you told us a minute ago that youre aware that theres a FOIA request in
the Buscher file,
CULLEN:
Right,
GAFFNER:
Then Tuesday you become aware Buschers file is part of these files to be destroyed,
so, is there any discussion about what you guys are gonna due then with the Buscher
file ...FOIA on it?
CULLEN:
Absolutely. Because I, I wanted to know fr-, I wanted Geanette to research what the
law is. Could we expunge the file, at that point, since it was subject to a FOIA
request.
GAFFNER:
So when would you have asked her to do that research?
CULLEN:
I cant remember if it was Wednesday or Thursday. Uh, but it was, in an among all
those conversations. Yes, I, I told her specifically we need to know the law on what
this is. Uh, I told her, she needed to research it and give me her conclusions, and I
specifically told her I wanted her to call the attorney general, uh, because they had
a public access counselor hotline. I said, lets take advantage of it and see what they
say.
GAFFNER:
Anybody else ...
CULLEN:
Came from me. I uh, uh, I know that I had at least uh, one conversation with
Geanette about it. Um, Ive been, Ive been aware Ive done, Ive done FOIA
matters for Municipalities. Ive, Ive represented uh, Municipalities in private
practice for 20 plus years, so, uh, I when, uh, all of the uh, legislative activity was
done on FOIA requests and everything, uh, Ive been aware of the hotline and the uh
public access, uh, counselors office for since its 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 five
to four years, did you make any statements about what had to be done with the local
IL13AA09938
Page 773
Page 21
February 20, 2014
records act or the application...
CULLEN:
I did not. Uh, I was not aware of, and I hadnt had any dealings with the actual
record keeping part of it, so I wasnt, uh, I wasnt aware of the existence of an
application or anything like that, until after the fact when I went back to try to
investigate what all had happened.
GAFFNER:
So you werent aware of there being a certain time period on the, application you had
to 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 AGs office about the Buscher file.
What happened then?
CULLEN:
I didnt ask her about the Buscher file, because we had FOIA requests. So I, I wasnt
focused on that file. That, that file didnt mean anything to me. I was focused on
when a change was made to the MOU, that requires us to expunge records, what is
the law as it relates to FOIA requests. So I wasnt focused on the Buscher file, um,
and quite honestly, Ive never been focused on it. Its, its, that was, that was old
news. Um, Im still kind fascinated by the whole, belief I guess, of a lot of people
that, 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, it
was already public knowledge when you went through uh, the SJR archives. Its out
there, so I, Ill be honest, I never understood why people thought that was the basis
for a lot of this. It, just, didnt occur to me because it was, already out in the public.
Not the specific file, I dont mean that, but all of the, all of the bad news, all of that
had been well documented in, in the media when it happened.
GAFFNER:
So youre not saying in the AI file, IA file was, would have been out in the news or
anything like that,
IL13AA09938
Page 774
Page 22
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
No, no, I dont mean that, no, no. Im just saying the story and all the negative press
that was created from it was, was already out there. So I was not at all focused on
that file. It was not, it was not brought up to me in any respect other than there was
a FOIA request and my concern was how are we going to treat this FOIA request in
light 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, whats the process, what, what
has to be done? And I was, I have never been involved with the expungement
process that was handled by the police liaison, and then uh, uh, when Megan left it
was gonna transition to Geanette. Uh, what I wanted to know, I wanted to know
what the law was, can you expunge files that are, that are uh, subject of a FOIA
request. 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. He
wanted to get them uh, all of the internal affairs reports that he would get his hands
on.
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, an
attorney at the Attorney Generals office, on the hotline. Uh, she gave me a uh, I
dont want to say it was a memo, I cant uh, I dont know that it was exactly in a
memo 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 that
outlined her contacting the Attorney Generals office and what the attorney generals
office had said in response to her questions.
GAFFNER:
Which was what?
CULLEN:
Um, that the attorney in the Attorney Generals 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 Generals office uh, in relation
to FOIA requests?
CULLEN:
I have not. Thats always been, handled by someone else. I have never had to deal
with the Attorney Generals office personally.
GAFFNER:
On any other cases or anything like that?
CULLEN:
No. Again, there was other attorneys but the only time that its come up, uh, has
been the couple years that I was corporation counsel. Prior to that I had not had an
IL13AA09938
Page 775
Page 23
February 20, 2014
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, that
would be called, that they would give a specific response back on the question that
was posted in such a manner?
CULLEN:
It was my understanding that that was their job, that they were there and that was
created so that municipalities would have a resource to contact the attorney generals
office.
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 and
uh, the creation of the public access counselors office.
GAFFNER:
So then what happened after you received that memo from her saving get rid of
them?
CULLEN:
Uh, then uh, I got a request from Lieutenant Mueller, uh, wanting to verify and
wanting my opinion that it was, uh, that it was, the MOU was affective, and that the
expungement 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 needs
to occur immediately.
GAFFNER:
And what were, what were you saying in that? Were you saying that he needed to
drop everything hes doing right then and take care everything at that point in time?
CULLEN:
No, uh, in fact, I, I didnt 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 affective
and it becomes binding on the city of Springfield to then go through the process as
weve had gone through for years and years before that.
IL13AA09938
Page 776
Page 24
February 20, 2014
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 dont know that because I dont 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, Ill be, Ill be straightforward with you guys, he wanted
to cover his ass. He wanted somebody else to say that, uh, this MOUs affective.
Uh, he got an order from the Chief, uh, specifically, I, I dont 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 affective
immediately.
GAFFNER:
But did he convey to you any concern he had with Cliff Buschers file, about the
appearance of any of this stuff, or about, rushing to get rid of these files? Anything
to 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. And
thats why I turned to Geanette, explain the law. What is, what is the law? What did
you find out? And uh, she explained it, and what research she had done and what she
was prepared to do, and uh, and he and she were then gonna go start reviewing the
files.
GAFFNER:
So on, on the Thursday, the 25th, then after that point in time, youre, they had
reviewed the files up till then?
CULLEN:
I dont, I dont think so. No. I dont think they started to review them until the, until
IL13AA09938
Page 777
Page 25
February 20, 2014
the 25th, after the MOU had been signed. That, thats what I was told, put it that way.
I had, I guess I should clarify. I dont, I dont have any idea what they might have
done before that. I wasnt aware of anything until after the MOU had been signed,
and uh, uh, Lieutenant Mueller wanted us specifically to confirm that it was okay to
go ahead and start expunging records.
GAFFNER:
So then what happens?
CULLEN:
Thats, thats the extent of what I was involved with. I, I dont know anything else
that happened. Uh, Geanette ultimately reported to me that uh, she was gonna
respond 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, unfair
labor practice charges against you for not immediately filing, following either a CBA
or 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 this
coming up. Uh, but yeah, that was, that was the essential, the essential uh, problem
that I was faced with was. I either uh, risk an unfair labor practice claim with the
union, which I knew that we would lose, or, uh, we have again, another litigation
with Calvin Christian, which we had one pending. We had one decision as you
referred to earlier. Uh, another one that was pending. Uh, and it had sat for, at least
two years because it was before I got in office that, uh, it had been uh, filed and the
judge had sat on it for a couple years and we had not heard any response on it. Um,
and uh, Geanettes research that you know, we can go, we can go ahead with the
destruction 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 personnel
records cannot be released to third parties that are over three years old. Between the
two of those, I, both of those acts supported what we had done in response to the
FOIA request.
GAFFNER:
And I think what I heard you say earlier too was, neither Geanette Wittendorf, Cliff
Buscher, Chief Williams, either one of those three expressed concerned over
Buschers 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
IL13AA09938
Page 778
Page 26
February 20, 2014
Logan about the, the shredding of these files and the retention period being reduced
down from the four to five years.
CULLEN:
Uh, not till after the fact. Um, my recollection was the Mayor was out of town, on
that Thursday and Friday. And not in the office, so I did not have a chance to talk
to the Mayor until Monday. Um, and I was in his office Monday morning because
uh, 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, Im certain that I
would 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 or
does 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 whats going
on?
CULLEN:
Well, I, I, yes, I think thats Logans responsibility, but I also view that as my
responsibility 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....its kind of open ended, so Im not sure,
GAFFNER:
Well, Im not, and Im not talking about these IA files, Im talking about
correspondence with other people in relation to, leading up to the destruction of these
files, stuff like that.
CULLEN:
Im not aware of any. I, I, I dont remember anything right now, as we sit here.
GAFFNER:
Anything else, thats 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
IL13AA09938
Page 779
Page 27
February 20, 2014
where the Chief indicated that he was against the destruction of files, where there
was a meeting with the three of you,
CULLEN:
Oh, okay. Um, what people have consistently pointed out, apparently Chief
Williams in his deposition that he gave, uh, in the lawsuit that was filed by Calvin
Christian, the third lawsuit, he apparently gave a deposition where he said that there
was 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, I
had been show, uh, one page or one paragraph where he made that statement. And
uh, my recollection of his statement was that, uh, there was a dispute between
himself and me about the expungement of files, and that Bill Logan, uh, came into
essentially referee that dispute, and make a decision. And, I gotta tell you guys,
thats just absolutely false. Uh, the only time that the Chief and Logan and I were
at the same time in the same place talking about this was that Thursday morning in
my office. And Logan came into my office, because Logan came into my office
every day in the morning to talk about what we were gonna, what we were gonna be
working on that day. And, the Chief never made any uh, made any statement to that
affect, to my recollection, because if he had, the first thing I would have responded
to him with was, why did you sign the MOU then? If he thought that we out to
somehow delay, uh, expungement of any files, per that MOU, all he had to do was
not sign it. So why did, why would he sign it, and then say, oh, we ought to delay
the uh, expungement of files, in accordance with the MOU. It still makes no sense
to me. And, and, you know, trying to lay this at the feet of Bill Logan. The only
reason he was in there was because every day hed come in my office and hed give
me a big hug, and, we would sit down and talk about what we were doing. And
because 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 take
place. So you task Geanette with following that process, one of which was she and
um, Mueller would then go through the files and see which ones needed to be
retained cause of like pending litigation or something like that?
CULLEN:
Right, that, thats what I was told. What, all I said was, the MOUs affective, now
we gotta go through the process. And if we dont, were gonna risk an unfair labor
practice claim, so were gonna go through the process. At that point, I, I had no
experience or involvement with it, um, and I never had. It, there, there was a process
that uh, Megan Morgan had worked on with the police. That process happened on
a regular basis. I, uh, later, after the fact, when I went through to figure out what all
IL13AA09938
Page 780
Page 28
February 20, 2014
had happened, yes, uh, what happens is that, Lieutenant Mueller prepares a memo,
or several memos, 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, look
for, 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 be
destroyed. Uh, Lieutenant Mueller is the person who actually handled the files. I
dont know if Geanette actually looked at any of the files. Um, I, I dont know what,
her roll was other than giving an indication which should be retained and which
should be expunged.
HOSTENY:
And so when she signed off on that memo that Mueller would generate, was that the
corporation counsels 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 which
ones to retain, did anyone broach the subject with you about, hey, maybe Buschers
is one of those files that we need to keep?
CULLEN:
We didnt talk about any specific file. So, no, we didnt talk about Buschers file or
any others, it was um, simply, heres the MOU, here, and I didnt see the list, but I
just said, the MOUs 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 that
time, I didnt know what that process was. But I did know that it was a fairly well
developed process because of, it had been ongoing with uh, the internal affairs
department for quite some time. Now I discovered later, several things that were
complete inconsistencies. Uh, the local records act, uh, we had this application
which Im sure youre now familiar with, it was a 33 page document on, and again,
cause its ingrained in my brain, on page 31 it referred to internal affairs files. And
it says internal affairs records, uh, I wont say that it says that specifically. It talks
about internal affairs files. What I remember and what I never got a good answer on
was, 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 dont understand
why you would have a 33 page detailed itemization of all the different records and
what they were gonna do. And on this one, it was only electronic. I dont know
what that means about hard file, I know that that application and substantially that
form, had been in existence with the local records commission for a longer period of
time than I was at the city of Springfield. So that means wed been destroying hard
copy files, regularly, uh, I was told that that again was a, a well established process,
but it didnt, I saw nothing in the application with the local records commission, to
IL13AA09938
Page 781
Page 29
February 20, 2014
talk about hard copy. And I never was able to get an understanding from anyone
who I talked to as to why that was.
HOSTENY:
Okay, when were you aware that the city had this 33 page application with the local
records 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 exactly
had happened. I prepared a memo for the city counsel that outlined what I thought
all took place, and that was the first point at which I, uh, had seen the actual
application.
HOSTENY:
So before the shred, you werent aware of the application? The citys application?
CULLEN:
Thats correct.
HOSTENY:
And, uh, you said you couldnt get an answer. Did you task Geanette or anybody in
your office?
CULLEN:
I ...
HOSTENY:
...
CULLEN:
I asked Geanette, I also asked, uh, I cant, I cant remember the woman who was in
the 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 that
you had with the city counsel on May 7, and as you told them, its apparent the city
IL13AA09938
Page 782
Page 30
February 20, 2014
never did comply with the local records act on internal affairs files.
CULLEN:
Thats correct.
HOSTENY:
Um,
CULLEN:
Hard copies.
HOSTENY:
On hard copies,
CULLEN:
Apparently. Cause I dont, I dont know of any basis that we have ever said to the
local records commission, this is when were going to destroy hard copies of internal
affairs files.
HOSTENY:
Did you know, you know, from representing other cities, that under the local records
act theres a two step process. One is you get the application with your retention
schedule approved and then, in the second phase when you actually want to destroy
records, you have to get permission by getting a disposal certificate and then wait 60
days.
CULLEN:
I was generally aware of that, uh, I did not have a lot of experience with it, because
most of my municipalities had an established process. They were smaller
municipalities, it was all administrative. And uh, quite frankly they didnt need to
pay an outside to give em an opinion on it. So I didnt have a lot of experience with
it, but I absolutely knew what the requirements were.
HOSTENY:
Okay, and did any of that discussion, about the local records act of getting a disposal
certificate ever come up with either Donna Brown or Lieutenant Mueller, or Geanette
Wittendorf, prior to the shred?
CULLEN:
No, not that Im aware of.
HOSTENY:
Whos job, from your understanding, of Donna Browns position and Lieutenant
Muellers position and the legal offices involvement with authorizing these, um,
shreds, whos job would it have been to get the um, the disposal certificates,
CULLEN:
I think thats the biggest part of the problem. I dont think that anybody, uh, I think
in, with respect to every record other than internal affairs files, it was Donna Brown.
And, thats because Donna was the record keeper for all SPD stuff,
IL13AA09938
Page 783
Page 31
February 20, 2014
HOSTENY:
Except for,
CULLEN:
Except for the internal affairs files, which means to me then, it becomes Lieutenant
Muellers responsibility and it becomes Geanette Wittendorfs responsibility to make
certain that all of the uh, uh, relevant laws were, were filed. But I dont think that
had been done for years, and I dont think that uh, in, in the time before Geanette
took over, that we had, as the city had done anything uh, with getting a disposal
certificate on internal affairs hard copy internal affairs files. I dont know if Donna
got anything on the electronic version. It still fascinates me, John, that theres a
distinction. I dont get it because Donna, by policy and procedure, wouldnt have
had anything to do with internal affairs and wouldnt have had any access, shouldnt
have had any access, to any of those files. So the only person who should have at all
been able to physically touch those files or electronically access any of that
information, would have been Lieutenant Mueller, and I suppose any of the
investigators underneath the IA department.
HOSTENY:
We got a copy of everything the city, police department had on file with the local
records commission. And, they have um, disposal certificates for regular police
reports 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 youre familiar with, that was
actually approved in December of 2012.
CULLEN:
Okay, was that the first time it had been approved, or was that amendment and
revision 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, I
think that was filed in August or September, and it was approved by local records
commission in December.
CULLEN:
Okay.
HOSTENY:
And so weve asked what did the city do to implement that, um, process for the IA
files. Are you aware of anything?
IL13AA09938
Page 784
Page 32
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
Im not.
HOSTENY:
They did?
CULLEN:
No, in fact, Im, I dont think I was at all involved with that, uh, application. Um,
that would have been while Megan was police, police liaison, so perhaps she had
some involvement with it, I dont know.
HOSTENY:
Okay. When you first learned of the MOU, uh, being existing, when Geanette sent
it to you in an email on Tuesday, the 23rd, and then after they came to your office and
it was signed on the 25th, were you at all concerned that Stephanie Barton wasnt
involved in that process?
CULLEN:
Oh yes. Uh, in fact, I had gone around a couple times with Megan, and also had let
Geanette know for certain, that Stephanie was to be involved with anything relating
to the collective bargaining agreement. Id had the same discussion with the number
of 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 dont know that I specifically had that conversation
directly with the Chief, um, because at the time, I would have told Megan and, and
uh, Megan viewed it as intruding upon her territory, and she gave me a little push
back 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, and
I was out there telling them she has a lot of knowledge and a lot of value, and she
needs to be included in that process. In fact, there was a memo sent by the uh, HR
director, Malina Tarabus Collins, to all of the directors, including myself, including
the Chief, that said, Stephanies to be involved. And this is how were gonna do it
with 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 months
of uh, Stephanies 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, and
that was also one of the reasons why I wanted to make certain that Stephanie was in
the legal department every Friday morning because I wanted to, I wanted her to be
part of it, and I also wanted my attorneys to know that she was suppose to be a big
part of that.
IL13AA09938
Page 785
Page 33
February 20, 2014
HOSTENY:
You had a regular meeting with the legal office and the labor relations office on
Friday mornings?
CULLEN:
It was, yes, it was it was myself, Stephanie Barton, uh, Angela Fyans-Jimenez, and
Steve Ron, always met. And on occasion, and I remember uh, Megan Morgan
coming in a couple times during that, um, because as it involved the uh, police
collective bargaining agreement, and uh, some of the police disciplinary matters.
Uh, because Id gone back and forth with Megan on disciplinary matters, and making
certain that she included Stephanie. Again, because it involved a collective
bargaining agreement, that was Stephanies job, she was labor relations manager.
She needed to be included in it, and again, theres a little bit of territorialization
there, that uh, I specifically addressed.
HOSTENY:
When Geanette took over Megans job, did you explain all that to her that hey, if its
MOU, its gotta go through Stephanie Barton?
CULLEN:
I didnt 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 the
negotiating 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 wasnt
involved as I was told, he wasnt involved in the negotiating sessions under the
collective bargaining agreement. I think that that was managed by uh, Bob
Markovick. Uh, I dont know who else, uh, from the police command staff was
involved, but uh, I dont think the Chief was in those negotiations. But I know he
was aware of it because uh, I do recall having a discussion with him about Stephanie
Bartons involvement. Um, but my, all of my discussions with him were generally
about collective bargaining and about uh, any discipline or employment action that
was being taken.
IL13AA09938
Page 786
Page 34
February 20, 2014
HOSTENY:
When Geanette told you that okay, the Chief wants to do this MOU, did she at any
point ever say to you, hey, the Chief doesnt really want to involve Stephanie or hes
not running it through Stephanie or?
CULLEN:
No, if shed told me that, Id say no, thats not gonna happen. Now, do I think they
hid that from me, yeah I do. I think they knew and I think they purposely didnt
involve her um, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that she wasnt
gonna just say to them, oh yeah, go right ahead and do it. I think that was gonna be
the same case when Megan Morgan was uh, police liaison. Megan told me that in
other situations at other times, uh, she had been firm with the Chief that we need to
hold 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 knew
that Stephanie should be involved because she just finished negotiating the collective
bargaining agreement that this thing was amending.
HOSTENY:
So when they came to your office and said now that its signed, I mean did you ask
Geanette, hey, why did you sign this without Stephanies involvement, or is it, is it
legal for you to sign this on behalf of the city when the Mayor or the city counsel
hasnt approved it?
CULLEN:
No, because I, I, it was. I mean, that was the problem, the police chief had the
apparent, if not actual authority to enter into an MOU like that, had done so
repeatedly in the past, other chiefs had done so in the past. It, it was administratively
we had changed that, and that was not suppose to be the case, but they, they knew
that, uh, and went ahead with it. I, I didnt know whether shed been involved with
it at all, at the time. At, you know, on Friday, uh, when I talked with Stephanie about
it,
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 do
remember talking to her about it, and realizing at that point shed not been involved
or, uh was completely unaware of this also.
IL13AA09938
Page 787
Page 35
February 20, 2014
HOSTENY:
Did, did Geanette Wittendorf have the authority to sign off on that MOU on behalf
of the corporation counsels office?
CULLEN:
Yes.
HOSTENY:
And did you give her that specific authority or did she have that just by virtue of
being the police legal adviser?
CULLEN:
By virtue of being, being tasked with me on those responsibilities, um, all of the
assistance had authority to, to do various activities in the name of the legal
department, and that, that would have been one of them. Um, we, and any of the
assistant corporation counsels could approve agreement, uh, sign pleadings, and all
that. 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 Buschers file, uh, the evening of the 25th?
CULLEN:
I dont know if I knew then on the 25th or if it was the next day. Um, I, I dont recall
with certainty uh, uh, I think that I didnt know until Friday morning. I think they
reported to me that it all got done and, and uh, they responded to the FOIA request
and 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? Your
regular meeting between legal and labor relations?
CULLEN:
I, I cant remember that John. Um, 9 oclock was when we had the, the uh, stand,
the set, weekly meeting with labor relations. Um, most of the uh, attorneys would
show up, they were suppose to be there at 8, so it, it could have been before. Uh, and
it probably was, but I cant tell you with certainty.
HOSTENY:
Okay. Cause Stephanie Barton was in that meeting and she said that in that meeting
it didnt come out, but the files had actually been shredded.
CULLEN:
Hum, then I had a conversation with her after that, is that? I dont, I dont recall. I
know that I had a conversation with her about it.
HOSTENY:
Later that day or?
CULLEN:
If she says it didnt come out at that 9 oclock meeting, then, then it would had to
have been later that day.
IL13AA09938
Page 788
Page 36
February 20, 2014
HOSTENY:
I mean you didnt, you didnt, did you intentionally not tell her? Did you know that
they had been shredded and intentionally not tell her that in the meeting?
CULLEN:
Oh not at all. Uh, it didnt make any difference to me. You know, I, I had no care
what-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 theyd
signed the MOU, and now all of the sudden we had to, we had to react to it. But I
thought, 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 shut
her out of it completely? Yeah, I do. I had no, I had no reason to. Again, I, you
know, whether its Cliffs files or anybodys file, made no difference to me. I, I, you
know, I dont have any reason for wanting or not wanting that file to be released,
didnt have any impact one way or the other. Um, I do think, and, and as I talked
with Stephanie about it later, uh, no, no question, she felt she was purposefully left
out, and, and in retrospect, absolutely, she was left out. It wasnt by me cause I was
not involved other than, being told this is what happened.
HOSTENY:
Um, in that meeting a comment was made by Geanette that, you know, Ive done the
research, you know, I did my homework, I researched all this, that research she did
was 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.
IL13AA09938
Page 789
Page 37
February 20, 2014
HOSTENY:
Hold up shredding,
CULLEN:
I think that was on Friday wasnt it?
HOSTENY:
Yeah, its on Friday. Was Angela Geanettes 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. Angela
and Megan, and uh, uh, Geanette,
HOSTENY:
One of the clicks.
CULLEN:
Um hum, you know, I, I,
HOSTENY:
Explain it to me because were trying to figure em out.
CULLEN:
Um, every one of them, felt like they ought to be in charge and, you know, based on
experience or knowledge or whatever. And they, I was, I was several times, having
to manage the personality issues that came out with it. Um, they would, they did all
of the classic things that employees do. Talking behind each others back, coming
and 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 affairs
files when she was the police adviser. Um, she knew a lot about it. I did, I did
certainly, 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 other
questions, and follow up. Both of them are very head strong, very independent.
HOSTENY:
Strong personalities?
IL13AA09938
Page 790
Page 38
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
Very strong personalities. And they butted heads, and, and, um, you know, in what
I anticipated or expected out of them, was to have a professional relationship. And
it wasnt. Um, Stephanie, to her credit, is, is an excellent attorney and she knows a
lot. Uh, personality wise shes exactly the same, and so then I had three of them.
And ultimately what happened was, that, Stephanie and Angela bonded together
against Geanette. So now I gotta manage a potential, uh, uh, hostile work
environment and everything else. And, at no, at no time did, did any of them kind
of step up the way I think it should have been handled, which was to say, lets figure
out whats best for the city of Springfield. It was all about point fingers and
disclaiming responsibility, and you know, I wasnt involved, and I was excluded.
And Im suppose to be in charge. Well, thats not, none of those statements are true.
Everybodys suppose to be involved. But ultimately its the mayor. The mayor
designates the police chief and myself in the respective areas. And, uh, it is up to us
to 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 side
or the other. And, you know, honestly, uh, Stephanie and Angela are both very
intelligent and they know a lot about it. They were also viewing it with 20/20
hindsight, which is, as we all know, is a great position to be in when youre an
attorney. Cause you can now see all that in hind sight. Um, but, Angela had done
the same thing with internal affairs files, when she was the police liaison. So, uh, no
question they excluded, and I, I do think that, that was done with a purpose, and it
was not right then, and it, never was suppose to be that way. Everyone knew that.
HOSTENY:
Okay. Um, so you kind of, Im assuming that once this all came out in the press,
thats what lead up to the executive session, where you had to go explain to the city
counsel,
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 made
some 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,
IL13AA09938
Page 791
Page 39
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
No,
HOSTENY:
It out at the counsel, and then asked for it back. Is there a signed copy out there?
CULLEN:
Not that Im aware of.
HOSTENY:
Okay. Um, in, in that executive session, uh, you were asked some questions by the
alderman, one of which was Frank Edwards, and he made a comment about, you
know, nothing gets done in one day. And he asked you specifically about the local
records commission, and this was after I think you looked into, may have not had
your answers all resolved, your questions all resolved by Geanette or whomever you
tasked to do that. But, he asked you, uh, did we ever get permission from the local
records commission. And uh, this isnt a verbatim thing, its from my notes, we have
a standing request in. I have now reviewed that whole request. Were you talking
about the application that was on file?
CULLEN:
I was.
HOSTENY:
Okay. It had been granted a while back, which it had been approved in December
of, uh, 2012. And it had been made a while back, but then this is what I want to ask
you about, this was a comment you made. And it was actually granted the same day
the MOU was signed, six to eight months later. Do you remember what you were
referring 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 had
been granted a while back, and it had been made a while back, and it was actually
granted the same day the MOU was signed, six to eight months later.
CULLEN:
I think that was, I, I, I dont know what I was referring to. Um, but I remember
making that comment and there was something that I saw that was, just by coincide
approved the same day that the MOU was signed, and I, cannot recall what that was.
HOSTENY:
Cause we, we, havent seen anything. I have the, the tape recording if that helps you,
but you recall making this statement?
CULLEN:
I, I do, and Im, now I cant recall what I was thinking about.
HOSTENY:
Okay.
IL13AA09938
Page 792
Page 40
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
Because there was, there was something that was approved, and I thought, I thought
there was something approved that, the records department had requested that was
approved the day of the signing the MOU.
HOSTENY:
If that comes to you, let us know. Um, my understanding is you took the position
initially that the MOU was valid?
CULLEN:
Yes.
HOSTENY:
And you told the union that, they you, the city was gonna take the position the MOU
was valid?
CULLEN:
I dont know that I talked directly to the union, but I, I certainly, yes, I, I am of, was
of the opinion, and am of that opinion.
HOSTENY:
And then uh, I dont know if this happened before or after you left the citys
employment, but now they filed an unfair labor practice to have the MOU thrown
out. 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:
Wasnt aware of that.
HOSTENY:
Oh, um, and, lets see, what else was there?
CULLEN:
Whats 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.
IL13AA09938
Page 793
Page 41
February 20, 2014
HOSTENY:
Did it ever get, uh, to the point when you were still with the city, as to recommend
whether to settle that or not? Were you involved in the settlement negotiations at
all?
CULLEN:
No. Uh, I wasnt involved in any settlement negotiations. It was filed, we were
responding 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 dont, Im not aware of any settlement negotiations until uh, John Mehlick
became corporation counsel.
HOSTENY:
Okay.
CULLEN:
In fact, while I was still there, we were fighting. We were, had filed motions to
dismiss that lawsuit. It wasnt 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 Im done, lets take a break.
UNKNOWN: Sure, okay,

GAFFNER:
Its about 3:22, well go ahead and stop the tape.

(INTERVIEW STOPPED)
(INTERVIEW RESUMED)
GAFFNER:
Its 3:30 p.m., were 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.
Youre here of your own free will, have your attorney present ...
CULLEN:
Yes.
GAFFNER:
Go ahead...
CULLEN:
I, wanted to tell you, its, it is bugging me that I cannot remember what I was
referring to. Uh, I guess I wanted to say a couple things. Uh, number one, what I was
IL13AA09938
Page 794
Page 42
February 20, 2014
told was the process, uh, by Donna Brown, was that there were often times changes
made in that application, and they were done very informally. And what she told me
is she would email the uh, contact person that she had at the local records
commission. Say heres how were gonna change it, and shed get an email back.
I dont know if thats what I was thinking about, or if I was thinking about another
certificate of destruction that, that, uh, we had received that happened that coincide
to that April 25th date. Um, I wish that I had access to my computer and everything
else, and I think that I could figure out exactly what I was referring to with that. I
just cannot recall it right now.
GAFFNER:
Mark, Im gonna take you back to some of the questions I asked you about, and one
in particular I asked if anybody brought it to your attention concerned about the Cliff
Buscher file. And you repeatedly said that nobody had brought it to your attention
at any, to any ... really. The problem with that somewhat is the fact that in talking
to you, were talking to you almost at the very end, cause, thats just kind of how it
flows. With you being and you insinuated your basically youre the guy in charge
of the legal department, everybody else basically gets approval through you. Um,
in one of the meetings in which there was numerous individuals there, to include
yourself, Buscher, Williams, Geanette, um, Willis Logan, uh, that you indicated, you
know, you had a meeting with him as well. There was multiple people that indicate
that they brought up to you this concern of having Buschers file in there. And so,
the problem we have is, you know, whenever youre telling us you dont recall
anything coming up, in fact, not even recall, you said it didnt come up, and when
we had multiple people in these meetings, and we speak to them at different times,
and they dont know who weve spoken to or not, so its 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 your
memory from now to then, maybe they would have talked to you, or would there be
any reason why you would have,
CULLEN:
I dont, I dont recall anything, of talking specifically about Buschers file. Uh, we
were, we were talking about the MOU, we were talking about, again, FOIA requests
that yes, did include Buscher, but werent limited to just his, just his uh, file. I, I
dont care about his file in particular. That, thats what uh, you know, yes,
everybodys been pointing it at me, it makes no difference to me whether that files
out there or not because it, it doesnt affect me at all. So, why, why would I want to
hide that? I dont recall a discussion about it because it was not an incidental part
IL13AA09938
Page 795
Page 43
February 20, 2014
of it. I dont think it was ever brought up to me. Um, but I do know thats why I
tasked Geanette with the idea of researching what the law is. Lets know exactly
what the law is and when she researched that, and those are the conclusions that, that
she had, and the recommendation that she had made, uh, I, I readily admit that I
dont recall everything that we talked about in that meeting. Uh, I have no reason
to hide behind or try to hide Cliffs file. I, it, it is of zero value to me what-so-ever,
so,
GAFFNER:
Did Geanette ever ask you about Cliffs file? Not being new to that section of the
police department. Do you ever recall her coming to you and asking whats the big
deal about the file, or whats the storey on it, or history?
CULLEN:
I, I dont recall, but it would make sense to me that we did, uh, talk about it, because
we got two, the two FOIA request from Lieutenant Banks and from Calvin Christian
about it. And I do think that uh, uh, she probably did ask me about it. I dont know
whats in it. And at the time I didnt know whats in it. I knew what the uh, basic,
uh, uh, problem was, and what had happened. Uh, thats all I knew about the file in
the first place. I didnt know anything about what statements were there, who said
what. Uh, I did know that, uh, one of the other people on the command staff, Doug
Williams, was also on that trip. I think I knew at that point who all was involved in
that trip, but, um. And she probably did ask me about it because it had been the
specific subject of two FOIA request.
GAFFNER:
That Doug Williams son? Yeah, think its Doug Williams son, its okay ...
UNKNOWN: Too many Williams ...

CULLEN:
I, theres, there are two brother,
GAFFNER:
Yeah Williamson brothers,
CULLEN:
Doug and Greg, and Greg works in IA, Dougs now retired, but he was command
staff. And I think both of them went with Buscher, now that Im,
GAFFNER:
Would there be any reason, uh, during, there seemed to be such a push on getting this
through. Would there be any reason people are insinuating with the push, every time
we talk to people, kept saying the push was coming from above, push was coming
from above. ...youre above, you know, your corporation counsel assistance. Were
you pushing this, to get this through in any way?
IL13AA09938
Page 796
Page 44
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
Not at all.
UNKNOWN: Through being, through meaning ...

GAFFNER:
...shredding incident.
CULLEN:
Not at all. I, it didnt make any difference to me. Um, the fact is that the file existed,
it had been publicized in the past. I honestly didnt care. It made no difference to
me, 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:
Im sorry, were you done?
CULLEN:
I, yes.
HOSTENY:
As Lieutenant Gaffner said, the people weve interviewed have, have said they
discussed it with you. Specifically about okay, if were gonna shred these files now,
we have a batch of them thats available to shred now because its, the MOUs been
signed and its now four years, and that they specifically discussed whether or not
you should shred the Buscher file. And the argument against shredding it was its
a real high profile case, its gonna look bad, and they attribute to you, I dont know
if this was said in uh, the chiefs deposition, but in the interviews we had, it was
attributed to you, a comment were not, that you made, were not doing wrong here.
We didnt do anything wrong. You recall making that comment?
CULLEN:
I, I certainly think that thats true, with respect to having gone and done the research
on FOIA requests. Uh, and I dont, that, doesnt sound like something I would have
said other than after the fact, as people were asking about things. It, I wouldnt have
said that before hand because it hadnt been done yet. I mean, if I understand the
quote attributed to me, we havent done anything wrong, uh,
HOSTENY:
Or were not doing anything wrong, something like that.

IL13AA09938
Page 797
Page 45
February 20, 2014
CULLEN:
Well, the, the,
HOSTENY:
But you didnt make that comment in relation to Buschers file?
CULLEN:
What I, what I, no, I, that comment, I dont recall that comment. Um, I do believe
that we have to be consistent and you cant hold out one file and not others, and you
cant treat people differently, uh, who are similarly situated. And so, even if that
had come up, I would have said we cant treat, Cliff Buschers file any differently
than anybody elses. Cause that can get us into trouble. Then, is he gonna turn
around and sue the city? So, again, that, I, I, dont 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, were gonna do this thing the right way. We are not
making a mistake. Uh, uh, Geanette researched it, said heres what the law is. Now,
I did not check her research. I didnt go into more detail with it, but I would have
said 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, and
sometimes even daily. During this time period, uh, was there discussion possibly
about Chief Williams retiring and if so, who the possible replacement would be?
CULLEN:
I didnt have that discussion with the mayor.
GAFFNER:
Had you ever heard anybody talking about Cliff Buscher possibly being a
replacement...
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,
IL13AA09938
Page 798
Page 46
February 20, 2014
GAFFNER:
Did you have one with Cliff Buscher about it?
CULLEN:
I dont think so. I, my discussions with Cliff were not, usually not substance of
discussions. 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. Its 3:41, well go ahead and stop.
(END OF INTERVIEW)
IL13AA09938
Page 799
Report ID: 526709

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 03/14/2014 10:49
Supervisor
Approved - 03/14/2014 11:22
Investigator
TN 25, Interview of Willis Logan Jr., 2/21/14

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 3
Page 800

Report ID: 526709

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Person Interviewed : Willis H LOGAN Jr.

Name:
Willis H LOGAN Jr.
Maiden Name:
Nickname:
Build:
Medium
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
No Photo
Height/Weight:
Hair Length/
Style:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Cell Phone
Employer
Address
Contacts
Occupation:
Executive Assistant to the

Mayor
Employed From:
Manager Name:

Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
Page 2 of 3
Page 801

Report ID: 526709
NARRATIVE SECTION
This investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Willis
H. Logan Jr. The interview was conducted February 21, 2014, at 10:55 p.m., and took place at
Logan's office located at 800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois. The interview was conducted by
Lieutenant Scott Gaffner #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 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. Logan was interviewed to determine the extent of his knowledge with the shredding
incident. Logan provided consent for the interview to be audio recorded, with the original maintained
in 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 and
has been in his current position since May 2011. As the Executive Assistant, Logan often works with
outside constituency groups, Directors in the Mayor's office and numerous committees. These duties
frequently 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 with
Deputy Chief Clifford Buscher, Chief Williams and Mark Cullen. Logan learned at that time that a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) had been signed by Chief Williams with the Police Benevolence
and Protective Association (PBPA). Logan indicated he frequently stops by the offices of department
heads throughout his weekly activities. At the meeting, Logan first learned of the reduction of
retention of records being reduced from 5 to 4 years and the ability of Chief Williams to sign an MOU
without the Mayors input. Logan recalled Chief Williams question Cullen if Buscher's file would be
destroyed with the signing of the MOU. Buscher indicated that most people were aware of the incident
surrounding his IA file and his file could be withdrawn from the destruction list. Cullen did not indicate
his intentions with Buscher's file at that time. Logan was questioning the process surrounding the
destruction of files and Geanette Wittendorf was called briefly into the meeting to advise Logan she
indicated there was not a legal problem destroying the IA files. Logan said much of the discussion
with Cullen and Wittendorf contained legalese that he did not fully understand, but was provided the
impression 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 next
weekly meeting with him. Logan was unaware documents were going to be destroyed that day as
he knew that nothing happened quickly working in government. Logan did not become aware of the
documents 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 3 of 3
Page 802
Report ID: 527547

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 03/14/2014 14:32
Supervisor
Approved - 03/17/2014 10:36
Investigator
TN 26, Interview of Mayor John Michael Houston, 2/21/14

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 4
Page 803

Report ID: 527547

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Person Interviewed : John Michael HOUSTON

Name:
John Michael HOUSTON
Maiden Name:
Nickname:
Build:
Slight/ Slim/ Thin
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
No Photo
Height/Weight:
Gray Or Partially Gray
Hair Length/
Style:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
(217)789-2200
Employer
Address
Contacts
Occupation:
Mayor
Employed From:
Manager Name:

Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
Page 2 of 4
Page 804

Report ID: 527547
NARRATIVE SECTION
This investigative report reflects the interview of Springfield Mayor, John Michael Houston. The
interview was conducted February 21, 2014, at 11:40 a.m., and took place at Mayor Houston's office
located at 800 East Monroe, Springfield, Illinois. The interview was conducted by Lieutenant Scott
Gaffner #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 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. Mayor
Houston was interviewed to determine the extent of his knowledge with the shredding incident. Mayor
Houston provided consent for the interview to be audio recorded, with the original maintained in the
case 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 and
CEO of Town and Country Bank in Springfield. He became Springfield Mayor April 1979 to December
1987 and again April 29, 2011 to the present time. Mayor Houston indicated Springfield government
has two branches of government consisting of the legislative with the city council and the executive
representing the Mayor.
Mayor Houston said he first became aware of documents being shredded by SPD was when he
received an email from Stephanie Barton on the Sunday following the shredding. Barton indicated a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) had been entered between SPD and the Police Benevolence
and Protective Association (PBPA) and she had not been involved with the negotiations. A meeting
was held the Monday following the April 25 shredding which included Willis Logan, Mark Cullen, Chief
Williams, Deputy Chief Buscher and Stephanie Barton. Mayor Houston then learned about the events
which led up to the MOU. Chief Williams indicated he had been approached by the PBPA requesting
the reduction of file retention from 5 to 4 years. Chief Williams also had expressed his concern with
numerous files being disclosed through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and wanted to slow
the subsequent release of files. Mayor Houston indicated he was extremely upset SPD had entered
an 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 next
chief was presented to Mayor Houston during the interview. Mayor Houston said Chief Williams had
requested for Buscher to be the Assistant Chief prior to the April 25 shredding incident, which Mayor
Houston denied. Mayor Houston said the denial should have sent a clear message that he was not
going to be placing Buscher in the position as a chief. Mayor Houston said he wanted all department
heads to be willing to stay on for a longer term commitment than what Buscher could have provided
with his pending retirement. Mayor Houston indicated he did not know family members of Buscher
and was not aware of any family member holding a fundraiser for his candidacy.
Page 3 of 4
Page 805

Report ID: 527547
NARRATIVE SECTION
On May 6, 2013, Lieutenant Chris Mueller met with Mayor Houston and provided a timeline of events
that led up to the destruction of the documents. After the meeting, Mayor Houston requested the
Illinois 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 to
shred documents to avoid a FOIA request and had not intended to promote Buscher to Springfield
chief. Mayor Houston confirmed he had requested the resignations of Chief Williams, Cullen and
termination of Geanette Wittendorf. The interview ended at 12:17 p.m.
Page 4 of 4
Page 806
Report ID: 539199

DII Investigators
Case Title

Department
No. Of Suspects
No. Of Victims
Caution Codes?
Gang Related?
Domestic Related?
No
No
No
Inchoate Code
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Offense As Cited
Location Type
Police Department /
04/25/2013 12:00
Date Reported
04/26/2013 12:00
Action Date
Agency
Requesting Officer
Officer Title

Role
Name
Officer
Submitted - 04/22/2014 11:53
Supervisor
Approved - 04/22/2014 12:27
Investigator
TN 27, Transcribed May 27, 2013, Springfield Executive Session Meeting

Name:
Robert WILLIAMS
Height/Weight:
Maiden Name:
Build:
Nickname:
Eye Color:
Sex:
Male
Facial Hair:
Race/Ethnicity:
Complexion:
No Photo
Hair Color:
DOB
Marital Status:
Unknown
Alias(s)/DOB(s):
Hair Length/
Style:
Dominant Hand:
Citizenship:
Place of Birth:
Page 1 of 4
Page 807

Report ID: 539199

Address Name
CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Name
Contact Type
Number
Telephone
Subject : Government - Springfield City Council

Name:
Springfield City Council
Organization
Type:
Government
Department:
ADDRESS INFORMATION
Victim: Society
People of Illinois
Agency Name
Div Of Internal
Investigation
Unit.
Employee Role
Employee Name
Star #
GAFFNER, Scott
Star # 4222 (DII
Investigators)
4222
Responding
Vehicle
NARRATIVE SECTION
This investigative report reflects the transcription of the May 7, 2013, Springfield City Council
Executive Session meeting. The recording was originally obtained September 12, 2013, and
documented on TN 11. The investigation began when on May 30, 2013, the Illinois State Police Division
of Internal Investigation was requested by the State's Attorney Appellate Prosecutor Director, Patrick
J. Delfino, to investigate a Springfield Police Department Case # 2013-MR-394, involving the shredding
of police officers' internal investigative files. The following report is a summary of the transcript which
is attachment 1.
On May 7, 2013, the Springfield City Council held an Executive Session, for the purpose of discussing
Page 2 of 4
Page 808

Report ID: 539199
NARRATIVE SECTION
Page 3 of 4
Page 809

Report ID: 539199
NARRATIVE SECTION
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Transcribed May 7, 2013 Exec Session
File Name :
CityCouncil.ExecSession.May7,2013..pdf
Page 4 of 4
Page 810
SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL

MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
MAY 7, 2013
Voice Identification:
Houston:
J. Michael Houston, Mayor
Tumulty:
Cecilia Tumulty, City Clerk
Edwards:
Frank Edwards, Alderman
Simpson:
Gail Simpson, Alderman
Turner:
Doris Turner, Alderman
Lesko:
Frank Lesko, Alderman
Cahnman:
Sam Cahnman, Alderman
Jobe:
Cory Jobe, Alderman
McMenamin: Joe McMenamin, Alderman
Theilen:
Kris Theilen, Alderman
Dove:
Steve Dove, Alderman
Griffin:
Tim Griffin, Alderman
Cullen:
Mark Cullen, Corporation Counsel
Barton:
Stephanie Barton, Labor Relations Manager
Davis:
Joe Davis, City Council Coordinator
Page 811
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
1
Page 812
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
2
Page 813
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
3
Page 814
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
4
Page 815
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
5
Page 816
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
6
Page 817
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
7
Page 818
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
8
Page 819
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
9
Page 820
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
10
Page 821
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
11
Page 822
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
12
Page 823
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
13
Page 824
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
14
Page 825
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
15
Page 826
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
16
Page 827
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
17
Page 828
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
18
Page 829
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
19
Page 830
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
20
Page 831
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
21
Page 832
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
22
Page 833
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
23
Page 834
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
24
Page 835
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
25
Page 836
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
26
Page 837
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
27
I-CASE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Report ID: 567315
DII Investigators
Case Title
Chief Robert Williams, Springfield Police Department
REPORTING OFFICER/APPROVING SUPERVISOR

Role
Name
Date and Time Last

Submitted/Approved
Officer
Submitted - 07/24/2014 12:21
Supervisor
FARO, Casey Star # 5176 (DII Investigators)
Approved - 07/28/2014 07:41
Recommended Status
Case Active 30 Days
NARRATIVE SECTION
On June 30, 2014, ISP legal Counsel John Hosteny and Lieutenant Scott Gaffner met with Director Patrick Delfino and
members of the State ' s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor at their Springfield Office. They requested additional information
to 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 is
attached to this report. Also requested was any internal affair summaries or evidence logs created and maintained by
Angela Fyans-Jimenez.
On July 22, 2014, John Hosteny transferred computer hard drives a box believed to contain c.d ' s which had been cut in
half as part of the destruction of internal affair records, to the State ' s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutors. John Hosteny
was asked to determine if the Buscher c.d ' s that had been transferred to the FBI or an independent company could be
obtained. On the same date, John Hosteny wrote another letter to Todd Greenburg requesting the status of the Buscher
c.d retrieval.
On July 24, 2014, Todd Greenburg advised John Hosteny the c.d ' s were still on the possession of CPR Tools Inc., 905
Industrial Blvd, LaBelle, FL 33935, (844) 674-3282, and no information had been recovered.
ATTACHMENTS
Type :
Name :
Springfield Corp Counsel letter
File Name :
Spd Counsel Letter.pdf
Type :
Name :
Springfield Corp Letter 2
File Name :
Spd Counsel Letter 2.pdf
Page 1 of 1
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
1
IL13AA09938
Attachment 1
2
IL13AA09938
Attachment 2
1

Illinois State Police Report On Springfield Shredding Incident

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Illinois State Police Report On Springfield Shredding Incident

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Report ID: 457739

I-CASE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

I-CASE No. IL13AA09938

Case Status: Case Active 30 Days

Chief Robert Williams, Springfield Po lice

Report Status: Approved

Last Offense Classification/Re-Classification

Internal Investigations - Case Type - Special Investigation (Southern Command)

Internal Investigations - Administrative Codes - 6317 - Special Investigation

Internal Investigations - Offense Codes - 3920- Official Misconduct

Internal Investigations - Offense Codes - 5000- All Other Criminal Offenses

Date and Time of Occurrence

Officer Arrives / Case Open

Officer Contact Number

REPORTING OFFICER/APPROVING SUPERVISOR/PRIMARY INVESTIGATOR

Date and Time Last Submitted/Approved

GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators)

Submitted - 07/02/2013 17:24

WEYFORTH, Stuart Star # 4258 (DII Investigators)

Approved - 07/08/2013 15:34

GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators)

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

I-CASE No: IL13AA09938

Other Scanned Document

Anonymous Letter, Memo.pdf

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

Report ID: 457751

I-CASE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

I-CASE No. IL13AA09938

Case Status: Case Active 30 Days

Chief Robert Williams, Springfield Po lice

Report Status: Approved

Last Offense Classification/Re-Classification

Internal Investigations - Case Type - Special Investigation (Southern Command)

Internal Investigations - Administrative Codes - 6317 - Special Investigation

Internal Investigations - Offense Codes - 3920- Official Misconduct

Internal Investigations - Offense Codes - 5000- All Other Criminal Offenses

Date and Time of Occurrence

Officer Arrives / Case Open

Officer Contact Number

REPORTING OFFICER/APPROVING SUPERVISOR/PRIMARY INVESTIGATOR

Date and Time Last Submitted/Approved

GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators)

Submitted - 07/09/2013 16:35

WATKINS, Scott Star # 5593 (DII Investigators)

Approved - 07/09/2013 16:43

GAFFNER, Scott Star # 4222 (DII Investigators)

I-CASE No: IL13AA09938

Other Scanned Document

Mayor Houstons letter of request

Spfld Mayor, A.G., App Pros, ISP letters.pdf

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

Report ID: 459329

I-CASE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

I-CASE No. IL13AA09938

Case Status: Case Active 30 Days

Chief Robert Williams, Springfield Po lice

Report Status: Approved

Last Offense Classification/Re-Classification

Internal Investigations - Case Type - Special Investigation (Southern Command)

Internal Investigations - Administrative Codes - 6317 - Special Investigation

Internal Investigations - Offense Codes - 3920- Official Misconduct

Internal Investigations - Offense Codes - 5000- All Other Criminal Offenses