1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT 2 FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 3 SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS 4 5 CALVIN CHRISTIAN III, ) ) 6 Plaintiff, ) ) 7 vs. ) No. 2013 MR 341 ) 8 ) municipal corporation and 9 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, a ) JOHN DOE, 1-6, ) 10 Defendants. 11 12 DISCOVERY deposition of ROBERT WILLIAMS, 13 taken before Cathy J. Craggs, CSR, at the instance of 14 the Plaintiff, on August 27, 2013, at the hour of 15 10:00 a.m., at RABIN AND MYERS, P.C. 1300 South Eighth 16 Street, Springfield, Illinois, pursuant to attached 17 stipulation. 18 19 20 21 ASSOCIATED COURT REPORTERS 1-800-252-9915 22 P.O. Box 684 Taylorville, Illinois 62568 23 24 2 1 S T I P U L A T I O N 2 It is stipulated between the parties 3 herein, through their attorneys, that the discovery 4 deposition of ROBERT WILLIAMS may hereby be taken upon 5 oral interrogatories, on August 27, 2013, at the hour 6 of 10:00 a.m., at RABIN AND MYERS, P.C. 1300 South 7 Eighth Street, Springfield, Illinois, before the 8 instance of the Plaintiff, and before Cathy J. Craggs, 9 CSR and RPR. 10 That the oral interrogatories and the 11 answers of the witness may be taken down in shorthand 12 by the Reporter and afterwards transcribed. 13 14 That the reading and signing of said deposition is waived. 15 That the deposition or any portions 16 thereof may be used by any of the parties hereto, 17 without foundation proof, for any purpose for which 18 depositions are competent. 19 That copies of the deposition may be 20 furnished to any of the parties at his or her own 21 expense. 22 23 24 3 1 APPEARANCES: (August 27, 2013) 2 3 RABIN & MYERS P.C. By Mr. John M. Myers 4 Attorney at Law 1300 South Eighth Street 5 Springfield, Illinois 62703 6 DONALD M. CRAVEN P.C. 7 By Mr. Donald M. Craven Attorney at Law 8 1005 North 7th Street Springfield, Illinois 62702 9 Appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff; 10 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD 11 By Mr. Steven Rahn Attorney at Law 12 800 East Monroe Street Room 313 13 Springfield,Illinois 14 15 NOLL LAW OFFICES By Mr. Jon G. Noll 16 Attorney at Law 930 East Monroe Street 17 Springfield, Illinois 62701 18 Appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 19 *** 20 21 22 23 24 *** 4 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS 3 DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS ROBERT WILLIAMS 4 5 5 E X H I B I T S 6 EXHIBIT 7 PAGE Williams Exhibit 3 26 37 Williams Exhibit 5 43 Williams Exhibit 6 10 13 Williams Exhibit 4 9 6 Williams Exhibit 2 8 Williams Exhibit 1 47 Williams Exhibit 7 50 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ***EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL *** 5 1 ROBERT WILLIAMS, 2 called as a witness herein, at the instance of 3 the Plaintiff, having been duly sworn on his oath, 4 testified as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 CONDUCTED BY MR. MYERS: 7 Q. Would you please state your name? 8 A. Robert L. Williams Jr. 9 Q. You're the present soon to be retired Chief 10 of Police for the City of Springfield? 11 A. Yes, I am. 12 Q. And, sir, how many years have you been on 13 14 the force? A. Sir, I've been employed with Springfield 15 Police Department since April 9, 1987, so that is 16 approximately 26 and a half years. 17 Q. Okay. And how many years were you Chief? 18 A. I believe I was made Chief January of 2010. 19 I was Interim Chief before that, so I'm not exactly 20 sure on that date, so I would say approximately three 21 years since it's 2013. 22 Q. Okay. We are here of course to discuss, 23 among other things, the Memorandum of Understanding 24 and I would like to show you what was previously 6 1 marked as Mueller Deposition Exhibit 4, excuse me, 2 Mueller Exhibit Number 3, and do you recognize that as 3 being a document that bears your signature? 4 A. Sir, the document does contain my signature. 5 Q. Okay. Okay. What I want to do today I'm, 6 among other things, is trace the history of this 7 document, this Mueller Exhibit Number 3. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. I want to start out with a document which 10 I'm marking as Williams Exhibit Number 1. 11 (Williams Exhibit 1 marked for 12 identification by the Court 13 Reporter.) 14 Q. Can you take a look at that, you recognize 15 this to be a, an e-mail from Robert Markovic to you, 16 Mr. Buscher and to Geannette Wittendorf? 17 A. It does appear to be accurate. 18 Q. Okay. Now the reason I ask is the 19 Memorandum of Understanding of course that we looked 20 at earlier was filed on the 25th of April 2013, this 21 memorandum from Mr. Markovic to you is dated April 23, 22 2013, and what I'm trying to find out is well, first 23 of all, who, who asked Markovic to draft a file 24 retention Memorandum of Understanding? 7 1 A. Again, and I apologize in advance, but there 2 is several, this thing as reflected earlier in the 3 paper with you, too, with a rather spirited discussion 4 this thing is so convoluted, I apologize, some of 5 these answers will have to have a little bit more 6 expansion on my part. 7 Q. That's fine. 8 A. But basically Bob Markovic was a member of 9 the staff, he was a past, he had a certain expertise 10 in these areas, so if he drafted that, that probably 11 would have been under my direction. 12 apologize in advance if I don't remember everything 13 accurately, but the only way he would have been asked 14 to draft that it would probably have came from myself. 15 Q. Okay. And I, I And in fact just so you know the 16 City's interrogatory answers say that you asked 17 Markovic to draft this thing. 18 19 20 21 A. I am not sure what they say, I haven't seen Q. Okay. them. But my question is when did that, when did you ask Markovic to, to draft the memorandum? 22 MR. NOLL: Objection, that is 23 not the statement he just made, he didn't ask Markovic 24 to draft it. The, the statement just made was, it was 8 1 an interrogatory done by the City of Springfield and 2 in that interrogatory upon the City of Springfield he 3 said he didn't recall that, and so you've just asked 4 him a question where there are facts not in evidence. 5 6 MR. MYERS: coaching the witness, I appreciate that. 7 8 MR. NOLL: Well, I object to MR. MYERS: Would you please MR. NOLL: No, I will state my your comment. 9 10 Thank you for you -- 11 12 objection, I'm going to state my objection and direct 13 him to answer if he knows what the answer is. 14 MR. MYERS: You're not 15 directing anything, you're here not to direct 16 witnesses to answer, not to answer. 17 18 MR. NOLL: Counsel. 19 20 MR. MYERS: MR. NOLL: No, you're not the Judge here if you want to -- 23 24 Just, let's get on with this. 21 22 Counsel, Counsel, MR. MYERS: you. And neither are 9 1 MR. NOLL: No, I understand 2 that and I directed him to answer the question if he 3 could. 4 MR. MYERS: 5 question, that's probably easier. 6 7 Q. Let me rephrase the You say that you probably asked Mr. Markovic to draft this memorandum, correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And when do you think that you did that? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. This memorandum is dated, excuse me, this 12 e-mail is dated April 23 of 2013, would you have told 13 Markovic to draft this memorandum the 22nd or 23rd? 14 A. Sir, I told you once I don't know. 15 MR. NOLL: Objection to the 16 question, I object to the question cause it's 17 speculative. 18 MR. MYERS: You know what, I 19 think you're a little out of your normal place, sir, 20 this isn't -- 21 22 23 24 MR. NOLL: What's my normal MR. MYERS: In the criminal place, sir? courts not in civil litigation obviously objecting to 10 1 the question, give me a break. 2 3 MR. NOLL: I object to your comments. 4 Q. When did you tell Markovic to draft this 6 A. I already told you once I don't recall -- 7 Q. All right. 8 A. -- sir. 9 Q. It would been before the 23rd of April, 5 10 memo? right? 11 A. I don't recall. 12 Q. Okay. 13 Do you have any notes, memoranda that would tell us when you told Markovic to draft this? 14 A. No, I do not. 15 Q. Why did you tell Markovic to draft this? 16 A. Why did I tell Markovic, I told you that if 17 he did it, drafted it, it was probably at my 18 direction. 19 Q. Why? 20 A. We had had some, we had had some talks as it 21 relates to an MOU, and so it would have been at the 22 end or the conclusion of those remarks. 23 24 If you will, it's going to take a rather elaborate answer but basically -- 11 1 Q. Make it elaborate as you want. 2 3 4 MR. NOLL: Wait, let him finish answering the question. A. Basically the, the, from the member of the 5 Corporation Counsel that was assigned to the 6 Springfield Police Department at that time was Megan 7 Morgan, myself and Ms. Morgan had an ongoing 8 conversation as it related to the Springfield Police 9 Department. There were certain matters that we looked 10 at and, and I'm one as a Chief that I always was very 11 proactive, there were certain things that we thought 12 that we looked at in the very proactive manner. 13 One of the things that we were looking 14 at in a very proactive manner was FOIA, how it 15 impacted the Springfield Police Department. 16 17 So Megan Morgan would regularly update me as far as different decisions the Court had made. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. Then and I don't remember the exact date but 20 Megan Morgan came to me and said the Springfield 21 Police Department Benevolent Unit Number 5 PBPA Unit 22 Number 5 had an active ULP or Unfair Labor Practice as 23 it related to our IA files, and they were in essence 24 dropping that ULP and that had an impact on possibly 12 1 how we defended as it related to FOIA. 2 if defense is the right word, but how it relates to, 3 to FOIA ongoing cases involving the Springfield Police 4 Department. 5 I don't know Based on that we started having even 6 additional discussions as it related to, to the IA 7 files. 8 foundation for all of these meetings. 9 of all of those files. 10 11 12 13 14 15 And that's, that was the precursor or the The protection And when I say all, I put the emphasis on all, it was every last one of those files. Q. Okay. Megan Morgan left the employ of the City, I think, around April 11 or thereabouts? A. I don't remember when exactly she left, I don't know. Q. All right. So well, when in relation 16 whatever the date is, we can establish that, but when 17 in relation to Megan Morgan leaving the City, did you 18 ask Markovic to put together this Memorandum of 19 Understanding? 20 A. 21 22 Sir, if I knew that answer, I would have answered it three questions ago, I don't recall. Q. Okay. Now before you told Markovic to draft 23 this Memorandum of Understanding, did you have 24 discussions with Buscher? 13 1 A. I would have had, man, and I want to be one 2 hundred percent accurate, and which I will be 3 throughout this. 4 5 6 MR. NOLL: I'm going to object to the form. A. I don't, don't recall. 7 MR. NOLL: I am going to object 8 to the form of question, would you have had or did you 9 have, I believe the proper question is did you have 10 discussions. 11 Q. Is that your answer? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You don't recall? 14 A. Did I have discussions, what I'm objecting 15 to is the timeline. 16 Buscher about this as well as the rest of the staff, 17 but I don't know the specific timeline. 18 you're trying to get a specific time period that I 19 don't recall, but I did have discussions, the specific 20 time period or timeline, I don't recall. 21 22 Q. Okay. I definitely talked to Cliff It appears I'm going to give you what I've marked as Exhibit 2. 23 (Williams Exhibit 2 marked for 24 identification by the Court 14 1 Reporter.) 2 A. Okay. 3 Q. Now Williams Exhibit 2 is an e-mail from 4 Geannette Wittendorf to you, Cliff Buscher, Robert 5 Markovic dated April 23, 2013, and it, it has attached 6 to it a redraft, if you will, or a markup, if you 7 will, of the Memorandum of Understanding, you remember 8 this particular e-mail? 9 A. No, I do not. 10 Q. Did you discuss the MOU with Geannette 11 12 Wittendorf? A. Yes, I did because as I recall Megan Morgan 13 was leaving and Geannette Wittendorf was the new 14 police legal advisor so yes, there would have been 15 discussions with Geannette Wittendorf. 16 17 Q. Okay. And did you discuss the MOU with Geannette Wittendorf on or about the 23rd of April? 18 A. Again I don't remember specific dates. 19 Q. Do you remember discussing with her or 20 anyone the changes in the Memorandum of Understanding 21 from Williams Exhibit 1 to Williams Exhibit 2? 22 MR. NOLL: 23 answered. 24 know the answer. Objection, asked and You may proceed forward in answering if you 15 1 A. I don't know the answer. I don't even see 2 any differences you would have to point out the 3 differences. 4 Q. All right. 5 A. Are you going to point out the differences? 6 Q. No, I am not. 7 Now -- So you don't, you told me you don't remember, what's the point. 8 A. Thank you. 9 Q. There is no point to it. 10 A. There you go. 11 Q. Now do you recall a meeting in December 2012 12 or January 2013 with Don Edwards and Mark Cullen 13 pertaining to retention times for Internal Affairs 14 files? 15 A. With Don Edwards and Mark Cullen? 16 Q. Yes, sir. 17 A. No, I don't remember that. 18 Q. All right. 19 20 21 MR. NOLL: Excuse me, Counsel, what was the date of that, sir? Q. Read it back. 22 (Whereupon the Court Reporter read 23 back the requested information.) 24 MR. NOLL: Thank you. 16 1 Q. Now prior to the Memorandum of Understanding 2 being signed on the 25th of April, did you have any 3 discussions with the Memorandum of Understanding or 4 retention period for IA files with Mr. Logan? 5 A. See again I don't remember specific, I don't 6 remember specific dates and times. 7 specific dates and times. 8 retention period with Mr. Logan but I don't remember 9 the specific time. 10 11 12 13 Q. 16 17 I did talk about the Do you know if it was before or after the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding? A. I, again I don't remember the specific times. 14 15 I don't remember I can remember one specific time but I don't remember all the specific times. Q. Well, let's talk about the one time that you do remember, can you first tell me when that was? 18 A. Again I don't remember the specific time. 19 Q. All right. 20 21 Tell me who was present during the conversation? A. Okay. After the memorandum this would have 22 been after the Memorandum of Understanding had been 23 signed, after the Memorandum of Understanding had been 24 signed which made all cases with the four-year 17 1 retention period eligible for, and that was my thing 2 as Police Chief, made them eligible. 3 The entity that actually makes the 4 final determination as far as what will actually go 5 away and what will stay is the Springfield Police 6 Department, the Springfield, City of Springfield Legal 7 Department. 8 actually say what will go away. 9 We just say what's eligible, they There is several exemptions for legal 10 reasons that they can be, they can be maintained, 11 those files can be maintained, and they don't have to 12 be destroyed, I don't get into that. 13 decision by legal. That is simply a 14 Once we made the determination or the 15 MOU was signed we proceeded, as we did all the time, 16 and that means that a letter was drafted from the 17 Internal Affairs section which said all the cases that 18 were eligible upon seeing all of the cases that were 19 eligible I, as Chief of Police, I did, as I do every 20 time that I see that list, I look on there and if 21 there is any cases that I strongly think should be 22 retained, I simply make a recommendation to the, to 23 the City of Springfield Assistant Corporation Counsel 24 that's assigned to the Springfield Police Department 18 1 and say why I think these should be maintained. 2 They then see if there is a legal 3 justification to maintain them, and if they agree that 4 there is a legal reason to maintain them, those files 5 are then kept. 6 find out whether or not they were going to be there. But I never follow-up, I never try to 7 This particular case because there was 8 a new element to it, we did get into more discussions 9 then we normally would go to. 10 Q. Before the destruction of the documents? 11 A. Yes, because I had made a recommendation to 12 the then Springfield police legal advisor that there 13 were certain files that I wouldn't, I wouldn't get rid 14 of immediately. 15 why we are here today, the Cliff Buscher file, and I 16 made that recommendation to the police legal advisor 17 and she then told me that that was one of the files 18 they were considering possibly getting rid of at that 19 time, it was a possible. 20 And one of those files is probably I then requested a meeting to speak 21 with her supervisor as well which would have been at 22 that time the head of the Corporation Counsel which 23 was Mark Cullen. 24 discussion as far as retaining or keeping that file, And at that time there was some 19 1 and we had reached a conclusion that, that there were 2 some again, kind of like in this meeting, there was 3 some spirited debate, and I came up with what I 4 thought was a compromise. 5 explaining to me certain exemptions and again I didn't 6 question their legal authority or, or what was 7 happening in the courts or anything else, but I did 8 say hey, I understand that the, one of the places for 9 to seek clarity as it relates to FOIA is the Attorney 10 General's office, and at a minimum can we make contact 11 with the A.G.'s office, attorney to attorney, I don't 12 understand the hotline or the actual language that 13 they use, can you speak to them, tell them which 14 exemptions that you think are in place and basically 15 then we'll see what, what they decide. 16 initial meeting that's exactly what took place. 17 I said hey, they were And after that Ms. Wittendorf at the time called me 18 back hey, I have spoken to the AG, we are good, which 19 to me meant they were in agreement with their 20 position. 21 request a meeting with Mr. Cullen, and at that meeting 22 myself, Mr. Cullen, Mr. Logan and Cliff Buscher were 23 definitely there, and I believe Geannette Wittendorf, 24 but I'm not hundred percent sure, I don't remember if I didn't ask for any clarity but I did 20 1 she was actually at that final meeting. 2 four individuals were definitely in the meeting. 3 that's when we made a decision or the City made a 4 decision that they would proceed and that they were 5 going to recommend that that file and others would be, 6 would be -- 7 Q. A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. And Destroyed? 8 But those 10 Well, let's see if we can figure out the time of this meeting because -- 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. -- we know, I think I know that the 13 Memorandum of Understanding was filed or, excuse me, 14 was signed the morning of the 25th and at least that's 15 what Don Edwards told me, okay? 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. My question is this, this meeting with Mr. 18 Logan and Mr. Cullen and did you say Mr. Buscher was 19 there? 20 A. Mr. Buscher was there. 21 Q. Was that before or after the Memorandum of 22 23 24 Understanding was signed? A. dates. Again I apologize, I don't remember exact 21 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. If I had hindsight and knew that this would 3 be such an issue, I would have remembered. 4 Q. Probably so. 5 A. But the other thing I would love to get 6 clear as it relates to me, this FOIA was different in 7 the sense that we had done, as a rule even FOIA's 8 involving myself, if I'm directly involved I, I, when 9 I say involved I should, let me be very clear, where 10 I'm named, I don't get personally involved, so. 11 Q. Right. 12 A. So this FOIA following the normal course 13 that any FOIA goes, and that's basically that the 14 determining entity within the City of Springfield as 15 to how we are going to proceed or how we are going to 16 answer it, that's, that answer simply comes from our 17 Legal Department. 18 different and that's why I didn't -- And so in that sense it was no 19 20 21 22 MR. NOLL: Counsel, are we talking about FOIA or the MOU? Q. All right. Let's go back to the meeting with Mr. Logan, Mr. Cullen -- 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. -- Mr. Buscher you're not sure if Geannette 22 1 was there, correct? 2 A. I'm not sure. 3 Q. Okay. 4 All right. So do you remember where this meeting took place? 5 A. In Mark Cullen's office. 6 Q. And what was Buscher doing there if he was 7 8 9 the subject of some of these FOIA's? A. Well, at that time the Springfield Police Department as everyone knows now by this SJR we had 10 some major leaks. One of the things that, that I 11 wanted to make perfectly clear to everyone, including 12 Mr. Buscher, was that I didn't think that that case 13 should be shredded or gone away, but there were 14 certain other high profile cases as well that I didn't 15 think should be gone away, but again that's my 16 recommendation to City legal as far as, and those are 17 not binding recommendations. 18 Q. Right. 19 A. One of the things I wanted to do is make it 20 perfectly clear to him, who was one of my senior staff 21 members and everyone else, what my position was, and 22 that it not be convoluted or through the grapevine hey 23 that I don't think that this should be, that should 24 have been, should have been gone away with. 23 1 Q. Okay. So what was Mr. Logan doing there? 2 A. Mr. Logan again I've been through several 3 administrations each Mayor calls their number two or 4 Chief of Staff, Executive Assistant whatever title you 5 want to give them but basically the way I see him is 6 you had a definite, you had two directors who are 7 basically on the same level even though the, the line 8 authority would give it to legal, you had two 9 directors that were basically not in agreement so it 10 wouldn't be out of character for him to be there in 11 his role as basically on paper being above all the 12 directors and just helping to modify or, or resolve 13 the matter. 14 Q. 15 Got it, okay. Now in the past when you had made 16 recommendations to City legal as to the retention or 17 expungement of IA files had your recommendations 18 generally been followed? 19 A. You know one of the things that I don't do 20 is kind of like giving advice, some people give advice 21 when people don't follow it they get mad. 22 checks and balances at the Springfield Police 23 Department so as of Chief of Police when I make a 24 recommendation I give them the rationale why I don't We have 24 1 think they should make the recommendation, I never 2 followed up. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. They simply call Internal Affairs and the 5 process is done, I never follow-up so to be honest 6 with you I have never sit back there and tried to 7 check and say how did they, I gave them six, did they 8 get rid of six, I never do that I trust the 9 Corporation Counsel to do their job. They have the 10 legal expertise to do that job and that's how things 11 work. 12 There is an element of trust. Q. Okay. Now do you recall if during this 13 meeting with Cullen, Morgan and Buscher was the fact 14 that Mr. Christian had a pending FOIA request 15 discussed? 16 17 MR. NOLL: Objection to the question because we have two FOIA requests, Counsel. 18 Q. Can you answer the question? 19 A. Can you rephrase the question, please, I 20 will be more than happy to answer it. 21 (Whereupon the Court Reporter read 22 back the requested information.) 23 24 A. What was discussed and again I have to get, be very clear, I discussed with Geannette Wittendorf, 25 1 I know for sure, as it related, and the reason why I 2 remember Geannette Wittendorf, the only way that the 3 Police Chief would get involved as it related to FOIA 4 is if there is inconsistent information given and 5 Lieutenant Banks had came to my office and he had said 6 that he had put in a request and that there was, 7 someone received this much information. 8 words, there was a discrepancy in what information was 9 released. 10 And in other Now the Springfield Police Department 11 is releasing information and two individuals asked for 12 the same individual and one gets more or once gets 13 less than me as the Springfield Police Chief now we 14 have a problem. 15 So when I went down to Geannette, the 16 reason I remember speaking with Geannette Wittendorf 17 about that was she explained to me that, that what was 18 given additionally was some compelled statements, and 19 that the officer had a right to that anyway so he was 20 given what the other person was given as well as his 21 own compelled statements. 22 talking about that case. 23 24 So I remember specifically And as far as and what went on in the meeting with Cullen, Logan and Buscher I just remember 26 1 saying that I don't think that that case should be 2 released just because of the perception, I remember 3 specifically talking about the perception that it 4 cast, and that's what I remember more than anything 5 else, just the perception, so. 6 Q. Okay. Well, if you, do you recall any 7 discussion about any other Internal Affairs files 8 other than Buscher's and the fact that there may have 9 been some pending requests, FOIA requests outstanding 10 11 for other files? A. Again like I said I don't formally 12 personally get involved but the one as it related to 13 Buscher I did only because of, of his stature there at 14 the police department. 15 16 Q. Okay. I want to show you what I've marked as Williams Exhibit 3. 17 (Williams Exhibit 3 marked for 18 identification by the Court 19 Reporter.) 20 Q. Now what I want you to do is, is turn to 21 Page 3 of this exhibit, the one that says Page 3 of 22 221 and -- 23 A. What page are you on again? 24 Q. It says Page 3 of 221. 27 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. Got it? 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. Now this is an e-mail well, this is an 5 e-mail from Donna Brown to Geannette Wittendorf with a 6 new FOIA request? 7 A. Okay. 8 Q. And if you look on the last page of this, 9 you will see that the attachment was an FOIA question 10 of PURE NEWS? 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. And then, so Donna Brown forwarded this to 13 Geannette, Geannette forwarded it to you, and you 14 forwarded it to Mayor Houston all on April, well, you 15 forwarded to Mayor Houston on April 25, correct? 16 17 18 A. I have to go on dates of this thing so it says yes, Thursday April 25. Q. Okay. And then can you tell me why you 19 forwarded a Calvin Christian or PURE NEWS FOIA request 20 to Mayor Houston on April 25? 21 22 A. Let me read it, just make sure that is a request from myself. 23 Q. Yes, sir. 24 A. Okay. All right. It does appear it's from 28 1 myself. Now you want an explanation? 2 Q. Yes, sir. 3 A. Basically as I spoke earlier there was a ULP 4 from the benevolent which basically was one line of 5 defense as far as the City and why they couldn't 6 release all of the Internal Affairs files. 7 had a phone, I had a verbal conversation with Megan 8 Morgan that basically came down to me and said Chief, 9 I want you to know that the PBPA Unit Number 5 has 10 dropped it's ULP, and so my immediate thing to her 11 well, what's protecting all of the files? 12 can't put more emphasis on all of the files. 13 I got a, I And again I I then asked her specifically what is 14 our position as it related to those files. 15 that there was at least 2 exemptions that the City had 16 not tried but it was that, her belief that the City of 17 Springfield still intended to fight any FOIA as it 18 related to all of the files. 19 She says So the only, and it would call for 20 speculation, I would have seen this as being 21 noteworthy and it's very rare that I sent something 22 directly to the Mayor, but this would been something 23 hey, I just have to bring this to your attention that 24 there has been something that requested all the of the 29 1 files. 2 would not have raised that matter but all of the files 3 because that's just a matter of what are we going to 4 do as far as it relates to these files, what's our 5 position. 6 A single person or a single file probably Q. Okay. Do you know if you forwarded this 7 Christian PURE NEWS FOIA request to the Mayor before 8 or after the signing of the MOU? 9 A. I, again you have to look at the timeline, I 10 don't recall. 11 Q. Well, the timeline you sent this at 9:29:27 12 to Mayor Houston. So my question is was that before 13 or after the signing of the MOU, if you know? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Okay. 16 17 All right. So when you signed the MOU, who was present? A. Again I looked at the MOU, I have an 18 unwritten rule that I would never sign any Memorandum 19 of Understanding or anything else without a signed 20 signature. 21 In other words, it's become initialed 22 by members of the, of the Corporation Counsel, so I 23 don't even remember when they brought down the MOU, I 24 don't recall. 30 1 Q. All right. 2 recollection. 3 Let's see if this refreshes your Mr. Edwards testified that there was a 4 meeting, he was present, you were present, Mr. Buscher 5 was present, Geannette Wittendorf was present, and 6 Stuenkel, was Stuenkel present? 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. CRAVEN: I don't believe so. Q. No, and the group meet and there was a discussion regarding the MOU and Ron Stone. A. Okay. Now you mentioned Ron Stone that stands out, I do remember having a meeting with him. Q. Then there was a discussion and then the MOU 14 got signed, does that refresh your recollection 15 anything about that? 16 17 18 A. When you mention the Union's attorney, I do remember that we had a, we had a discussion. Q. Okay. Can you tell me, to the best of your 19 recollection, the substance of the discussion that 20 morning? 21 A. It would have centered around, it would have 22 centered around the length, it would have centered 23 around the, the length of how long we were going to 24 retain them. 31 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. No, I really don't. 3 Q. Do you recall the Calvin Christian FOIA 4 Can you recall anything else? request being present at the meeting? 5 MR. NOLL: Objection he, he was 6 asked the question do you remember anything else and 7 he said no, I don't, so I'm object to asked and 8 answered. 9 10 11 MR. MYERS: I object to coaching the witness. A. I'll follow-up with and say no, I don't 12 remember because that's, I don't remember that. 13 the purpose of those meetings, Mr. Myers, was all of 14 the files, I do not remember any specific, it was 15 never about one file or two files it was about what we 16 felt was protecting the integrity of all of the files. 17 Q. Again You don't remember Deputy or rather Deputy 18 Chief Buscher having the Calvin Christian FOIA request 19 in his hand? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. In his, during the meeting? 22 A. No, I do not. 23 24 MR. NOLL: answered. Objection asked and 32 1 A. No. 2 3 4 MR. NOLL: Q. Go ahead and answer. You don't remember him tearing it up and saying we don't have to worry about this anymore? 5 A. No, no. 6 Q. Do you recall this meeting where you signed 7 the MOU you talked about the length of the, of the 8 retention period, do you remember anything else that 9 happened in this meeting? 10 A. Again no, the purpose of this meeting was 11 was, how do I say this, the entire purpose of this 12 meeting was the, was the, was about the, the length of 13 the retainment period and again this was all born out 14 of, of the ULP being dropped and, and was what was the 15 City's position going to be as far as protecting all 16 of these files. 17 In other words, what we were going to 18 use as the basis for our rationale as far as 19 protection of all of these files, or are we going to 20 release all of the files. 21 And one of the things that was made was 22 a strategic decision that that we wanted to have a 23 united front meaning the Police Management, 24 Corporation Counsel and the Union to go in there and 33 1 2 3 to protect the files if there was any other request. Q. Can you read back that last sentence, please. 4 (Whereupon the Court Reporter read 5 back the requested information.) 6 7 Q. Prior to the signing of the MOU, did you have any discussions of the MOU with Mr. Mueller? 8 A. Prior to the signing? 9 Q. Yes, sir. 10 A. Again, I don't remember, and I apologize, I 11 12 don't remember any specific time period. Q. All right. We talked about discussions with 13 Mr. Logan how about Mr., forgive me if I pronounce 14 this, the name Mihelich the PR, the public relations 15 director for the Mayor, Nate? 16 A. Again and I know that this is somewhat off 17 topic, I just have to say it, as it relates to Mr. 18 Mueller and Mr. Nathan Michelich. 19 Q. Michelich, I did screw that up. 20 A. I did speak to those individuals on a 21 regular basis. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. I don't remember any specifics conversations 24 but I do know looking at this time period I spoke to 34 1 Chris Mueller. 2 related to, Chris Mueller is also in charge of our 3 emergency response team. 4 probably on a daily basis for about a week period or 5 maybe daily as almost every other day as it related to 6 some additional schooling for his ERT members just 7 about every time Chris Mueller saw me in the hallway 8 or saw me the office alone he would come in speak to 9 me about up going some potential training for these 10 11 At that time we also had, as it I spoke to Chris Mueller individuals and how we were going to pay for it. So while all this was going on I must 12 have spoke to Chris Mueller on numerous occasions and 13 I do remember speaking to him one time about this 14 case, but all those other times I did not ever 15 remember him bringing up any concerns. 16 time that he did bring up a concern I specifically 17 told Chris Mueller that I had had at least two 18 detailed conversations with members of the Corporation 19 Counsel, I had expressed similar concerns and that 20 this is the way that we were proceeding, and so that's 21 the extent of it. 22 office; however I have seen, like most of you some 23 accounts that where this was, and I just want to say 24 that I had one, I had multiple conversations with him And the one He accepted that and left the 35 1 several opportunities because we were by ourselves 2 where it could have been brought up, never was brought 3 up. 4 Had the one conversation with him as 5 related to these files and what was explained to him 6 during those files was that hey, I have had, I had a 7 very, I shut the door, I had a very detailed 8 conversation with him and explained to him again I had 9 very similar concerns, they been, brought them to the 10 Corporation Counsel and they were addressed. 11 this is the way that we were going to be proceeding 12 and as it relates to how we respond to FOIA's or 13 whatever else. 14 make that determination not the Chief of Police. 15 have some concerns I'm going to bring them up but 16 ultimately in which direction we were going to or how 17 we were going to go, I had never told them to respond 18 to any FOIA. 19 20 Q. They're the final authority. And that They If I Did you give Mr. Mueller a direct order to expunge the files? 21 A. Yes, I did and I'll expand on that as well. 22 Q. Please do. 23 A. When Mr. Mueller brought up his concerns, I 24 said Chris, one of the things that I told them and I 36 1 expressed to them the very thing, are you sure. 2 like I mentioned earlier, the compromise was, I don't 3 know if it was a compromise but one of the things that 4 helped me was the phone call that was made to the 5 A.G.'s office that said yep, and I believe Ms. 6 Wittendorf's response was I asked her specifically did 7 we contact the A.G.'s office, she said yes, we are 8 good. 9 Again So we had at least 2 detailed 10 conversations spoke to the person who is in charge of 11 the, of the Corporation Counsel for the City of 12 Springfield. 13 could go. 14 thing we have on our side now is time. 15 they're still thinking about it, but as I left the 16 office this is what the plan was going to be. 17 this is what is going to be, I tell you what we can do 18 when the call is made, typically like I stated 19 earlier, typically a phone call comes from the 20 Corporation Counsel directly to the Internal Affairs. I thought that I had went as far as I I told Chris Mueller I said hey, the only 21 I know that And if The reason why we do that is so that 22 Internal Affairs is completely what we like it to be 23 independent. 24 you in this particular case I will make another phone I said when they make that phone call to 37 1 call to make sure that we are, that this is indeed how 2 they want to proceed. 3 call and then I'll call you back directly. 4 why there is the extra loop, not like there was any 5 Rob Williams interfering did I have any no, that's why 6 there was an extra loop. 7 And so I made that additional So that's And so to answer your question there 8 was a, we put that extra loop in there on the are you 9 sure, they assured me this is how they wanted to 10 proceed and the order was given for him to, to do what 11 Corporation Counsel had instructed us to do. 12 13 14 15 16 Q. All right. So you did give Mueller a direct order, you recall what you said to him? A. No, I don't remember, I don't remember exactly what I said to him, no. Q. All right. 17 (Williams Exhibit 4 marked for 18 identification by the Court 19 Reporter.) 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. Okay. 22 Q. Which is an e-mail from Linda Watts to 23 24 I've handed you Williams Exhibit 4? Geannette Wittendorf dated April 25, 2013 -A. Okay. 38 1 Q. -- at 10:36 in the morning? 2 A. Okay. 3 Q. Let me ask you something, who's Linda Watts? 4 A. Linda Watts is the Chief's secretary. 5 Q. For who? 6 A. For whoever the Chief of Police. 7 8 she would serve as the Chief's secretary. Q. Got it. 9 10 She's, so Okay. So do you know if you asked Linda Watts to send a copy of the MOU to Geannette Wittendorf? 11 A. Again I don't recall that. 12 Q. Okay. Looking at the date and time of this 13 at 10:36 on April 25 does that anyway refresh your 14 recollection as to the time of the meeting regarding 15 the MOU signing? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Now one of the things that Mueller said both 18 in his well, I'll tell you, I will just show you an 19 Exhibit here. 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. This is Mueller Exhibit 6 -- 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. -- which is a timeline put together by 24 Deputy or rather Lieutenant Mueller. 39 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. And I want to just show you one little thing 3 that he said. 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. He says -- 6 7 MR. NOLL: He says in his deposition or he says in this document? 8 Q. In the document? 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. He says the files would need to be expunged 11 by 1700 hours on Thursday in order to truthfully 12 respond to the FOIA request, do you see that? 13 A. I see where he wrote that, yes. 14 Q. All right. Do you recall any discussion 15 about the destruction of the files having to take 16 place by 1700 in order to truthfully respond to a FOIA 17 request? 18 A. That would have been a conversation between 19 Geannette Wittendorf and, and I guess Lieutenant 20 Mueller. 21 Q. 22 Right. Did you, you never heard anybody else talking about that? 23 A. About a time period? 24 Q. Yes, sir. 40 1 A. You know I didn't remember a meeting earlier 2 was, with Ron Stone was in the office as soon as Ron 3 Stone's name it triggered that I remembered that 4 meeting. 5 As far as a specific time period again 6 I wish I had a paid more attention to them but since 7 FOIA is really, I knew that there was, I knew that 8 there was, I knew that we had a FOIA, I knew that we 9 had the, how do I say this, I knew that we had a FOIA 10 that requested all the files and as the Chief of 11 Police that's the only one that basically I was 12 concerned about all of the files at Springfield Police 13 Department because I was worried about all of the 14 files. 15 Anything else I just specifically don't 16 recall and I know that FOIA have a timeline. 17 would have been a timeline associated with it so it's 18 plausible, but me, myself personally, I don't remember 19 that. 20 Q. 21 There Fair enough. You recall there being a sense of 22 urgency in getting these, this particular batch of 23 files destroyed on the 25th of April? 24 A. I remember there being a sense of urgency 41 1 when Megan Morgan approached me told me the Union had 2 dropped it's ULP, all the files were, for lack of a 3 better word, exposed and that's why, that's what 4 basically precipitated, started this whole thing 5 rolling. 6 I remember there being a sense of 7 urgency in the sense that just about every strategic 8 session that we had at the Springfield Police 9 Department there was starting to be leaks and I, and I 10 again asked them repeatedly how are we going to 11 protect the integrity of these files, but that's 12 basically the sense of urgency as it related to all 13 files. 14 Yes, I remember that. Q. But you don't have, you don't have any 15 recollection of a specific sense of urgency on the 16 25th of April to get rid of the batch of files that 17 was destroyed that day? 18 19 A. You know I can't speak for Geannette Wittendorf or the Corporation Counsel. 20 Q. Of course you can't. 21 A. As far as myself? 22 Q. Yeah. 23 A. I would have to say no and one of the 24 reasons is I took a half a day that day and I only 42 1 remember that because when, all of this happened on 2 the 25th? 3 Q. Yes, sir. 4 A. I was actually out of office and had already 5 had a commitment there in which I couldn't leave, so 6 if it was a sense urgency on my part, I definitely 7 would never have left the office. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. Before all of those things actually took 10 11 place. Q. Well, I guess my question and I probably 12 didn't phrase it correctly, not, it wasn't a really 13 I'm not talking about you having a sense of urgency. 14 The question is did Buscher and Wittendorf and Cullen 15 and the rest communicate a sense of urgency about 16 getting these files destroyed by five o'clock on the 17 25th of April? 18 A. I recall that calls for speculation now -- 19 MR. NOLL: Hold on a second I'm 20 going to object to the form of question. 21 to ask him multiple questions, that's improper but if 22 you want to take each individual -- 23 24 MR. MYERS: professor. If you want Thank you, I've only been doing this 30 years, I'm 43 1 glad I'm finally learning how to do it right. 2 MR. NOLL: If you'd like to 3 tender them one more a time, we will answer the 4 questions one at a time. 5 6 Do your wish to tender them one at time? 7 8 MR. MYERS: answered the question so what's your point? 9 10 11 MR. NOLL: 14 My point is it's an improper question. Q. 12 13 He's already Okay. Whatever. I will show you what I've marked at Williams Exhibit 5? A. Okay. 15 (Williams Exhibit 5 marked for 16 identification by the Court 17 Reporter.) 18 19 Q. Okay. Williams Exhibit 5 is an e-mail exchange and you're not copied on this by the way? 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. But it's, there's a statement in here 22 regarding a meeting to be held on April 29, 2013, with 23 the Chief, Cullen, Geannette and Stephanie Barton and 24 presumably Mayor Houston, do you know if such a 44 1 meeting took place? 2 A. I have no idea. 3 Q. Does the, have you ever heard the term 4 plausible deniability? 5 6 A. I have heard the term plausible deniability but mainly in the educational sense but... 7 Q. Have you heard the term plausible 8 deniability with reference to the MOU at issue in this 9 case? 10 A. Plausible deniability, legal sufficiency, 11 ostensively. 12 the Springfield Police Department prior to meetings a 13 lot of times we would have light banter, different 14 things. 15 some would consider to be inappropriate behavior, if 16 we were talking like the dialogue between yourself and 17 the other attorney in the room where you guys had 18 something and one of you guys threw out a real large 19 word, as police officers, as practitioners, one of the 20 things we love to do was to, to repeat those words and 21 just you, in almost in a laughing or joking type of 22 manner. 23 24 One of the things as the senior staff at It wouldn't be unusual for us to, to, what Plausible deniability would be one of those phrases that we would often use and just mess 45 1 with each other. 2 acquiesce, we would say different things like that so 3 it wouldn't be unusual if someone said we used that 4 but it wouldn't be, it would be more of, in more a 5 joking manner. 6 Kind of like ostensively or I had to So it would be very easy for someone to 7 take something like out of context and different 8 individuals use or said different words what we call 9 million dollars words and we would often repeat them 10 11 12 13 and say them but it more in gest or in joking. Q. Have you used the term plausible deniability with respect to Mayor Houston's knowledge of the MOU? A. I have said plausible deniability before, I 14 have said ostensively, acquiesce, legal sufficiency, 15 so if someone was to take one of those words out of 16 context, but do I ever remember directly saying that 17 in a serious context as it relates to these MOU's, 18 never. 19 Q. How about -- 20 A. In a joking I don't recall but I was an, I 21 was as guilty as anyone as far as saying a different 22 words and as far as humor. 23 24 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to well, let's backup, strike that. 46 1 2 3 You've testified regarding a meeting with Mr. Logan prior to the execution of the MOU? A. Again, let's clarify that. I don't, I 4 testified that we had a meeting, I don't know if it 5 was before or after the signing of the MOU, I don't 6 recall. So I just want to make that clear. 7 There was definitely a meeting in Mr. 8 Cullen's office and Mr. Logan was present. 9 time as it relates to the signing of that MOU I don't 10 11 12 The exact recall. Q. But it was before the shredding of the documents in any case? 13 A. It was definitely before the shredding. 14 Q. And I apologize I misspoke. 15 Do you have any knowledge regarding 16 whether Mr. Logan discussed the shredding of the 17 documents with the Mayor prior documents being 18 destroyed? 19 A. Again, I said again, sir, I don't know what 20 Mr. Logan discussed with the Mayor, I know that I 21 never discussed anything with the Mayor as it relates 22 to this shredding. 23 Mr. Logan or Mr. Cullen discussed with him or Ms. 24 Wittendorf. I have no, no way of knowing what 47 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. Or Mr. Mueller. 3 Q. So back to Williams Exhibit 5 which was an 4 e-mail exchange for about a meeting on the Monday 29 5 you don't recall whether that meeting took place? 6 A. I have no idea. 7 Q. Fair enough. 8 All right. I am handing you an, an exhibit that I've marked as Williams Exhibit 6. 9 (Williams Exhibit 6 marked for 10 identification by the Court 11 Reporter.) 12 Q. And this is a, a memo from Mr. Cullen to you 13 the Mayor and others dated April 30, 2013, do you 14 recall receiving this e-mail from Mr. Cullen? 15 16 A. I believe I did receive this memo but I believe and you have it in draft form as well? 17 Q. Yes, sir. 18 A. I don't know if I ever received the final 19 version or if I only received the draft version 20 because he sent out a version just to make sure that 21 kind of like what we were doing that everything that 22 he is basically stating in this actually happened. 23 do believe that I received a draft copy but I don't 24 know if I ever received a final copy, but whoever I 48 1 supplied you with all of the rest of it, I'm sure they 2 supplied you with the final copy or did they just give 3 a draft copy? 4 to be, have more of my information than I do. 5 Q. 6 you that, too. 7 A. Because I don't ever remember, you seem 8 9 Trust me if I had a final one I would give I remember a draft copy I don't ever remember a final one unedited with okay. Q. Okay, very good. 10 Okay. Now this memorandum as drafted 11 and again I will tell you, sir, I do not have all I 12 have is something that says draft on it. 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. This memorandum had it been finalized 15 presumably would have had, would have been coming from 16 you and Mark Cullen do you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Now did you ever discuss with Mr. Cullen 19 whether you were going to let this draft memo go out 20 over your signature? 21 22 23 24 A. Again there would have been some more spirited conversations. Q. Okay. Tell me, to the best of your recollection, the substance of the spirited 49 1 conversation? 2 MR. NOLL: 3 next question can we take break. 4 5 6 Q. Counsel, after your In fact, we can take a break with the question pending? A. I am just reading it because kind like what 7 you're doing it, it, it references several timelines 8 that I wasn't present for and... 9 Q. Let me make a suggestion let me withdraw the 10 question, let's take a break and during the break you 11 can spend a couple of minutes with your memo. 12 A. Okay. 13 Q. Break time. 14 15 (Whereupon a recess was taken.) Q. As we left off you were going to take a 16 gander at Williams Exhibit 6, and I kind of lost my 17 the train of my train of thought but the, the one 18 thing that I asked you was the, to your knowledge 19 there is, there was never a final one of these? 20 21 22 23 24 A. I don't believe so or I don't recall ever seeing it. Q. All right. Do you recall discussing this memorandum with anybody? A. You know because it was in draft form I 50 1 2 3 4 don't really remember, I don't remember. Q. Okay. Okay. I've handed you what I've marked as Williams Exhibit 7. A. Okay. 5 (Williams Exhibit 7 marked for 6 identification by the Court 7 Reporter.) 8 9 Q. And this is an e-mail exchange between you and Chris Mueller, correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. All right. Now I see that Mueller wrote you 12 the e-mail at 5:22 p.m. and you responded at 11:16 the 13 next day, May 6? 14 A. Do you know when I actually opened it? 15 Q. I don't. 16 A. That would have been the only reason for the 17 18 delay is when I opened it. Q. My question is the Mueller e-mail to you was 19 copied to Houston and Willis Logan and my question is 20 did you discuss your response with either of those 21 gentlemen prior to making your response to Chris 22 Mueller? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Now one of things you say in your response 51 1 to Mr. Mueller is that your regret in the matter that 2 you did not approach your boss Mayor Houston and take 3 advantage of his years of experience? 4 A. Let me read this. 5 Q. Yes, sir. 6 A. Where's that at, okay. 7 Q. Second paragraph. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. So I take it that's a true statement that Okay. 10 you did not approach your boss Mayor Houston regarding 11 the expungement? 12 A. No, never did. 13 Q. But you did approach his Chief of Staff, 14 15 Willis Logan, right? A. Again I don't remember the time of that 16 meeting, the meeting was with Mark Cullen, that's why 17 I was in Mark Cullen's office, and I don't know if Mr. 18 Logan just happened to be there, if he was, you know, 19 but he was definitely in the room. 20 Q. All right. And I just while we are at I 21 just got to make one thing perfectly clear. At the 22 meeting you expressed some skepticism, if I can 23 characterize it that way, about whether these, the 24 Buscher file should, ought to be destroyed? 52 1 A. Again, just to make everything perfectly 2 clear. From the very start of this whole thing my, 3 and the reduction of the files from five years to four 4 years which is the recommended amount of time that 5 files should be retained, all came about as a result 6 of the protection of all of the files. 7 Q. Right, I get that. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. But you were, in this meeting you were 10 11 skeptical about reducing the period to four years? A. I was hesitant to do it but basically like I 12 said before it was an attempt to get everybody on the 13 same side. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And the protection of those files what 16 happened is this, when I made a decision to run the 17 Springfield Police Department, one of the things, one 18 of my philosophies has been and will always be was to 19 be proactive. 20 Springfield Police Department, but I always looked out 21 3 to 5 years then we even made long term plans we 22 would make as group so not only did I do run today 23 operation of Police Department. 24 tried to forecast out about three to five years. I ran the day to day operation of the I also looked or 53 1 One of things that I saw that was 2 blaring obvious to me was the decisions that were 3 coming back from the Circuit Court as it related to 4 FOIA, and so I did some forecasting, like I do in 5 everything else, and said hey, if this continues to 6 happen, what's going to be the, what's going to be our 7 position as it relates to these FOIA's; however, like 8 everyone knows here, that there were some major leaks. 9 So as I'm expressing concerns someone 10 else is expressing those same things and just like 11 everything that we talked about it, worst case 12 scenario, if this happens those things appeared to be 13 happening and up to and including someone requesting 14 all of the files. 15 That meeting was, specifically with Mr. 16 Cullen was how are we going to protect the files or 17 are we going to protect the files. 18 Q. Right. 19 A. That was, so. 20 Q. But you, but you said and I just have well, 21 you suggested that, that you had two department heads 22 that were not totally in sync with each other on these 23 questions and that Logan's function was to try to 24 resolve the differences -- 54 1 A. Well -- 2 Q. -- correct. 3 A. By him being present that would have been 4 5 the, one of his rolls, yes. Q. Okay. And the question I forgot to ask you 6 when we talked about that a half an hour ago is how 7 did Willis Logan resolve the difference? 8 A. Well, one of the things is we made a 9 decision that we were going to do and/or in fact we 10 did do and I then offered no more, basically we had 11 had two meetings, a minimum of two meetings at the end 12 of that sit-down meeting it was suggested that, by 13 Mark Cullen that this is how we were going to proceed 14 and to use one of those words I used earlier I 15 acquiesced, that's actually what I did, we followed 16 those plans. 17 And so when Chris Mueller sent me that 18 memo it had already been determined. 19 risk of being insubordinate to my superiors I will at 20 least bring it to their attention one more time and 21 when they call and say this is the course that we are 22 going, they already knew how I felt as far as this but 23 we'll proceed. 24 Q. I got, I get all of that. I said at the My question is 55 1 2 what was Willis Logan's position at this meeting? A. Again Willis was in the meeting when the 3 talks were, were going on and he knew what our course 4 of action. 5 Q. Now you said something about major leaks? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You knew about major leaks of, of IA files 8 9 prior to April 25? A. There was several things that what happened 10 was I knew about that we had a major leak at 11 Springfield Police Department when I was approached by 12 I guess it would have been three Aldermen about some 13 conversations that would have taken place in our 14 senior staff before that there were rumored to be some 15 but I knew that when they started asking me specific 16 questions that came out of a senior staff that we had 17 some leaks, and we had some, and any time you have a 18 leak at your staff level I consider that a major leak. 19 Q. But my question is were you aware 20 specifically of leaks of Internal Affairs materials as 21 opposed to scuttlebutt of the staff meeting? 22 A. Well, during the course of this whole thing 23 and I certainly hadn't read all of it because most of 24 is inconsistent and just, as far as I'm concerned from 56 1 a personal level flat out not accurate, but yeah, 2 there were some leaks and, in material being, like all 3 my e-mails, all other persons e-mails and I personally 4 haven't watched it all and in fact there is still 5 material that you're presenting today that I just go 6 for lack of better word wow but... 7 8 Q. Well, okay, let's go off the record a second. 9 10 (Off Record Discussion.) Q. Back on the record. 11 Okay. So but what I'm getting, we all 12 know about the Channel 20 stuff and you know the 13 obviously -- 14 15 16 MR. NOLL: object. A. 17 18 No, we don't, no, I I honestly don't know. MR. NOLL: Q. I object. We know that there were reports of leaked 19 documents and whatnot, my question is as of April 25 20 were you aware of any specific files that had been 21 leaked out of the Internal Affairs department? 22 A. The one thing that, as of April 25? 23 Q. Yes, sir, the date of the MOU. 24 A. Again I knew that there were material that 57 1 was possibly, yes, because of different anonymous 2 memos that were being sent to especially the alderman 3 and other persons that, that they were possibly, yeah, 4 we had some problems as far as leaks at the 5 Springfield Police Department. 6 know what to the degree that they've raised to now but 7 yeah, we had some major problems. 8 Q. Okay. Again -- 9 10 To what degree I don't MR. NOLL: Counsel, can I follow-up on a question here. 11 MR. MYERS: Yeah, go ahead. 12 MR. NOLL: Is that, are you 13 talking about leaks, he asked about the IA files were, 14 on the 25th of April were you aware of leaks on the IA 15 files? 16 A. 17 When I talk about leaks, just leaks in general. 18 19 MR. NOLL: A. Just leaks in general. 20 21 MR. NOLL: Q. Okay, fair enough. All right. Thanks, Counsel. And then in the Mueller 22 deposition we were shown some lists of the documents 23 that were going to be expunged, here's Mueller 24 Exhibit 17. 58 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. Mueller Exhibit 11, Mueller Exhibit 12, 3 actually 12 duplicates 11. 4 documents that were expunged on the 25th did you, you 5 had said that you sometimes would review lists of 6 documents, you know if you reviewed these lists here? 7 8 A. My only question is these I would have seen a very similar list with no markings. 9 Q. Right. 10 A. But these are consistent with what I would 11 call standard operating procedure as it relates to the 12 police legal advisor and IA, and again there is checks 13 and balances in the sense that what they recommend to 14 be expunged is completely, and that's what's binding. 15 What legal says is what's binding not what the Chief 16 says -- 17 Q. I got that. 18 A. -- what gets expunged. 19 Q. Do you know if in reference to Mueller 20 Exhibit 12 and 13 and 11 if you made specific 21 recommendations as to the files listed on these three 22 Exhibits? 23 24 Buscher is on there by the way somewhere? 59 1 A. Which one is Buscher? 2 Q. Let's see, here, this one, this one here, 3 there is a Cliff Buscher file and I think you said you 4 made a recommendation on that. 5 6 Did you take make recommendation on any other files? 7 A. I definitely would have, they don't stand 8 out. The reason why the Buscher files stands out is 9 not just because Cliff Buscher, but it involved most 10 of the, of the, several members of my staff so that 11 alone is a reason why that one should not have been, I 12 felt should not have been gone away with. 13 Q. Got it. 14 A. The other thing, Mr. Myers, if you will let 15 me expand. 16 Q. Go ahead. 17 A. I also knew even when they made a decision 18 to expunge that file that that's what we call a 19 parallel investigation. 20 charge of the criminal investigations division as well 21 as the Internal Affairs division basically what a 22 parallel investigation is if an incident happens in 23 Ft. Wayne, Indiana, the Springfield, and it's a minor 24 incident, minor in the sense that it's going to be an As a person who's been in 60 1 administrative leak where we are going to handle not a 2 homicide or something like that because if it's a 3 homicide Ft. Wayne will be taking of it but if it's 4 not, we will do what parallel investigation which 5 means we are not going to send an investigator there 6 to investigate, we are going to simply parallel their 7 investigations. 8 finish, get a disposition, then request those 9 documents and have our people testify especially the 10 target as to is this accurate, is this what you pled 11 to, is this, we are not going to create anything new. 12 We are going to wait for them to There would be a few more additional 13 ones but it was the overall bulk of the investigation 14 will be the venue or the place where it occurred, and 15 this particular incident involving Cliff Buscher 16 that's exactly what happened in Missouri or Taney 17 County. 18 charge of the division to think that I'm going to take 19 a parallel investigation get rid of it then it's all 20 goes away when everything that you need from there is 21 still down there. 22 of the stuff that makes great headline and great water 23 cooler talk but it has no absolutely no substance, and 24 if nothing else I just want to make that very clear So for me as an investigator, a person in It just goes to show you how some 61 1 that there is no way that I think if I get rid of 2 this, there is no more. 3 better word it's ludicrous and I just had to get out 4 of there. It's to me for lack of a 5 Q. Ostensively ludicrous? 6 A. There you go. 7 8 9 10 See I should have went to law school that's what put that descriptive adjective on there. Q. Let's go back to Exhibit 7, Williams Exhibit 7, your e-mail to Chris Mueller. 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. Did you have any discussions regarding your 13 e-mail back to Chris Mueller? 14 A. No. 15 Q. With Chris or anyone else? 16 A. When I wrote this, this e-mail to Chris, 17 this was meant to be between Chris Mueller and myself. 18 This was meant to be a colleague with a that I've 19 worked with for over 20 years. 20 between a colleague who I saw as somebody when I 21 project out the police department 3 to 5 years that I 22 thought should definitely have another role. 23 meant to be between a colleague that I knew had a very 24 independent spirit that's why I chose him to run the This was meant to be This was 62 1 Internal Affairs that he wouldn't be a yes man that he 2 would go and do the proper thing. 3 colleague that I had numerous conversations with. 4 I had just sent to one of the most prestigious schools 5 that you can send an individual to, because I thought 6 that this was meant to be to a colleague who upon his 7 return and after talking to me who I obviously had 8 these concerns was still bringing me gifts. 9 This was to a Who In fact this letter attache case was 10 from Chris Mueller. 11 several conversations as far as schools and ERT had 12 numerous opportunities for him to come to me. 13 besides all of that if he would put this in writing, I 14 wanted to respond to him. 15 very heartfelt manner and that's exactly, everything 16 in here was straight from the heart, straight from the 17 hip. 18 thing that I had a lot of mutual respect for. 19 This a from a colleague who I had But And I responded to him in a It was two people who I had before this whole And so when I responded in this e-mail 20 it was heartfelt and that, that's all that it was. 21 was also I meant every word of that and I never 22 followed up because it was none of my business. 23 you honestly feel this way, you need to go to these 24 individuals, one of them being the Mayor. It If If you want 63 1 to go to the Mayor, go straight to the Mayor, I'm not 2 going to call, precipitate it or anything else. 3 have Linda call to make, who is again the secretary, 4 call make sure that he gets some time because 5 sometimes the Mayor's schedule was so convoluted then 6 his secretary would know that this is something that 7 needs to take place immediately. 8 facilitate a meeting. 9 10 I did So we called to help Other than that, nothing. The, and I'm talking to fast so I apologize but again -- 11 Q. She's, you're hurting her not me. 12 A. It was heartfelt and, and the other thing is 13 that surprised me out of it all, knowing our general 14 orders and knowing his present position, Chris Mueller 15 should have known that, and maybe he didn't and which 16 I didn't get into. 17 the Police Chief was ordering him to do something that 18 was wrong, we have steps in there that are built into 19 the place. 20 you do is wrong or unlawful, you can not do those 21 orders and as the head of the Internal Affairs it's 22 already written into our orders that he can go 23 directly to the Mayor for these type of things, and 24 again I don't know why he didn't do that. If at any time that he felt that If someone tells you to do something that 64 1 But at the same time I also wanted to 2 extend him something that he didn't ask for and that 3 is you can also go see Mark Cullen and he will explain 4 to you these prior two meetings that I've had with him 5 and the same things that I've expressed. 6 have went to any of those options or all of these 7 options. 8 Q. All right. So he could Before you gave Chris Mueller 9 the direct order to expunge the files did you get a 10 direct order from anybody to tell him to expunge the 11 files? 12 A. I talked to Geannette Wittendorf and 13 basically says, and in other words, what we talked 14 about in Mr. Cullen's office is that still, for lack 15 of a better word is that still a go? 16 again that phrase that even catching here, are you 17 sure, and I was told, yes, and then the phone call was 18 made to Chris Mueller to, to proceed. 19 20 21 22 Q. And I asked Did you say you also talked directly to Mark Cullen? A. I talked to Mark Cullen at that meeting, I didn't talk to Mark Cullen prior to this. 23 Q. Got you. 24 A. We had had previous discussions. 65 1 Q. All right. And did you, before giving the 2 direct order did you talk to Willis Logan or Mike 3 Houston? 4 A. 5 6 And again I was out of the office when all this occurred. Q. 7 8 No. Got it. Lastly, what does the MOU have to do with non-bargaining unit officers? 9 A. The MOU? 10 Q. Yes, sir. 11 A. Formally or officially nothing. Basically 12 what we have, there is an informal practice where how 13 we deal with certain things, we get what we call a me 14 to, but officially there is no direct correlation. 15 But informally there's always been sort of a me to, 16 which means like a, the Union had in its contract a 17 spike period, so they always got it, so the staff got 18 a me to as well. 19 A lot of things through just past 20 practice at the police department if this is how we 21 were going to treat the files for the bulk of them 22 probably how we are going to treat the files for 23 everyone including staff and civilians but 24 specifically it would have only addressed the sworn 66 1 2 personnel that's under the rank of sergeant. Q. As Chief were you involved at all with Local 3 Records Act destruction certificates and whatnot or 4 was that all handled by subordinates? 5 A. Basically what happens under the local, if 6 it was under my span of control which mean our records 7 section I would have made sure that the DC or 8 specifically the Commander who handles those situation 9 would make sure that anything under my span of control 10 was in compliance. 11 made sure took place. 12 specific police things that under my control and I 13 control what gets expunged or whatnot, I would have 14 made sure through one of my subordinates that that 15 happened. 16 since we didn't make that final determination that 17 would have been something that would been on 18 Corporation Counsel and we just assumed that them 19 being attorneys and all, that they were in compliance, 20 but we have no, I have would no span control over what 21 gets expunged or when. 22 direct involvement with that or the contacting them 23 for Internal Affairs files. 24 Q. That's something that I would have So as it relates to police, the As it related to Internal Affairs files So I wouldn't have had any Just to be clear then the interaction is 67 1 with Local Records Commission with respect to 2 destruction of Internal Affairs files was handled by 3 the Corporation Counsel's office and not by your 4 office, is that a fair statement? 5 A. To my knowledge I would have never, no, I, 6 and I say that not as the Chief of Police right now 7 but as, when I was in, in charge of Internal Affairs 8 and I was given an order to, to get rid of these, I 9 would have never called and cause I would have just 10 assumed that that was handled by the person who gave 11 the order, and I never contacted the Chief for that. 12 Q. Okay. 13 14 15 MR. MYERS: very much. A. Thank you. 16 17 MR. NOLL: Can you tell me why Channel 20 is sitting outside the office? 18 19 I'm done, thank you MR. MYERS: Are you asking him or asking me? 20 MR. NOLL: I'm asking you. 21 is Channel 20 sitting outside of the office? 22 folks call them. 23 24 MR. CRAVEN: Did you It's public knowledge that the deposition is today. Why 68 1 MR. NOLL: How on the web -- 2 MR. CRAVEN: Mr. Noll, your 3 questions should be directed to the deponent. 4 have questions for the deponent, ask questions of the 5 deponent. 6 7 MR. NOLL: of the deponent. 10 MR. CRAVEN: deposition first. 13 16 Mr., is he going to reserve MR. RAHN: Do you want to review the deposition -A. Yes. 14 15 Let's finish this signature or waive signature? 11 12 I have no questions I have questions of the -- 8 9 If you MR. RAHN: -- before it becomes official. A. Yes. 17 MR. NOLL: Can you put this on 18 the record I'm going on the record why is Channel 20 19 at 11:45 here on Tuesday, August 27 sitting outside of 20 this law office with its cameras poised? 21 22 MR. CRAVEN: ask them. 23 24 I suggest you go MR. NOLL: tell them of this? Did you in any way 69 1 2 MR. CRAVEN: I suggest you go ask them. 3 MR. NOLL: No, that's a 4 question. How come on the State Journal Register 5 today the lead story City suggests early destruction 6 of files and we see documents from Lieutenant Chris 7 Mueller's deposition at part of the PDF file can you 8 explain that to me? 9 10 MR. CRAVEN: obligation -- 11 12 MR. NOLL: You are under obligations as an officer of the court not to -- 13 MR. CRAVEN: 14 MR. NOLL: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I am under no No, I am not. -- not to try the case in the newspaper. MR. CRAVEN: Okay, thank you for coming, Mr. Williams, always a pleasure. 70 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) COUNTY OF CHRISTIAN ) 2 3 CERTIFICATE 4 5 I, Cathy J. Craggs, CSR and RPR, 6 affiliated with Associated Court Reporters, 7 P.O. Box 684, Taylorville, Illinois, do hereby 8 certify that I reported in shorthand the 9 foregoing proceedings and the foregoing is a 10 true and correct transcript of my shorthand 11 notes. 12 I further certify that I am in no 13 way related to or associated with any of the 14 parties or attorneys involved herein, nor am I 15 financially interested in the action. 16 17 18 19 ______________________________ 20 CATHY J. CRAGGS CSR 21 CSR License No. 084-002703 22 23 Dated this 14th day 24 of September 2013. 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 SIGNATURE AND ERRATA SHEET I, ROBERT WILLIAMS, have read the foregoing testimony, given by me, taken on August 27, 2013, at RABIN AND MYERS, P.C. 1300 South Eighth Street, Springfield, Illinois, in the case of CALVIN CHRISTIAN III vs. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, a municipal corporation and JOHN DOE, 1-6 Case Number 2013 MR 341, and have made any and all necessary corrections below: Page No. Line No. Reason for Change: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ _____________________________ Signature of Witness 21 22 23 24 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS_________DAY OF____________, 2013. ________________________________ Notary Public 72 1 Cathy J. Craggs, CSR Associated Court Reporters P.O. Box 684 Taylorville, Illinois 62568 September 13, 2013 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD Assistant Corporation Counsel Mr. Steven Rahn Attorney at Law Room 313 Municipal Center East 800 East Monroe Street Springfield, Illinois 62701-1689 Mr. Rahn, Enclosed herewith please find the transcript of the deposition testimony of Robert Williams taken on August 27th, 2013 at the Law Offices of Rabin and Myers in Springfield, Illinois. As indicated at the conclusion of the deposition, your client reserved his right to read the transcript. Please have your client read the enclosed transcript and sign the sheet at the end entitled Errata Sheet. Please mark on that sheet only. Please read and sign the transcript within the next thirty days and return a copy of the Errata Sheet to me, 17 18 19 20 If you have any questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to call on me. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, 21 22 Cathy J. Craggs, CSR 23 24 CC: Mr. John Myers