but if you read sexuality ect it says that net this must be resolved expeditiously and the freedom of information act has a specific provision that says that you must give precedence to these in the courts  it is not about on macdonald it is not about the burning of our beloved city it is now about the removal of a superintendent and it certainly is not about what's going on in the community around us what's in front of this court issued by judge what the opponents fail to acknowledge is that there is an asset or a strong public policy argument to be made about favoring labor arbitration in fact the attribute expeditious equitable and effective procedure for the resolution of very good disputes for the public sector peace officers back to grievance arbitration is the  agreement and that's exactly what judge flynn found in this case first he determined that a collective bargaining agreement existed and that the parties had an agreed upon method in which to resolve the dispute those are two crucial facts that years it had recently been renegotiated and approved by the fifteen member committee of the city council and subsequently signed by the mayor so the destruction policy itself has been found at entered can judge released or allow the documents to be really inst the trigger would not have had the full range around but is it may have been available to the arbitrator now it's important to note that even though officers once in a while for street conduct because they were under a duty to obey the law so if it's that you know the drill yes or right here is that consistent with what you just said the close because where there was a specific request or who had asked for specific limited information on behalf of a specific limited to the complete or to those requests were denied by the public complaint here as a result of that the requesters that took three ministries of opinion there and successor and they filed the lawsuit seeking to get compliance and having those documents turned over that's not what we have here there is no procedure no mechanism currently fire that would have a public employee to protest documents that are going to be turned over certainly documents that existed over fifty years ago which may or may not impact the ability of a police impact whatsoever i mean after the police officers ability to engage in his or her performance and i don't think any stretch of the imagination just because somebody becomes a public employee climbed up twenty four hours a day i mean issued the state to read the grievance or patrician from its course now i believe that he said in the in the report that we filed with the court several weeks ago is that it's coming to an end and the matter is i am now snoop because at some point there is if not for the department of justice come in if not for the department of justice issuing matters to the city saying syriac don't destroy documents he would have admirably except  violated but pipe as part of his remedy before the documents were set to be destroyed he instructed the parties over a sixty day period to sit down and try to determine which documents found under the litigation exception it's clear that if there are some documents that are exempt under fire and some documents are not exempt the employer is clearly obligated to turn over those documents that are not exact i'm talking about the exemption that's found in section seven which is  elected officials also fail under this that's not considered an invasion of personal privacy but in your example the first example you gave was one neighbor sends a letter to the police chief saying officer so  thank you very much city has anything in noted and that's just because now there's a player says a ban on the release of any c r file more than four years old but he's looked at those files for any other reason whether it's personal meaning the lawsuit there is a subpoena for records that just happened to have not been destroyed the city couldn't come in and say produce the records because we have this retention policy and they were destroyed the point is these are public records they exist and they are not exempt and yes the injunction be vacated so that the public can have access to them to use them for the purposes for which they're kept monitor