Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): needed to fund the health premium obligations” and that “establishment and modification of such an employee benefit has traditionally been within the scope of legislative discretion.”); Unterschuetz v. City of Chicago, 346 Ill.App.3d 65, 281 Ill.Dec. 367, 803 N.E.2d 988, 994 (2004) (observing that, even within context of actual ordinance declaring policy, “the function of a legislative body is to make laws that declare the policy of a governmental body, which laws are subject to repeal when a subsequent legislature decides to alter that policy” and that City had “simply announced] various policies that the City intends to carry out until such time as the city council wishes to change those policies.”); Chicago Patrolmen’s Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 56 Ill.2d 503, 309 N.E.2d 3, 6 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Foley v. Consol. City of Indianapolis, 421 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that longevity pay enhanced the regular periodic salaries paid to firefighters and police officers (B) holding that in reviewing the petition the court is to weigh the policy of public access to records against the longstanding public policy of providing a second chance to criminal defendants who have not been adjudicated guilty (C) holding that police officials did not have property interest in continuation of longstanding policy of providing officers with step and longevity salary increases (D) holding that police officers sued in their official capacity are not liable for a violation of a privacy interest where the police department did not have a policy of deliberately failing to train its officers with respect to the confidentiality of records (E) holding that a townships unilateral termination of a longstanding policy of permitting police officers to take police vehicles home at the end of their shifts was a mandatory subject of bargaining
Output (English): holding that longevity pay enhanced the regular periodic salaries paid to firefighters and police officers