The Oak Park police department is marked by growing discontent between rank and file officers and top police management.

In the wake of the resignation of a troubled female sergeant with a long history of disciplinary problems, tensions remain high in the near west suburban Oak Park police department.

Feelings over the alleged special treatment that former sergeant Dina Vardal received from some within the police command staff appear to be only the symptom of a deeper malaise within the department. As police rank-and-file prepare for the election of new police union officers in March, the department continues to be roiled by growing discontent and outright opposition to management practices by top police management.

Meanwhile Robert Robertson, the attorney for Officer Rasul Freelain, who is suing the village and Vardal in federal court for allegedly violating his civil rights, has doubled down on his accusations that Oak Park Chief of Police Rick Tanksley and Vardal lied repeatedly under oath in their sworn court depositions (see accompanying story).

The troubling state of affairs within the Oak Park police department is reflected in Freelain’s nearly three-year-old civil lawsuit, in one or more EEOC complaints, in numerous statements contained in a witness list filed in the Freelain case, and in numerous comments made by several rank-and-file police officers on and off the record.

Allegations of unfair practices by police department command staff date back at least 10 years. On March 1, 2006 every member of the Oak Park Village Board and several senior appointed officials received an unsigned letter warning of a sexually harassing and hostile work environment in the Oak Park police department and alleged a lack of strong, ethical leadership.

None of those officials are still with the village. Current village officials have declined to comment on more recent allegations, citing the pending litigation and “personnel issues.”

Vardal did not return a message left with another person at her home Thursday seeking comment. Tanksley did not return calls seeking comment left on his work voicemail or with his secretary Thursday.

Over the past several years, many of the same accusations of retaliation and discrimination similar to Freelain’s case and those cited in the 2006 letter have been voiced by current and former Oak Park police officers both publicly and anonymously.

Freelain’s 2013 lawsuit accuses Oak Park police brass of retaliation against him for insisting on his right to take time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act and for accusing Vardal, who has since resigned under the pressure, of alleged sexual harassment and battery.

Last August, Oak Park officer Anthony Razzino filled an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against the village.

Robertson, who also represents Razzino, said at the time that “Officer Razzino made repeated complaints regarding [alleged] sexual harassment [by] Dina Vardal to his supervisors. He said Razzino’s concerns “were mocked and no corrective actions were taken.”

Razzino also alleges the retaliation is due to his status as a witness in Freelain’s lawsuit against the village, “including but not limited to, being falsely accused of misconduct.”

A second officer who is named as a witness in Freelain’s case recently had an arbitration hearing on a grievance he brought against the village, and has been named by one witness in Freelain’s case, former Oak Park Sgt. Anthony Thomas, as having been singled out by police brass.

Thomas, who served for 25 years in the department, the last 10 as a sergeant, was one of several current and former police officers who were deposed under oath last summer. Since then parts of that testimony have been released as attachments to pre-trial motions by both the Freelain and the village.

In a segment of his publicly released deposition, Thomas testified to an array of questionable practices he witnessed and/or experienced.

Thomas said he observed an Oak Park police commander lie about documents related to Freelain’s sick leave status, and also testified that he was ordered by police brass to contact officers who were out on sick leave at their homes to inquire into their status, despite those officers having been cleared for sick leave by the village’s human resources department.

Thomas testified he himself was targeted for being a “sick time abuser” after he took considerable time off to recuperate from injuries suffered in a car accident.

Asked, “Were you allowed to recuperate?” Thomas answered, “Oh, no. Things like recuperation was not, not looked on very well.”

Thomas also testified that he was ordered by superiors to change one of Freelain’s work evaluations, “in some cases to lower marks.”

“If I’m going to give an evaluation and then somebody else is going to come back and change it, then I think they should have done the evaluation,” Thomas testified.

Ast of Freelain,” Thomas replied, “Yes, I felt it was harassment only based on my own personal opinion of being felt like that I was unjustly treated the same way in some cases.”

Attorney questions responses in depositions

Attorney Robert Robertson first accused Oak Park police brass of lying under oath in an October court filing.

The allegation was a heated issue during a November court hearing, at which defense attorney Stephen Miller called Robertson’s accusations “outrageous and baseless claims of fraud and deception,” and threatened a libel suit.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Miller told Judge Manish Shah. “While discussing Sergeant Vardal’s suspension at his deposition, Chief Tanksley testified that he could not recall the duration of the suspension but allowed that the suspension could have been reduced through the grievance process.

But the single page of Tanksley’s deposition transcript Miller attached in support of his brief, page 71, is misleading. He never referred to Vardal’s suspension being reduced through appeal to one day, but rather to Miller’s own mistaken belief that the suspension Tanksley had ordered Vardal to serve was five days, not three.

On page 72 Robertson corrects Miller and Tanksley, noting the document states not five days, but three days, with five days to appeal the decision. Both Miller and Tanksley acknowledged they had misunderstood.

“Maybe the union bargained it down to three days.  I’m not sure,” Tanksley testified.

When Robertson shows Tanksley the suspension order he signed in December 2012 ordering a three-day suspension for Vardal, Tanksley answers, “So this would be three days. The suspension is for three days.”

“You got me red-handed,” Miller admitted.

The discrepancy between Tanksley and Vardal’s testimony and the actual outcome of the Freelain incident came to light after Robertson questioned Oak Park Sergeant Thomas Dransoff, who heads the Oak Park Sergeants union. In that capacity he has access to departmental disciplinary files and payroll records.

Dransoff was deposed Sept. 9, and 84 pages of transcripts were released as attachments to Freelain’s Jan. 13 filing. He testified that he was aware that Vardal had served only a one-day suspension for the Freelain incident both because Vardal had told him so, and  because he had access to her disciplinary file and other records.

“It was asked of me if I knew how much time she had taken for Rasul’s incident and I said yes, she took a day,” Dransoff testified. He said he independently verified the one-day, eight-hour length of Vardal’s suspension by checking the village’s “E-time” payroll records.

“It shows eight hours of suspension time. No pay,” Dransoff said.

Judge Shah called the discrepancy between the documents related to the resolution of Vardal’s December 2012 discipline “a legitimate concern for plaintiff to have.”

Noting that Robertson’s concern “was not properly vetted through a discussion [with Miller],” the judge added, “I haven’t ruled whether anyone is lying.”

Follow us on Twitter

Like us on Facebook

— Distrust roils Oak Park police department amid EEOC complaints —