1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT 2 FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS 3 SANGAMON COUNTY, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 4 DAWN DEFRATIES and MICHAEL J. CASEY, II, 5 Plaintiffs; 6 -vs- NO. 07 MR 288 7 ILLINOIS CIVIL SERVICE 8 COMMISSION, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE 9 AND FAMILY SERVICE, And ILLINOIS HISTORICAL 10 PRESERVATION AGENCY, 11 Defendants. 12 EXCERPT OF TRANSCRIPT HEARING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION 13 BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK W. KELLEY CIRCUIT JUDGE 14 AUGUST 8, 2007 15 APPEARANCES: 16 FOR PLAINTIFFS: MR. CARL DRAPER 1307 South Seventh Street 17 Springfield, Illinois 62703 18 FOR DEFENDANT MR. MATTHEW BILINSKY CSC: 500 South Second Street 19 Springfield, Illinois 62702 20 FOR DEFENDANTS MR. JOSEPH M. GAGLIARDO HFS & IHPA: 515 North State Street, Suite 2800 21 Chicago, Illinois 61610-4324 22 COURT REPORTER: Robin A. Adams, CSR, RPR Capitol Reporting Service 23 2021 Timberbrook Drive Springfield, Illinois 62702 24 217-787-6167 2 1 THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm ready to 2 rule. The parties in this case are seeking a writ of 3 prohibition. They do this based on two theories. 4 First, essentially, that the case overall took too 5 long, and the second theory is the one that's taken up 6 most of our time this morning -- or this afternoon, 7 and that is that the Commission failed to satisfy 8 Section 11 of the personnel code by failing to issue a 9 finding and decision within 60 days of receipt of the 10 transcript proceedings below. 11 Regarding the first theory, that overall 12 delay, I'm going to find in favor of the defendants on 13 that particular theory. The causes of the various 14 delays are somewhat murky, and I say murky enough that 15 it's clear that they're not all attributable to the 16 defendant, and so the writ of prohibition is not 17 appropriate on that basis. 18 However, on the second theory, failure to 19 issue a finding and decision within 60 days, I am 20 going to find in plaintiffs' favor. The issue here is 21 straightforward: Is the Commission's remand for 22 additional evidence a finding and decision within the 23 meaning of Section 11. The facts in this case can 24 really be described as somewhat bizarre, and even 3 1 perhaps as kafkaesque. None of the parties asked for 2 a remand. The Administrative Law Judge felt he had 3 all the evidence he needed. The Commission made no 4 finding as to why a remand was necessary, nor did they 5 specify what evidence they were asking for, just that 6 additional evidence was needed. Truly, these are the 7 actions of a mysterious and calculating bureaucracy 8 with motives we can only speculate about. The 9 Commission does have the authority to remand for 10 additional evidence under its regulations, but those 11 regulations do not and cannot expand its statutory 12 authority which is found in Section 11 with regard to 13 the timing of its decisions. If the Commission wants 14 to be able to remand and go over 60 days, it needs to 15 seek legislative amendment of Section 11 to allow it 16 to do so. 17 I specifically find that the remand for 18 additional evidence is not a, quote, finding and 19 decision, close quote, within the meaning of Section 20 11, and thus, in this case, the Commission did not 21 render a decision within 60 days of the receipt of the 22 transcript. I find that the 60-day time limit is 23 mandatory, and this can only mean that the Civil 24 Service Commission lost jurisdiction over this case. 4 1 Under the express language in Section 11, both 2 defendants are to be considered reinstated, and are to 3 receive full compensation for the period during which 4 they were suspended. Further, I find that none of the 5 defenses interposed by the defendants hold water, and 6 the plaintiffs have satisfied all elements necessary 7 for a writ of prohibition. 8 Therefore, I order that the Civil Service 9 Commission has lost jurisdiction over this case, that 10 Dawn DeFraties and Michael Casey are to be considered 11 immediately reinstated in their former positions, and 12 that they are both to be repaid for all lost pay and 13 benefits to this date. 14 I'd ask that, Mr. Draper, you prepare a 15 proposed written order consistent with this ruling, 16 and have it to me by Friday, if you would. 17 MR. DRAPER: I will. 18 THE COURT: And is there anything else? Mr. 19 Bilinsky? 20 MR. BILINSKY: Yes. Your Honor, I just 21 wanted to clarify for when we put the order together. 22 Were you finding that the failure to put findings, you 23 know, say that we want to remand it for more evidence 24 because... or is it they would never have the ability, 5 1 under your interpretation of the statute, to remand? 2 THE COURT: The second. I don't think -- I 3 think a finding and decision means a finding and 4 decision in such a manner that would, in fact, trigger 5 the Administrative Review Act. 6 MR. BILINSKY: Thank you, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Anything 8 else? 9 MR. DRAPER: I'll have that done tomorrow for 10 counsel to review, and have it to you by Friday as you 11 requested. 12 THE COURT: Okay. That would be great. I 13 just want to make sure -- 14 MR. DRAPER: I got to get the transcript. 15 THE COURT: I'll review it, and if I want to 16 make any changes to it, I will. I just want to make 17 sure that all the parties put in there what they 18 believe they're going to need, you know, if this -- in 19 the event this should be appealed. All right. 20 Anything else? 21 MR. DRAPER: None from plaintiffs, Your 22 Honor. 23 MR. BILINSKY: Nothing from -- 24 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much, 6 1 gentlemen. Everybody have a good day. 2 (End of hearing.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7 1 I, Robin A. Adams, CSR, RPR, Freelance Reporter, 2 certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript 3 from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled 4 matter. 5 6 7 ____________________________ 8 CSR License No. 084-002046 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24