Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Illinois Supreme Court sides with disciplined deputies over Merit Board validity, could cost “millions”

Posted in:

Illinois

Defendant, Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County (Sheriff), instituted employment disciplinary proceedings against plaintiffs, Matthew Goral, Kevin Badon, Michael Mendez, Milan Stojkovic, David Evans III, Frank Donis, and Lashon Shaffer, who were employed as officers for the Sheriff. The disciplinary charges against plaintiffs were filed with the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board (Merit Board) pursuant to section 3-7011 of the Counties Code (Code). Plaintiffs filed motions with the Merit Board to dismiss the disciplinary charges against them. While the administrative proceedings were pending, plaintiffs filed an action in the circuit court of Cook County for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against the Sheriff, Cook County, the Merit Board, and Toni Preckwinkle, president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners (collectively, defendants). In that lawsuit, plaintiffs asserted that the Merit Board was not legally constituted because several of its members had been appointed to and/or served terms that did not comply with the statutory requirements set forth in section 3-7002 of the Code.

On defendants’ motions, the circuit court of Cook County dismissed plaintiffs’ action on the ground that they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The appellate court reversed in part, holding inter alia that, since plaintiffs had challenged the authority of the Merit Board to address the charges, the “authority” exception to the exhaustion requirement applied. We allowed defendants’ petition for leave to appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. […]

Defendants next contend that allowing widespread exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine would thwart the legislative intent of consigning certain disputes to agency specialists and would create “unworkable chaos” at the Merit Board. Defendants maintain that the decision by the appellate court imposes fact-finding burdens on the circuit courts that “fly in the face” of legislation about the role of courts in reviewing agency actions. According to defendants, the result reached by the appellate court would subject administrative agencies throughout Illinois to a wave of declaratory or injunctive lawsuits based on interlocutory procedural challenges to individual agency hearing officers. Defendants further contend that allowing plaintiffs to “skip over” administrative processes by filing claims in the circuit court is the opposite of judicial economy and efficiency. We do not agree. […]

Specifically, Rule 3.1 provides that “[a] lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” We are confident that the bar will adhere to that proscription. Thus, there are adequate safeguards in place to protect against the chaos that defendants allege.

The 4-3 majority apparently didn’t consider Darren Bailey’s example.

* Sun-Times…

A narrowly decided state supreme court ruling Thursday could potentially leave Cook County taxpayers on the hook for millions in backpay for sheriff’s officers who were suspended while facing disciplinary proceedings. […]

The sheriff’s office bemoaned the decision, saying it will significantly increase the time it takes to discipline an officer for misconduct and make it more difficult to fire bad officers.

“Today’s Illinois Supreme Court decision is a catastrophic blow to law enforcement accountability,” sheriff’s office spokesman Matthew Walberg said in an emailed statement. “The decision rewards employees who engaged in criminal, unethical and despicable conduct at the expense of Illinois taxpayers.”

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 23, 20 @ 10:47 am

Comments

More ammo against Kilbride?

Comment by Oldtimer Friday, Oct 23, 20 @ 10:58 am
==“Today’s Illinois Supreme Court decision is a catastrophic blow to law enforcement accountability,” sheriff’s office spokesman Matthew Walberg said in an emailed statement. “The decision rewards employees who engaged in criminal, unethical and despicable conduct at the expense of Illinois taxpayers.”==

The sheriff maded a good point.

Comment by M Friday, Oct 23, 20 @ 11:18 am
Those dang pesky rules and laws. How are we supposed to get anything done, if we have to follow them? /S

Comment by Bruce( no not him) Friday, Oct 23, 20 @ 11:20 am
Cops, protected by the law, but not bound to it. The rest of us, bound to the law, but not protected by it. It’s a great day to be a corrupt cop.

Comment by J. Edgar Friday, Oct 23, 20 @ 11:23 am
J. Edgar - cheers. You nailed it.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Friday, Oct 23, 20 @ 11:40 am
I stand with the unionized staff

Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Oct 23, 20 @ 11:41 am
This is nothing more than the Sheriff screwing up big time what is a pretty simple process: appointing Merit Board members properly and in accordance with the law at the time. Dart tried to get cute with his appointment because he didn’t like the way the law was written as opposed to just complying until he could get it changed. That Dart continued to bring cases before the Merit Board after he had been made aware there were issues with its constitution is what is extra damnable here. This could get real expensive for Cook County taxpayers. This story is not done.

Comment by Original Rambler Friday, Oct 23, 20 @ 11:49 am
It’s so fashionable to deny police officers any due process these days; these deputies were denied their disciplinary due process by an illegally constituted Merit Board, therefore any action taken by the Board was null and void in the first place. (Op. at para. 1). ILSUPCT’s ruling is in line with well-established case law holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when the remedy would in fact be a legal nullity by (paras. 41, 45). Pity the taxpayer will be paying for Sheriff Dart’s massive political failure, not him personally for acting illegally.

Comment by thisjustinagain Friday, Oct 23, 20 @ 12:19 pm
Sheriff: “The deputies should have appealed my decision to the Board, instead of going staight to court.”

Deputies: “There was no legally constituted board for us to appeal to.”

Supreme Court: “They have a good point.”

Am I missing anything? Dart is arguing in favor of a Catch-22 and against judicial oversight.

The real question is, who messed up the Merit Board appointments?

Comment by Thomas Paine Friday, Oct 23, 20 @ 12:36 pm