Blanchard v. Berrios
72 N.E.3d 309
| Ill. | 2016Background
- In 2007 Cook County adopted an ordinance creating an Office of the Independent Inspector General (IG) to investigate corruption, fraud, waste, mismanagement, unlawful political discrimination, and misconduct in county government, including separately elected county officials.
- The IG may request information, interview witnesses under oath, and issue subpoenas enforceable in Cook County Circuit Court. County officers must cooperate; obstructing investigations is an ordinance violation.
- The IG investigated two homeowner’s exemptions granted to an Assessor’s office employee and requested documents; the Assessor refused, directing the IG to use FOIA instead.
- The IG served subpoenas for the requested records and the employee’s personnel file; the Assessor objected, arguing the IG lacked authority to subpoena an elected county officer and that FOIA was the exclusive means to obtain the materials.
- The IG sued for a declaratory judgment and to compel compliance. The trial court granted summary judgment for the IG; the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (IG) | Defendant's Argument (Berrios) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cook County’s IG Ordinance is a valid exercise of county (home rule) authority to require elected county officers to cooperate with IG investigations and to comply with IG subpoenas | Ordinance is a proper exercise of home rule power to protect local government integrity; Cook County may impose additional duties by ordinance under art. VII §4(d) and §6(a) | Board exceeded constitutional authority; ordinance improperly subjects Assessor and his supervision of office to oversight and subpoenas, intruding on State or exclusive functions | Valid. Ordinance is within home rule power; Assessor must comply |
| Whether an elected county officer’s common-law supervisory powers prohibit ordinance-based oversight or subpoena power | Section 4(d) allows duties/powers from law or county ordinance; county may alter common-law duties by ordinance | Historical/common-law office powers (per Walsh) cannot be eliminated by local ordinance | Section 4(d) permits alteration by ordinance; Walsh’s rule was modified by the 1970 Constitution, so ordinance may impose duties |
| Whether the IG’s subpoena power is impermissible because IG is not a law enforcement officer or only the legislature/state can grant subpoena power | Home rule units have broad authority; county can grant subpoena power to IG similar to legislature granting power to state agencies | Subpoena power for elected officials must come from legislature/state; IG is not a law enforcement officer | Valid. Home rule allows Cook County to grant subpoena power to IG; IG need not be law enforcement to issue subpoenas |
| Whether the Assessor is a separate unit (not subject to county home rule) such that the ordinance cannot apply to his office | IG: Assessor’s office is part of Cook County government; elected status doesn’t remove it from county governance and affairs | Assessor: as an independently elected officer, his office is separate from county and not subject to county ordinances affecting its operation | Assessor’s office is part of Cook County for purposes of home rule; ordinance applies |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Walsh v. Board of Commissioners, 397 Ill. 293 (1947) (recognized historical/common-law powers of county officers)
- Chicago Bar Ass’n v. County of Cook, 102 Ill. 2d 438 (1984) (county ordinance altering tax-assessment procedures exceeded home rule where subject did not pertain to county affairs)
- City of Evanston v. Create, Inc., 85 Ill. 2d 101 (1981) (scope of home rule police power and local regulation for public welfare)
- Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 103 Ill. 2d 483 (1984) (analysis for whether an issue pertains to local or statewide concerns)
- Oak Park Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Village of Oak Park, 54 Ill. 2d 200 (1973) (constitutional provisions must be harmonized; give meaning to every clause)
- Moy v. County of Cook, 159 Ill. 2d 519 (1994) (distinguishing elected officers from employees for indemnification/respondeat superior contexts)
- Carver v. Sheriff of La Salle County, 203 Ill. 2d 497 (2003) (employment/status analysis under Tort Immunity Act contexts)