Howe v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund
2013 IL App (1st) 122446
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Patrick J. Howe, a longtime Chicago Fire Department managerial employee, self-dispatched to assist at a CTA incident on Feb 25, 2002, injured his right shoulder jumping a turnstile, later undergoing multiple surgeries and applying for a duty disability pension.
- Howe filed for a duty disability benefit; an administrative hearing was held March 16, 2011, after which the Board recessed to closed session and reconvened.
- A motion to grant Howe benefits was made and lost by a 2–5 vote; the Board did not thereafter adopt any motion (by affirmative majority vote) disposing of the application in open session.
- The Board issued a written decision dated March 16, 2011, signed by the five members who voted no, and mailed it April 4, 2011; Howe filed for administrative review challenging the denial on the merits but not the Board’s procedure.
- The circuit court affirmed on the merits; on appeal the court considered whether the Board took valid final action consistent with the Open Meetings Act and Pension Code voting requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board took valid final action when it voted down a motion to grant but never adopted a written denial by an affirmative majority vote in open session | Howe contended the Board polled members in open session and effectively denied benefits; he did not challenge the Board’s procedure below | Board argued the negative vote on the motion to grant, plus signatures on the written decision, amounted to final action and no further public roll-call was required | The court held the Board did not take valid final action: a public affirmative vote on a specific written decision is required under the Open Meetings Act and Pension Code |
| Whether circulating and signing a written decision outside an open vote satisfies Open Meetings Act requirements | Implied that the written decision and signatures were sufficient | Board argued circulation/signatures and subsequent public availability satisfy requirements and voting disclosure not required | The court rejected this: secret or post-hoc signature-gathering cannot substitute for a public vote; final action must be taken openly |
| Whether the board’s failure to announce statutory basis for closed session or follow formalities cured the procedural defects | Howe did not press Open Meetings Act issue below | Board suggested its procedures follow accepted practices and that any technical defects were immaterial | Court found multiple procedural defects (including failing to state exemption for closed session and failing to adopt the written decision by vote) undermined validity of decision |
| Effect of Open Meetings Act limitations period on raising procedural challenge after appeal filed | Howe argued only merits; Board and Howe suggested delay made challenge untimely | Board implied challenge was waived or time-barred | Court held the 60-day limitation for standalone Open Meetings Act suits does not bar raising procedural defects in administrative-review appeals; issue remains cognizable |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Broadview v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 402 Ill. App. 3d 503 (noting scope of review under Administrative Review Law)
- WSDR, Inc. v. Ogle County, 100 Ill. App. 3d 1008 (secret ballots by public bodies violate the Open Meetings Act)
- Rock v. Thompson, 85 Ill. 2d 410 (remanding to agency when procedures require starting over; court: do it right)