2014 IL App (4th) 130286
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- In Illinois, county treasurers receive an annual stipend of $6,500 as part of their salary under 55 ILCS 5/3-10007.
- Treasurers’ terms begin December 1; a new term started December 1, 2010.
- The Illinois Counties Code requires payment of the stipends; the Association alleged 2010 payments were $4,196 and 2011 payments were reduced further.
- The Association claimed the General Assembly had appropriated funds, but defendants reduced or delayed stipend payments in violation of the Illinois Constitution art. VII, §9(b).
- The Association sought declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus to require full stipend payments, including for 2010 and subsequent years.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding the claim barred by separation of powers; the Association appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appropriation shortfalls violated the constitution and state law | Association contends funds were appropriated and could fund stipends; reductions violated art. VII, §9(b). | Hamer/Topinka argue funds were insufficient for all obligations and separations of powers prevented court-directed payments. | Insufficient appropriations violated art. VII, §9(b) for certain terms; some treasurers may be entitled to full stipends. |
| Whether the court can compel payment without a specific appropriation | Jorgensen/Antle permit coercive payment when commanded by statute or constitution, even without explicit appropriation. | Code and constitutional scheme require legislative appropriation for disbursements; courts cannot order without appropriation. | Judicial power may compel payment to satisfy constitutional requirements; for some treasurers, payment may be compelled; not for all, depending on term dates. |
| Whether the sovereign-immunity/officer-suit exception applies | County treasurers sue to enforce conformance with constitution/law; officer-suit exception applies to permit mandamus. | State sovereign immunity bars such suits absent statutory exceptions. | Officer-suit exception applies; the case should not be dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, 211 Ill. 2d 286 (Ill. 2004) (courts may compel payment without appropriation when required by constitution)
- Antle v. Tuchbreiter, 414 Ill. 571 (Ill. 1953) (court authority to compel payments categorically commanded by statute or constitution)
- Millner v. Russel, 311 Ill. 96 (Sup. Ct. Ill. 1924) (appropriation not an open pledge; funds require explicit appropriation)
- Donnewald v. Board, 107 Ill. 2d 183 (Ill. 1985) (appropriations required to fund statutory salaries; board cannot override funding)
- Burris, 118 Ill. 2d 465 (Ill. 1987) (legislature and governor intended reductions; comptroller may not override without appropriation)
- Russell v. Blagojevich, 367 Ill. App. 3d 530 (Ill. App. 2006) (distinguishes cases where no constitutional prohibition exists on salary diminution)