In re Appointment of Special State's Attorney, 2020 IL App (2d) 190845

Frank Haney, elected Winnebago County Board chairman in 2016, claimed the County Board adopted ordinances (notably Ordinance 2019 CO 40) and practices that stripped or limited his duties and ability to participate in floor discussion and debate.
Winnebago County State’s Attorney Marilyn Hite Ross issued a memorandum concluding the chairman, as a nonmember, generally may only facilitate debate and recognized speakers, and later refused Haney’s request to file a declaratory action challenging the ordinance.
Haney petitioned the trial court under 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-10) to appoint a special prosecutor to represent him because the State’s Attorney would not sue the County Board on his behalf.
The State’s Attorney moved to dismiss under section 2-615; the trial court denied dismissal, concluded Haney had a colorable vested-rights claim, and appointed Haney’s chosen special prosecutor (limited to ordinance claims).
The State’s Attorney appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding Haney’s claims were not colorable and the trial court abused its discretion in appointing a special prosecutor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Haney)	Defendant's Argument (State's Attorney)	Held
Whether Haney had a colorable vested-rights claim preventing the County Board from reducing the chairman's duties by ordinance	Haney: duties in effect at election are vested; ordinance unlawfully stripped executive powers	Ross: county boards may alter non-statutory duties; only state law/statute limits changes; no vested-rights protection here	Held: No colorable vested-rights claim; county may modify nonstatutory duties (reversal)
Whether County Board could prohibit or limit Haney’s participation in discussion/debate at meetings	Haney: as presiding officer and potential tie-breaker he must be allowed to debate and ask questions; First Amendment/political-speech concerns	Ross: chairman is a nonmember under county code; the chairman’s role is to facilitate debate and recognize speakers; he has rights like the public	Held: Not a colorable legal claim; debate participation is a political/procedural issue, not a legal basis for appointing special prosecutor
Whether the trial court erred in denying the 2‑615 motion and appointing a special prosecutor under 55 ILCS 5/3‑9008(a‑10)	Haney: SA’s refusal to sue created an actual conflict and justifies appointment of special counsel	Ross: appointment requires an actual conflict shown by a colorable claim; none exists here	Held: Trial court erred; no actual conflict because no colorable claims; appointment was an abuse of discretion

Suburban Cook County Regional Office of Education v. Cook County Board, 282 Ill. App. 3d 560 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (state’s refusal to represent an elected official may justify appointment of private counsel when an unreconcilable conflict exists and the official has a colorable claim)
Dunne v. Cook County, 164 Ill. App. 3d 929 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (ordinances removing appointment/removal powers invalid where preempted by state statute; distinguished)
Blanchard v. Berrios, 2016 IL 120315 (Ill. 2016) (county ordinance can modify common-law powers of county officers subject to state law)
Tully v. Edgar, 286 Ill. App. 3d 838 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (challenging statute that terminated elected terms; inapposite where official not removed midterm)
East St. Louis Federation of Teachers v. East St. Louis School Dist. No. 189 Financial Oversight Panel, 178 Ill. 2d 399 (Ill. 1997) (statutes preexisting election can affect tenure; distinguished)
Environmental Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Board, 69 Ill. 2d 394 (Ill. 1977) (interpreting when a public prosecutor is ‘interested’ in a dispute)
People ex rel. Sklodowski v. Illinois, 162 Ill. 2d 117 (Ill. 1994) (appointing special counsel to avoid the taint of perceived conflict)
In re Vrdolyak, 137 Ill. 2d 407 (Ill. 1990) (professional responsibility rules apply to lawyers acting in official capacity)