Jaros v. Village of Downers Grove
99 N.E.3d 41
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jaros was appointed in August 2015 to a six-year term on the Downers Grove Public Library Board under the Illinois Local Library Act; the Village council later adopted an ordinance (Downers Grove Mun. Code § 2.53.1(d)) authorizing the council to remove members it appoints.
- Jaros sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to block a scheduled council vote to remove him; the trial court denied injunctive relief as premature and the council removed him by resolution that evening.
- Jaros filed an amended complaint; counts at issue here were Count IV (declaratory judgment that § 2.53.1(d) exceeded the Village’s home-rule power) and Count V (injunctive relief halting his removal).
- Jaros argued (1) the library is a separate unit of government so the Village may not remove trustees under home-rule authority, (2) section 6(f) of the Illinois Constitution required a referendum to alter terms of office, and (3) Village ordinance § 2.53.1(b) meant the Library Act’s vacancy provision (75 ILCS 5/4-4) controlled removal.
- The trial court denied the injunction, concluded § 2.53.1(d) was within home-rule powers, and entered a Rule 304(a) finding allowing an immediate appeal of the declaratory aspect; Jaros appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Jaros’ Argument | Village’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Village ordinance § 2.53.1(d) conflicts with Library Act § 4-4 and thus cannot be used to remove a trustee | § 4-4 governs removal/vacancies so statutory vacancies control and limit municipal discretionary removal under § 2.53.1(b) | § 4-4 lists circumstances that must create vacancies; it does not preclude discretionary municipal removal | Court: § 4-4 does not limit discretionary removal; § 2.53.1(d) valid as to removal authority |
| Whether § 2.53.1(d) exceeds home-rule powers under Art. VII, § 6(a) (must pertain to government and affairs) | Library is an independent local unit; Village cannot exercise home-rule control over composition of a separate entity | Control over local library governance is a local matter; no statute expressly preempts home-rule authority here | Court: Removing trustees pertains to Village government and affairs; home-rule power applies |
| Whether Art. VII, § 6(f) (referendum requirement for altering form of government or officers) required referendum to permit removal power | Truncating a statutorily prescribed six-year trustee term alters form of government/terms of officers and thus needs referendum | Library trustees are not officers in the sense of the municipal form of government; § 6(f) does not apply | Court: § 6(f) not implicated; trustees are not officers within § 6(f) and no referendum required |
| Whether Jaros showed likelihood of success (preliminary injunction prerequisites) | Jaros asserted liberty/property interest and irreparable harm from removal | Village argued no likelihood of success because ordinance and home-rule power valid; statutory text does not preempt | Court: Jaros failed to show likelihood of success; injunction denied and declaratory judgment upholding § 2.53.1(d) affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schillerstrom Homes, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 198 Ill. 2d 281 (Ill. 2001) (framework for evaluating home-rule authority over local matters)
- City of Rockford v. Gill, 75 Ill. 2d 334 (Ill. 1979) (home-rule scope vs. legislative preemption; local control presumed unless legislature expressly limits)
- Pechous v. Slawko, 64 Ill. 2d 576 (Ill. 1976) (ordinance impermissibly altered municipal form of government by shifting executive appointment/removal power)
- Paglini v. Police Board, 61 Ill. 2d 233 (Ill. 1975) (distinguishing ‘officers’ in § 6(f); not every local appointee is an officer requiring referendum)
- Board of Education School District No. 150 v. City of Peoria, 76 Ill. 2d 469 (Ill. 1979) (home-rule measures invalid when they conflict with areas where legislature retains plenary power, e.g., public schools)
- Kotte v. Normal Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 269 Ill. App. 3d 517 (Ill. App. 1995) (ordinance did not alter form of government; transferring certain appointment powers did not trigger referendum)
- Universal Outdoor, Inc. v. Village of Elk Grove, 194 Ill. App. 3d 303 (Ill. App. 1990) (mere implication in statute insufficient to limit home-rule authority)