The Veterans Assistance Commission of Grundy County, Illinois v. The County Board of Grundy County
2015 IL App (3d) 130969
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- In 1999 local veterans organizations formed the Veterans Assistance Commission of Grundy County (VAC 1); the county board formally "recognized" it in 2002. Elton Monson was superintendent.
- In December 2011 six post commanders organized a separate commission (VAC 2); the county board adopted a resolution recognizing VAC 2 and repealing the 2002 recognition. VAC 2 elected Kenneth Buck superintendent.
- VAC 1 had bylaws requiring delegates/alternates to submit DD-214s and allowing termination of membership after absences; VAC 2’s bylaws required only national/state recognition of member organizations and did not require DD-214s.
- Litigation: VAC 1 and Monson sued for declaratory relief; respondents counterclaimed and obtained an injunction preventing Monson from using the county-funded VAC office. This court reversed and remanded to determine whether either body met the statutory requirements of the Veterans Assistance Act.
- On remand the trial court found VAC 1 had extinguished its legal status by excluding delegates and recognized VAC 2 as the county VAC. The appellate court held neither VAC 1 nor VAC 2 satisfied section 9’s requirement that a VAC be composed of one delegate and one alternate from each duly-recognized post, and therefore no valid VAC existed.
- The trial court had appointed special counsel for VAC 1; the appellate court vacated that appointment and ordered VAC 1/Monson to reimburse the county for fees, remanding to calculate amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Monson/VAC 1) | Defendant's Argument (County/VAC 2) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of VAC 1 under the Veterans Act §9 | VAC 1 remained a valid commission; its bylaws (DD-214 requirement, absentee rule) are enforceable | VAC 1 excluded delegates and arbitrarily enforced bylaws, thus forfeiting statutory status | VAC 1 invalid: its exclusionary DD-214 practice and conduct removed it from statutory scheme |
| Validity of VAC 2 under §9 | VAC 2 is a reorganized, operative VAC and county may recognize it | VAC 2 lacked delegates/alternates from each county post and so is not a statutory VAC | VAC 2 invalid: had only 8 participating posts of 11–12; §9 requires one delegate and alternate from each post |
| Whether county board could "recognize" or reorganize VAC and fund it | Monson: board lacked authority to create/destroy VAC; recognition had no effect | County: board acted within legislative authority to withdraw recognition because original VAC malfeasance | Court: board’s 2011 resolution had no dispositive legal effect; statutory formation governs—board cannot create a separate statutory VAC in place of a properly organized VAC |
| Appointment/payment of special assistant State’s Attorney/special counsel | VAC 1 requested court appointment of special assistant to represent VAC 1; argued need for representation | County argued State’s Attorney not required to represent VAC 1 and county not obligated to pay private counsel (citing Hazen/Makowicz) | Appointment vacated; county not obligated to fund VAC 1’s counsel; VAC 1/Monson must reimburse county for fees paid; remand to calculate amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Hazen v. County of Peoria, 138 Ill. App. 3d 836 (1985) (State's Attorney not required to represent VAC; county not obligated to pay private counsel retained by VAC)
- Makowicz v. County of Macon, 78 Ill. 2d 308 (1980) (employees/agents of a properly constituted VAC are employees of the VAC, not of the county)
- In re B.L.S., 202 Ill. 2d 510 (2002) (statutory language that is clear and unambiguous controls interpretation)
- Croissant v. Joliet Park District, 141 Ill. 2d 449 (1990) (statutes should be construed to avoid absurd or unjust results)