Village of North Riverside v. Boron, 2016 IL App (1st) 152687

Village of North Riverside failed to make full actuarial contributions to its police (2008–2012) and firefighter (2009–2012) pension funds; Illinois Department of Insurance’s Public Pension Division held a hearing and found noncompliance.
At the administrative hearing, the Village conceded shortfalls but argued the 2009 recession, lost sales-tax producer (15% of sales tax), decreased property assessments, reduced state shared revenues, and credit downgrades prevented contributions.
Evidence showed sales tax revenue rose overall from 2000–2012 (after tax hikes), the Village subsidized services instead of raising resident charges, and it fully funded the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (which had enforcement mechanisms).
Record revealed multiple prior years (2000–2011) where the Village made no police/fire pension contributions or underpaid, indicating long-standing allocation choices predating the recession.
The administrative hearing officer recommended denying the Village’s “good and sufficient cause” defense; the Director adopted the recommendation. The circuit court affirmed; the Appellate Court affirmed the administrative and circuit rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 50 Ill. Adm. Code § 4435.80 (defining “good and sufficient cause”) is unconstitutionally vague	Regulation is too open‑ended, grants excessive discretion to hearing officers, and fails APA precision requirements	Regulation gives workable, broad relevancy standards and benefits municipalities by allowing many potential defenses	Regulation is not unconstitutionally vague; it provides sufficient guidance and does not produce arbitrary results
Whether the agency applied an overly restrictive or incomplete evidentiary standard	Agency ignored or failed to consider relevant Village evidence, producing an arbitrary decision	Agency issued a detailed 102‑finding order addressing the Village’s evidence and did not exclude proffered theories	No error; record shows the agency considered the evidence and explained findings
Whether the Village showed “good and sufficient cause” excusing pension underfunding	Recession, lost major sales‑tax payer, decreased property/state revenues, and credit deterioration made contributions impossible	Village made discretionary allocation choices, subsidized services, and funded other pension obligations when enforcement existed; many violations predated recession	Not clearly erroneous to find Village failed to meet its burden; agency reasonably concluded Village’s choices—many predating recession—did not constitute good cause

People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 231 Ill. 2d 370 (2008) (standard for de novo review of statutory and constitutional questions)
City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191 (1998) (standard for reviewing mixed questions of law and fact in administrative decisions)
Ikpoh v. Department of Professional Regulation, 338 Ill. App. 3d 918 (2003) (deference to agency expertise where regulation affords broad relevancy standards)
General Motors Corp. v. Illinois State Motor Vehicle Review Board, 224 Ill. 2d 1 (2007) (vagueness analysis—statute must be explicit enough to guide those who must comply)
American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 31 v. State, 2015 IL App (1st) 133454 (2015) (discusses de novo review for legal questions before administrative agencies)