Kloeppel v. Champaign County Board
No. 4-21-0091
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District
November 12, 2021
2021 IL App (4th) 210091
Illinois Official Reports
Appellate Court
Kloeppel v. Champaign County Board, 2021 IL App (4th) 210091
Appellate Court Caption: DARLENE KLOEPPEL, in Her Official Capacity as Champaign County Executive, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE CHAMPAIGN COUNTY BOARD, Defendant-Appellant.
District & No.: Fourth District; No. 4-21-0091
Filed: November 12, 2021
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County, No. 20-MR-460; the Hon. Jason M. Bohm, Judge, presiding.
Judgment: Judgment reversed.
Counsel on Appeal: Keri-Lyn J. Krafthefer and Steven D. Mahrt, of Ancel Glink, P.C., of Bloomington, for appellant.
James B. Harvey and Tammy S. Warden, of Tracy Johnson & Wilson, of Joliet, for appellee.
James W. Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (Adam Lipetz, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for amicus curiae County of Will.
OPINION
¶ 1 This appeal involves an intracounty government dispute over who holds authority
¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3 In the November 2016 general election, the Champaign County electorate voted to change the county government’s structure from a township organization under division 2-1 of article 2 of the Counties Code (
¶ 4 In June 2020, Kloeppel filed a complaint alleging the County Board chair “usurped [her] executive duties by appointing four (4) County Board Members and one (1) County Treasurer.” Kloeppel argued the County Executive Law, particularly section 2-5009(d)’s grant of power to “appoint *** persons to serve on the various boards and commissions to which appointments are provided by law to be made by the board” (
therefore, section 25-11 of the Election Code must be read in light of section 2-5009(d) of the County Executive Law to give the appointment power to the person presiding over the county board—the county executive. See
¶ 5 The County Board’s answer denied it usurped the appointment power from the
¶ 6 The litigation culminated in dueling dispositive motions: the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Following a telephonic hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement and promised the parties a written ruling.
¶ 7 The trial court’s order first addressed the procedural posture, noting that, although the parties presented different motions, neither presented a factual dispute and both sought judgment as a matter of law. Consequently, the trial court treated the parties’ filings as cross-motions for summary judgment.
¶ 8 The trial court next identified “[t]he primary statute at issue in this case [a]s
¶ 9 The trial court then evaluated the County Executive Law as a whole and considered “how [it] interacts with the Election Code.” The trial court identified two relevant provisions in the County Executive Law, namely the “explicit supersession of the election of a chairman of the board [in subsection 2-5015] and [the] requirement that a county executive preside over the board meetings.” The court concluded, “It follows that the appointment powers previously possessed by the chairman of the board would necessarily flow to the county executive after adoption of that form of government.” The trial court then concluded, “In short, when considering the County Executive Law as a whole and in context with the other statutory provisions, the ‘sensible construction’ is one that places the appointment power in the hands of the chief executive officer,” quoting Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485, 510, 877 N.E.2d 1101, 1116 (2007).
¶ 10 The trial court lastly addressed Kloeppel’s request that it declare “[t]hat the office of County Board Chairman does not exist in a County Executive form of government such as Champaign County” and enjoin the County Board from giving a member the title of County Board chair. The trial court declined Kloeppel’s request because the County Executive Law “does not prohibit use of that title.”
¶ 11 Writing in broad terms, the trial court concluded the County Executive held the “appointment power,” reasoning: “To say that Ms. Kloeppel is the County Executive, but she lacks appointment power would be to lend her the title but not the functions that the voters have given her.” The trial court ultimately “declare[d] that
¶ 12 This appeal followed.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 Defendant challenges the trial court’s order, arguing it erred in declaring the county executive holds the power to appoint persons to fill vacancies in elected county offices because the Election Code expressly states the county board chair must make those appointments. Specifically, defendant contends the trial court interpreted section 2-5009(d) “to create an inconsistency” with section 25-11 in the Election Code. Plaintiff counters by arguing the trial court reached the proper conclusion because, “when taken as a whole, the Illinois legislature granted the County Executive with appointing powers that were not limited to non-elected positions but included positions on the Champaign County Board itself.” Kloeppel specifically argues section 2-5009(d) makes “the County Executive *** the proper appointing official to fill vacancies in elected county offices, including appointments to be made to the County Board.”
¶ 15 Resolving this dispute requires statutory construction, which simply means “[t]he act or process of interpreting” or explaining the meaning of a statute. Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Since “[t]he interpretation of a statute is a matter of law, *** we review the trial court’s decision de novo” (Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon, 351 Ill. App. 3d 889, 894, 814 N.E.2d 216, 222 (2004)), meaning we owe no deference to the trial court’s interpretation or decision. “It is well established that [our] primary objective *** when construing the meaning of a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent.” Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493, 503-04, 732 N.E.2d 528, 535 (2000). We look first to the statute’s language because it is “the most reliable indicator of the legislature’s objectives in enacting a particular law.” Michigan Avenue National Bank, 191 Ill. 2d at 504. Put differently, the specific words the legislature chose to use are the best evidence of legislative intent. See Laborer’s International Union of North America, Local 1280 v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 154 Ill. App. 3d 1045, 1058, 507 N.E.2d 1200, 1209 (1987) (stating “the specific words of the statute are the best indicators of the legislative intent behind the enactment”). When interpreting a statute, we “view all provisions of an enactment as a whole,” taking care not to isolate words and phrases but reading them “in light of other relevant provisions of the statute.” Michigan Avenue National Bank, 191 Ill. 2d at 504. We give the statute’s words their plain, ordinary meanings, and if the “language is clear and unambiguous, we must apply the statute without resort to further aids of statutory construction.” Michigan Avenue National Bank, 191 Ill. 2d at 504.
¶ 16 Sometimes, as happens here, it may appear two statutes relate to the same subject, and we must consider both statutes to determine what the one challenged statute means. In other words, “[s]tatutes relating to the same subject must be compared and construed with reference to each other so that effect may be
comparing and construing related statutes, “[w]e presume the legislature *** acted rationally and with full knowledge of other statutes and judicial decisions concerning existing law.” Village of Chatham, 351 Ill. App. 3d at 895; see also Flynn v. Industrial Comm’n, 211 Ill. 2d 546, 555, 813 N.E.2d 119, 125 (2004). Consequently, we read relating statutes “harmoniously so that no provisions are rendered inoperative.” Knolls, 202 Ill. 2d at 458-59. “Even when an apparent conflict between statutes exists, they must be construed in harmony with one another if reasonably possible.” (Emphasis added.) Knolls, 202 Ill. 2d at 459. If two statutes do relate to the same subject and do conflict and cannot be read harmoniously, then the more specific statute prevails over the more general statute. To be sure, our supreme court has instructed: “It is also a fundamental rule of statutory construction that where there exists a general statutory provision and a specific statutory provision, either in the same or in another act, both relating to the same subject, the specific provision controls and should be applied.” Knolls, 202 Ill. 2d at 459.
¶ 17 It bears noting what a reviewing court must avoid during statutory construction. Indeed, knowing what a reviewing court cannot do informs our analysis concerning what we can and must do when interpreting a statute. For example, “the court may not declare that the legislature did not mean what the plain language of the statute imports.” Laborer’s International, 154 Ill. App. 3d at 1058 (“No rule of construction authorizes a court to decide that the legislature did not mean what the plain statutory language imports.”). Similarly, a reviewing court must not rewrite statutes “to make them consistent with the court’s idea of orderliness and public policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76, 92, 606 N.E.2d 1111, 1118-19 (1992). “Nor, under the guise of statutory interpretation, can we ‘correct’ an apparent legislative oversight by rewriting a statute in a manner inconsistent with its clear and unambiguous language.” People v. Pullen, 192 Ill. 2d 36, 42, 733 N.E.2d 1235, 1238 (2000).
¶ 18 Finally, we note the statute’s meaning is paramount. The county executive is “a creature of statute *** [who] possesses only those powers conferred upon it by law.” Bryant v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 473, 476, 865 N.E.2d 189, 192 (2007) (per curiam). Like other creatures of statute, the county executive holds no inherent powers. Higgins v. City of Galesburg, 401 Ill. 87, 92, 81 N.E.2d 520, 523 (1948). A county executive elected pursuant to the County Executive Law “enjoys such powers only as are expressly delegated by the General Assembly or necessarily implied to render the grant of specific powers effective.” Higgins, 401 Ill. at 92.
¶ 19 With these principles in mind, we turn to the disputed statute, section 2-5009(d) in the Counties Code (
¶ 20 A. The Statutes
¶ 21 As we see it, the two statutes at play in this case seemingly relate to the
board.”
“When a vacancy occurs in any elective county office, *** the county board or board of county commissioners shall declare that such vacancy exists and notification thereof shall be given to the county central committee or the appropriate county board or board of county commissioners district committee of each established political party within 3 days of the occurrence of the vacancy. The vacancy shall be filled within 60 days by appointment of the chair of the county board or board of county commissioners with the advice and consent of the county board or board of county commissioners. *** The appointee shall be a member of the same political party as the person he succeeds was at the time of his election and shall be otherwise eligible to serve. The appointee shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. However, if more than 28 months remain in the term, the appointment shall be until the next general election at which time the vacated office shall be filled by election for the remainder of the term. In the case of a vacancy in a seat on a county board *** which has been divided into districts under Section 2-3003 *** of the Counties Code, the appointee must also be a resident of the county board *** district.”
10 ILCS 5/25-11 (West 2020).
The County Board, understandably, relies upon this latter provision. In simplest terms, this case comes down to which statute prevails when there is a vacancy in an elected office. Does section 2-5009(d)’s mandate that the county executive “shall *** appoint, with the advice and consent of the board, persons to serve on the various boards and commissions to which appointments are provided by law to be made by the board” (
¶ 22 1. Section 2-5009(d)’s Plain Language: “Various Boards and Commissions”
¶ 23 Echoing the trial court’s determination, Kloeppel argues, “[a] plain reading of Section 2-5009(d) requires the County Executive to make appointments and the County Board to evaluate those appointments for approval or rejection.” But this argument invites the question, “appointment to what?” Kloeppel’s complaint and brief on appeal narrow the question to who holds authority to appoint persons to fill vacancies in elective county offices. Indeed, the complaint alleged the county board chair “usurped Darlene Kloeppel’s executive duties by appointing” persons to elected county offices when vacancies occurred during an unexpired
¶ 24 On its face, section 2-5009(d) applies to the county executive appointing persons to serve on “various boards and commissions.”
commissions” to include these specific offices when none of the above elected offices are a board or commission.
¶ 25 Of the elected offices in Champaign County government, only the office of county board member could possibly be swept into the phrase “various boards and commissions,” which is what Kloeppel attempts to do. But even if we could lump the county board into “various boards and commissions” (which cannot be done, as we will explain below), doing so would not allow us to broaden section 2-5009(d)’s plain language to mean that the county executive holds the power to appoint persons to fill vacancies in elective county offices, including county board vacancies. The statute’s specific words simply do not suggest such a meaning, and by extension, those specific words do not indicate the legislature intended for the county executive to make all appointments to all vacant government positions, elected or otherwise. See Laborer’s International, 154 Ill. App. 3d at 1058 (stating a statute’s specific words are best evidence of legislative intent).
¶ 26 Section 2-5009(d)’s use of “boards” does not refer to the Champaign County Board. “ ‘County board’ ” or “ ‘board’ ” is a defined term under the County Executive Law, meaning “the governing body of any county other than Cook County which has adopted the county executive form of government under this Division.”
¶ 27 By using “boards” in section 2-5009(d), did the legislature intend to include the “ ‘County board’ ” or “ ‘board’ ” within other “various boards and commissions to which appointments are provided by law to be made by the board?” See
¶ 28 We further note the legislature’s choice to modify “boards and commissions” with the adjective “various” is telling. “[V]arious” means “of an indefinite number greater than one” or “of differing kinds.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/various (last visited Oct. 30, 2021) [https://perma.cc/9SEQ-Z8DS]. The legislature used “various” twice in the County Executive Law, in section 2-5009(d)’s “various boards and commissions” and in section 2-5009(e)’s “various special districts.”
There is no such clarity in section 2-5009(d). Using the plural and modifying it with “various” seems to evidence an intent first to acknowledge administering a county government includes several boards and commissions and, second, to avoid naming the specific boards to which appointments are provided by law to be made by the board. It is a shortcut. It does not broaden or expand “boards and commissions” to include the county board or other elected county offices.
¶ 29 The best evidence of the legislature’s intent is the specific words it used. See Laborer’s International, 154 Ill. App. 3d at 1058. We do not see “various boards and commissions” in section 2-5009(d) (
¶ 30 2. Election Code’s Plain Language
¶ 31 Section 25-11 of the Election Code outlines what must happen “[w]hen a vacancy occurs in any elective county office” and provides that a “vacancy shall be filled within 60 days by appointment of the chair of the county board or board of county commissioners with the advice and consent of the county board or board of county commissioners.”
¶ 32 B. Is There a County Board Chair?
¶ 33 Kloeppel points to the County Executive Law itself as evidence the county board chair does not exist in a county executive government structure. She notes the County Executive
Law neither identifies the county board chair position nor does it outline the powers or duties associated with such a position. Consequently, she reasons the County Executive Law does not contemplate a county board chair.
¶ 34 Kloeppel directs our attention to section 2-5015 of the Counties Code, which provides:
“The adoption of the county executive form of government by any county pursuant to this Division shall supersede any plan adopted by the county board of that county pursuant to Section 2-3007, as now or hereafter amended, for the election of the chairman of the county board by the voters of the county.”
55 ILCS 5/2-5015 (West 2020).
Kloeppel and amicus argue this provision establishes the legislature’s intent that a county executive government does not include a county board chair. But we disagree. With section 2-5015, the legislature mandated that adopting a county executive government structure supersedes only one of three plans where there is a county board chair—the plan where “the chairman of the county board shall be elected by the voters of the county rather than by the members of the board.”
¶ 35 As we understand it, section 2-5015’s plain language does not evidence legislative intent there be no county board chair but merely that the county board chair will not be elected by the voters. Given that section 2-5015 provides for the county executive government to supersede only the plan where the county board chairman is elected by the voters, we cannot agree with Kloeppel and amicus that this section shows the County Executive Law contemplates the exclusion of a county board chair.
¶ 36 More importantly, though, we think Kloeppel and amicus’s argument that there is no county board chair in a county executive government structure rests on a faulty premise. Their contention presumes the County Executive Law is an independent law that solely administers this form of county government. It is not and does not. The County Executive Law’s plain language indicates it must be administered in conjunction with other laws. For example, section
2-5003(c) of the County Executive Law provides: “The board shall act as the legislative body of the county under this form of county government.”
¶ 37 Section 2-5011 is another provision in the County Executive Law that suggests it is not an independent statute. Section
¶ 38 Utilizing basic principles of statutory construction, we find the County Executive Law is not a stand-alone statute solely responsible for administering this form of county government. Instead, it outlines the means of selecting a County Executive and that person’s duties and responsibilities in general. Section 2-5009(d) specifically and the County Executive Law generally must be read and applied in conjunction with other statutes, like the Election Code. Yet, Kloeppel and amicus’s arguments presume the County Executive Law governs in all matters relating to issues that might arise under a county executive form of government. We do not find such a presumption warranted. We must consider section 2-5009(d) alongside section 25-11 when determining who holds authority to appoint persons to fill vacant elective offices.
¶ 39 C. Considering the Statutes Together as a Whole
¶ 40 1. Do the Statutes Conflict?
¶ 41 The trial court apparently found the two statutes conflicted and could not be read harmoniously because it applied the canon of statutory construction that says, when two statutes conflict, the more recent provision prevails over the older one. See Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, NA v. Envirobusiness, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 133575, ¶ 30, 22 N.E.3d 125 (stating when two statutes conflict, “the more recently enacted statute prevails over the older statute”).
Noting the more recent provisions of the County Executive Law, Kloeppel and amicus urge for the trial court’s rationale and analysis to prevail.
¶ 42 It is true the County Executive Law was enacted in 1990, while the Election Code dates back to the 1940s, but the Election Code has been more recently amended, which we find noteworthy. The General Assembly amended the County Executive Law in 2011, making an addition significant for our purposes here. The legislature amended section 2-5011, which addresses the death, resignation, or inability of the county executive to act, adding a reference to “Section 25-11 of the Election Code.”
¶ 43 Even more significant is the General Assembly’s recent change to section 25-11
¶ 44 Though we do not see a conflict between the plain language of section 2-5009(d) of the County Executive Law and section 25-11 of the Election Code, if we had to resort to the canons of statutory construction, section 25-11 would prevail because it is the specific provision. Village of Chatham, 351 Ill. App. 3d at 896 (“Where two statutes appear to be in conflict, the more specific controls over the more general.”). Section 25-11 outlines exactly what must occur when a vacancy occurs in an elective county office. The county board must declare the vacancy exists and inform the Democratic and Republican committees within three days. The county board chair, with the advice and consent of the board, then has 60 days to appoint someone to fill the vacancy. Section 25-11 also lays out the requirements for appointees—they must be eligible for the offices they are appointed to, and they must be a member of the same political party as the person who vacated the office. If the vacancy is on the county board in a county where the board members are elected from districts, then the appointee must be a resident in the district where the vacancy occurs. Section 25-11 also dictates when an appointee must stand for election. If more than 28 months remain in the term, the appointment lasts until the next general election. But if less than 28 months remain in the term, the appointee serves
the remainder of the term. These specific instructions for filling a vacancy in an elected office stand in stark contrast to section 2-5009(d)’s general provision about appointing “persons to serve on the various boards and commissions to which appointments are provided by law to be made by the board.”
¶ 45 We pause here to make two observations, one relating to Kloeppel’s argument specifically and one relating to the law generally. First, as we see it, Kloeppel’s view, that section 2-5009(d) gives her all appointment powers in county government and that section 25-11 must be read in light of section 2-5009(d), requires us to make a series of presumptions or oversights that we should not and cannot make. Kloeppel’s argument initially requires us to lump the defined, specific term, “County Board,” into the undefined, broad phrase, “various boards and commissions.” We must next presume “various boards and commissions” includes other elected offices likes treasurer, auditor, or recorder, etc. Kloeppel’s view then requires us to presume the General Assembly
¶ 46 Second, we note our supreme court’s view of the Election Code. The Illinois Supreme Court, albeit in a different context and without citation to authority, said the Election Code “supersedes other statutes on the same subjects.” United Citizens of Chicago & Illinois v. Coalition to Let the People Decide in 1989, 125 Ill. 2d 332, 339, 531 N.E.2d 802, 805 (1988) (“Since the Election Code provides for uniformity in elections and supersedes other statutes on the same subjects, this court must interpret the pertinent sections of the Illinois Municipal Code to harmonize with it.”). Because of the differences between this case and United Citizens we are not applying this principle here; we simply observe that our supreme court has
previously found the Election Code to prevail over other statutes and find that to be sound reasoning.
¶ 47 Based on the foregoing, we find an argument that the County Executive Law must prevail because it was enacted more recently too simplistic, especially when the Election Code is the more specific provision and when the two statutes can be read together without conflict.
¶ 48 2. A Harmonious Reading
¶ 49 Considering the County Executive Law and the Election Code together,
¶ 50 3. A Coda
¶ 51 Recall the precise question before us: Does section 2-5009(d)’s mandate that the county executive “shall *** appoint, with the advice and consent of the board, persons to serve on the various boards and commissions to which appointments are provided by law to be made by the board,” (
¶ 52 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 53 For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the Champaign County circuit court and grant summary judgment in favor of defendant, the County Board.
¶ 54 Judgment reversed.