*1
Defendant next
v.
People Spencer,
contends
314 Ill. App. 3d
(2000),
III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, hold the we trial court erred in dismissing charge against defendant. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent opinion. with this
Reversed and remanded. TURNER, JJ.,
STEIGMANN and concur. LYON, MARK v. Plaintiff-Appellee, THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN al., FAMILY Defendants-Appellants.
AND SERVICES et Fourth District No. 4—01—0760 Argued July Opinion Rehearing filed November denied January 7, 2003. *2 MYERSCOUGH,J., dissenting. (Joel General, Ryan, Attorney James E. Chicago Bertocchi, D. Solicitor
General, (argued), Attorney General, counsel), and Brian F. Barov Assistant appellants. Ralph Loewenstein, Smith, (argued), Hagen P.C., H. Loewenstein & Springfield, for appellee. *3 opinion
JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the of the court: Family of Children and Services (Department) register recorded in its plaintiff, Lyon, sexually central that Mark had (West 2000). molested a Lyon minor. See ILCS requested the 5/7.7 registry, remove the record from the and when the refused, he an filed administrative See 325 ILCS appeal. (West 2000). evidentiary After an an 5/7.16 judge a issued recommended decision upholding Department’s initial decision not to remove the record.
The Department’s decision, adopted Director the recommended review, filed Lyon naming Depart- an action for administrative ment, Director, and judge administrative law as defendants. See 325 (West (West 2000). 2000); ILCS 735 ILCS circuit 5/7.16 5/3 —103 ground court reversed the Director’s decision on the Department’s untimely production during of documents the adminis- proceedings process. ap- deprived trative had of due Defendants peal. disagree judg- with the its We circuit court’s rationale but affirm ment.
I. BACKGROUND Act Neglected Reporting Child of the Abused Section 7.7 2000)) (West (Act) requires ILCS 5/7.7 or child abuse suspected “a all cases maintain central alleged child abuse or report as it receives a As soon neglect.” (service unit service regional protective child neglect, unit) 325 ILCS register. to the central copy a of it must transmit 2000). (West report, receiving the after Within 5/7.10 “ or report is ‘indicated’ whether must determine service unit ” 2000). (West begin If impossible it is ‘unfounded.’ 325 ILCS 5/7.12 may unit days, the service within 60 investigation or an complete ’ “ been ‘undetermined!!,] every effort has provided report deem the (West investigation.” 325 ILCS complete undertake a made to 2000). 5/7.12 may period in such extend the which “The periods in individual cases for additional determinations be made must (West ILCS good each for cause shown.” 325 up to 5/7.12 2000). investigation “if determines that cred
A an report is or 325 ILCS alleged neglect ible abuse exists.” evidence 5/3 (West 2000). A if “it determined after an report is “unfounded” is neglect no credible evidence of abuse or exists.” investigation that (West 2000). pos if “it not A “undetermined” report ILCS is 5/3 informa investigation on the basis of complete sible to initiate or an (West 2000). The Act 325 ILCS provided Department.” tion 5/3 regulation A says: define “credible evidence.” does not the term “ the avail neglect’ ‘Credible evidence of child abuse or means facts[,] circumstances!!,] surrounding light able when viewed child person to believe that a was abused or would cause reasonable (Conway Greene CD-ROM neglected.” 89 Ill. Adm. Code 300.20 2002). June report, unit “shall make an initial receiving
When the service report determination whether is investigation and initial 325 ILCS good[-]faith alleged neglect.” child abuse or indication (West 2000). 5/7.4(b)(2) good-faith If indication of abuse report is formal to decide neglect, begin unit the service will 5/7.4(b)(3) 325 ILCS is indicated or unfounded. whether (West 2000). direct, in-person contact with the have
“Investigative staff shall victim, and the child’s caretaker alleged alleged perpetrator, child *4 received,” unless the report within of the date the seven 300.110(c) (Conway § Greene person 89 Ill. Adm. Code is inaccessible. 2002). Department may make collateral contacts CD-ROM June “The reporter the persons subjects report than the or with other obtain further information regarding suspected child abuse or 300.110(e) neglect.” § 89 Ill. Adm. (Conway Code Greene CD-ROM 2002). In deciding June contacts,” whether to make “collateral the (1) (2) Department will the weigh allegations in the report, the sever (3) incident, of ity and the likelihood that the collateral contact 300.110(e)(1) will have relevant § information. 89 Ill. Adm. Code (e)(3) 2002). through (Conway Greene CD-ROM June When the service investigation, unit finishes its formal it must report its finding i.e., “forthwith” to the register, central of (West 2000). “indicated” or “unfounded.” 325 ILCS The 5/7.12 Department superintendents must transmit to district school informa regarding any employee tion school whom the has perpetrator found to be a in report. an indicated 89 Ill. Adm. Code 300.140(b) 2002). § (Conway Greene subject CD-ROM June If the report employee, is school superintendent notify school must Education, board, State Board of the school and the chief administrative officer of the employee school that the been “has named (West in perpetrator as an report.” indicated 105 ILCS 5/10—21.4 2000). Department’s regulation provides: further “(b) will transmit to superinten- district school private
dents Illinois school administrators information regarding any persons employed to be known a school or who frequent otherwise come into contact with children in schoolwho are determined to be perpetrators reports of indicated of child neglect. abuse and
(c) Department regional superintendents will transmit to Superintendent the State person of Education information that a known be holder a certificate issued State Board Education has perpetrator been named as a report an indicated (c) neglect.” 300.140(b), §§ of child abuse or Ill. 2002). Adm. Code (Conway CD-ROM Greene June
If perpetrator requests an expungement of the indicated record or notify will so the district regional school superintendents Superintendent and the State 300.140(d) Education. 89 Ill. Adm. Code (Conway Greene CD-ROM 2002). June
Within 60 after “subject notifies the of a “subject” that it report” completed investigation, “may has its request to amend the remove the record or record (West 2000). register.” from “Subject 325 ILCS 5/7.16 report” neglected of a means the child or either who was abused report.” in the 325 ILCS “person responsible who is also named (West 2000). 5/3 *5 record, the expunge to a request declines a
If Department the the begin “To two-step appeal. for a provide regulations Department writing that the in subject request the shall process!,] 336.40(c) (Conway § Greene Code Adm. review its decision.” 2002). file, Department reviewing the the If, after June CD-ROM a will issue record, Department the the again expunge declines can hearing, subject the and right notice of to an administrative Ill. Adm. Code in that notice. 89 hearing a accordance with request 2002). § Greene CD-ROMJune (Conway 336.80 a subject’s request expunge disregards If the Department the subject “the shall have the days, record or does not act within the record to determine whether hearing to a within the that it is grounds removed on the report should be amended or inconsistent with being maintained in a manner inaccurate or it is 2000). (West hearing be held ILCS “Such shall [the] Act.” 325 5/7.16 ILCS subject’s request ***.” 325 within a reasonable time after 2000). (West law the chief administrative regulation requires A 5/7.16 *** days judge hearing at a date within 70 calendar to “schedule request of an administra receipt appellant’s after the date of for 336.110(a)(1) (Conway § 89 Ill. Adm. Code Greene CD- hearing.” tive 2002). ROM June provides:
The Act accuracy hearings, proving “In of and such burden ap- on and the consistency the record shall be The shall be propriate Child Protective Service Unit. designee, hereby or his authorized conducted the Director who is empowered removal of the record order amendment or make and consistent with Act. The shall it accurate this decision made, hearing, or writing, be thereof, the close of the within upon and shall which it is based.” 325 state reasons (West2000). ILCS 5/7.16 prove At the administrative “the must finding, the indicated or that preponderance supports of the evidence being the Act the record is maintained a manner consistent with” 336.100(e)(2) § (Conway 89 Ill. Adm. Code Greene regulations. “ 2002). of the evidence’ means the ‘Preponderance CD-ROM June a fact more greater of the evidence or evidence which renders weight § CD-ROM likely (Conway not.” 89 Ill. Adm. Code 336.20 Greene than 2002). June for receiving timely request appeal,
Within 20 after file, investigative appellant copy shall send the 89, part Title with confidential information deleted in accordance with §§ 431, of Illinois Code Ill. Adm. Code 431.15 Administrative 2002)). through (Conway 431.140 Greene CD-ROM June 89 Ill. Adm. 431.60(a) 2002). § (Conway Code Green CD-ROM June Depart identity ment shall not disclose persons or location reporting cooperating in the unless “an judge administrative law determines that the lack of prejudice such information ap would pellant’s case or process violate due principles.” 89 Ill. Adm. 431.60(a) 2002). (Conway Code Green CD-ROM June
Lyon was the choral director City High at Gibson School in Gibson City, February Illinois. On the Department report received a that he suspected sexually student, was molesting H.B. Department investigated allegation, April 11, and in a letter dated notified it had “indicated, determined the sexual exploitation, molestation, sexual risk sexual harm.” The letter further informed him “allegations that the will be held Registry years.” State Central for 50 That day, same *6 a copy sent of the letter to the superintendent City High Gibson regional School as well as to the superintendent of schools. 15, 2000, May On Lyon requested the Department expunge to the record from register the central and provide him a copy the Department’s.investigative (Actually, 19, file. it until July was not 2000, Department that the recorded finding the “indicated” in the register.) central Department provided Lyon copy a of its investigative file May 25, on police report. but omitted the On July 2000, Lyon again Department, asked the in writing, for a copy of complete investigative its file. July 19, 2000,
On the administrator of the central sent Lyon a denying letter his for request expungement. The letter stated Department the had “determined the to be ‘indicated.’ This means that credible neglect evidence abuse or has been found.” The letter Lyon informed that if he to appeal, wished he had 60 do days to so. August 1, 2000, Lyon again
On Department, asking wrote the police report. August 10, 2000, the On the his Department denied request ground yet on the appeal that he had not filed an departmental policy releasing forbade police report the to him until he did so. filed his
Lyon appeal Department with the on 2000. In August September 13, 2000, a Department letter dated the the denied and declined to remove the of the finding record from the register. central “review[ing] letter said that after all available facts,” the had Department found documentation of “credible evidence finding.” to the support Lyon indicated The letter informed he had 15 request Department. to a hearing within the Depart- another letter to the 2000, Lyon sent September On report. September On again police for the ment, asking yet hearing appeal. on the denial of his requested he compel Depart- the 10, 2000, to Lyon filed motion On October file, including the investigative unexpurgated ment its produce record of expunge the day, he filed motion police The next report. had Department the ground on the the “indicated” (1) did not Department due-process rights his violated (2) hearing not days; would complete its within (3) investigation began; Department begin until 266 after the (4) conference; Depart- gave him no for an informal opportunity file, copy investigative of the provide complete ment refused him a (5) ap- had denied his including police report; preponderance-of-the- peal under a rather than a credible-evidence 13, 2000, proof. the administrative evidence standard of On October file, and the judge granted Lyon’s unexpurgated for the law motion day, complete Lyon. file to Department provided next beginning hearing At of the on November expunge. The judge Lyon’s denied motion to law judge its The administrative presented then case. file, including investigative admitted into evidence the day, brought On that to the police report. Prior pages police report. seven additional Lyon possessed pages, neither nor those seven therefore the them the exhibit. withdrew from Lyon During Department’s case, giv- H.B. testified that as was January 2000, they on ing night stopped her a ride home late at on her, off, road, her fondled country pulled top where he kissed tank 15 at the time and rear, presence. her and masturbated in her She was employed a student at the school where as teacher. *7 motion, 1, and, on her rested on November own judge hearing continued the until November administrative law 19, 13, agreed December parties 2000. The later to a continuance until in an judge 2000. Because the administrative law was involved 19, hearing on December she way automobile accident on the to the motion, 24, January continued the on her own until 24, 2001, Lyon his case. He testified he January presented On sexually merely gave H.B. a ride home and never touched her or to return grand jury her. He further testified that the refused molested against an indictment him for the offense of which 9, 2001, day. February accused him. The concluded that On uphold- judge issued a recommended decision the administrative law 23, 2001, finding. On March ing Department’s 384 adopted
Director judge’s administrative law recommended as his final administrative decision.
Lyon a complaint filed April 9, administrative on review aIn docket entry July 27, 2001, dated the circuit court said: [cjourt [cjourt arguments 24, “The July has heard on 2001. The has considered this matter and determines that the decision of the [(administrative
ALJ judge)] law is to Depart- be reversed. The provide complete discovery ment’s refusal to full and to the [p]laintiff timely rights.” in a manner due[-]process violated his appeal This followed.
II. ANALYSIS A. Delays Discovery in argue
Defendants because the produced the unexpurgated investigative required file as soon as under section 7.4(c)(1) (325 (West 5/7.4(c)(l) 2000)) of the Act ILCS and section 431.60(a) 431.60(a) § rules Ill. Adm. Code (Conway 2002)), Greene CD-ROM June it did not violate due- process clause. question is, process what due to under the federal
and state question constitutions? One cannot find the answer to that regulations. statutes or See Cleveland Board Education v. Loud ermill, 532, 541, 494, 503, 470 1487, U.S. 84 L. Ed. 2d 1493 105 S. Ct. “ (1985). Lyon by legislative had the to due process grace, 'not ” guarantee.’ 541, but constitutional mill, Louder U.S. at L. 470 84 503, 1493, Kennedy, Ed. 2d 105 S. Ct. at quoting Arnett v. 416 U.S. (1974) 15, 40, (Powell, J., 40 L. Ed. 2d 94 S. Ct. 1650 part). determine concurring Legislation requirements does not 431.60(a) due-process clause. See 89 Ill. Adm. (Conway Code 2002) (administrative Greene CD-ROM June judge shall order disclosure otherwise according confidential information to the process). of due dictates
What, then, due-process Broadly, does the require? clause it requires fundamental fairness in v. proceedings. Cooper Family Services, 474, 486, Children App. & 234 Ill. 3d (1992). 599 N.E.2d specifically, respect discovery, More with it requires pos the administrative “to agency disclose evidence its might helpful Depart [the] session which be accused.” McCabe v. Registration Education, 1123, 1131, ment & 90 Ill. App. 3d (1980). agencies N.E.2d Administrative have broad discre conducting although they tion in their exercise that hearings, must judiciously arbitrarily. discretion and not Comito v. Police Board of (2000), Chicago, 317 Ill. (2001). denied, 193 Ill. 2d N.E.2d
385 to produce failed allege Department Lyon does not produce failed to alleges the merely him. He documents to delay Lyon to show how manner. has timely in a the documents at 1131, N.E.2d 3d at 413 McCabe, App. him. See prejudiced being provided in his brief: “Without merely says, vaguely, 1359. He fashion, timely files in a unexpurgated and complete these with seriously were preparation and trial [pjlaintiff’s helpful wit How, they impeded? What impeded.” specifically, were exculpatory and subpoena, what Lyon nesses could not interview record, the appears all that in the present? he not For evidence could might therein the witnesses listed pages police report seven 1, helped He had from November Lyon’s case rather than it. have hurt 24, pages might 2001, any leads the seven January to to follow Considering agency had broad discretion have disclosed. for hold no in the record proceedings, the conduct of the we find basis unfair, fundamentally at least with ing that the proceedings were discovery. to with the circuit court respect disagree We violated Department’s alleged lateness in the documents producing Lyon’s right process. due to discovery not as allegedly untimely if we
Even considered departmental violation of possible violation but as a constitutional from the viola rules, prejudice still actual Lyon would have show 848, 851, Comm’n, App. v. Service 131 Ill. 3d tion. See Little Civil (1985). cannot receive a N.E.2d He has not done so. caused him no procedural apparently windfall from a violation that actual harm. Proceedings Length
B.
Administrative
of Proof
Standard
Lyon argues
violated his constitutional
by missing
that the Act and administrative rules
process
due
deadlines
an
did not
take
argue
Defendants
prescribed.
investigate
Lyon’s
and decide
case.
unreasonably
time to
long
agency
hearing
“at a
process
provide
requires
Due
”
Family
Children &
Ser
‘meaningful
time.’
Stull v.
(1992),
325, 335,
quoting
vices, 239 Ill.
3d
606 N.E.2d
App.
2d at
105 S. Ct. at
Loudermill,
its days within 60 after receiving report the of child (West abuse neglect. or 325 2000); ILCS 89 Ill. Adm. Code 5/7.12 2002). § (Conway 300.90 Greene CD-ROM February 9, 2000, June On the Department report. 31, 2000, received the On March investiga an tor for the Department, Sheree Foley, 30-day received a extension to complete her investigation, but she days. did not use the full 30 She completed 17, her investigation April Thus, on 2000. the Department no missed investigation. deadlines the If the “indicated,” service unit report determines the is it must notify register the central immediately of finding. that 325 ILCS 5/7.10 (West 2000). In a April 11, 2000, letter dated Department the notified Lyon it had found the “indicated,” be and day, on the same Lyon’s it employer. notified unclear, For reasons that are the Depart- ment put did not the finding “indicated” in the central until 19, 2000, July Lyon’s it request when denied expunge the record. It Lyon is difficult to see prejudiced by how the delay entering the finding “indicated” into register. the central Ac- (West cording to section 2000)), 7.16 the Act Lyon ILCS 5/7.16 had 60 days, after receiving notification of the finding, “indicated” request expungement the record. He received notification of the 11, April 2000, on expungement and requested on 2000, May 15, more than a month If Department later. the did not act days request within 10 on his expungement, for a Lyon had ato (West 2000). hearing. See Thus, 325 ILCS statute, under the he 5/7.16 could requested have a hearing, appealed, days May within 10 after Instead, 15. he waited for the Department’s response to request his expungement. for He received the response July 19, unfavorable on 2000, and 29, 2000, filed his appeal August administrative on more than a month later. requires Department
The statute the a hearing to hold a within (West 2000). request. reasonable time after 325 ILCS 5/7.16 requested 15, a on hearing September hearing began and the on Partly November 2000. 36-day because continuance to which parties agreed partly and because of continuances judge sponte, hearing administrative ordered sua was not concluded until January regulations require the Director to issue his decision within
“90 after receipt timely and request ap- sufficient an 336.220(a) June CD-ROM (Conway Greene 89 Ill. Adm. Code peal.” 2002). request by appel “the written appeal” for an is “request A (Con § 336.20 Adm. Code hearing.” 89 Ill. administrative lant for an 2002). Director to requires The statute June way Greene CD-ROM hearing. 325 ILCS days after within 45 5/7.16 opinion his issue 2000). (West September on hearing Lyon requested decision Director issued his January 2001. The hearing on ended request for days after the on March 2001—188 agreement to a of his Lyon because were attributable which 90-day deadline missed the Therefore, continuance. hearing days after his decision 58 by days. The Director issued deadline and, therefore, 45-day missed concluded, days. Services, Ill. Family & Children In S.W. v. (1995), held 1307-08 one, requested plaintiff six months after District held took 8.5 months. The First statutory regulatory exceeded the although directory mandatory rather than deadlines, these deadlines were S.W, delays process. as to due were not so excessive violate *10 680-81, at 1307-08. App. 3d at 658 N.E.2d S.W, long in case were not so as those delays present in long as delays in were not so and the First District held that the S.W considered, plaintiffs right process. to S.W never to violate the due of standard however, constitutionality of the “credible-evidence” of proof provision of to the proof relationship and the of that standard evidentiary timely hearing. report filing an “indicated” contends that the registry in on the of “credible evidence” against him the central basis to right violated his due preponderance rather than a of evidence process. at the Second Cavaretta,
In
Ill.
3d at
660 N.E.2d
App.
277
of
‘credible[-]evidence’
standard
District considered
“whether
336.150(a)
(1994))
336.130(b)(14),
§§
review
Ill. Adm. Code
added.) The sections
(Emphasis
deprive[d]
subject
process.”
of due
parentheses
Illinois
cited in
Code that the court
of
Administrative
judge’s recommendation after
solely
dealt
with the administrative
rejection,
acceptance,
evidentiary hearing
an
and the Director’s
Cavaretta,
App.
Ill.
3d
See
modification of that recommendation.
court held that the
at
New York courts have putting held that an “indicated” the central on the basis “credible evidence” does not in process, itself violate due if gives alleged perpetra the state later opportunity fully tor notice and an to be heard and “the standard of necessary subject’s evidence to maintain the name in the Registry is a preponderance fair Anonymous Peters, of the evidence.” v. 189 Misc. *11 (2001). 203, 211, 689, held, however, 2d They 730 N.Y.S.2d 695-96 have process requires reports that due the state “to substantiate of child they by preponderance may abuse a fair of the evidence before be dis licensing screening seminated to as for providers agencies a device TT, 712, employment.” 699, future In re Lee 87 N.Y.2d (1996). 181, 642 N.Y.S.2d 190 50, In In re 56, 590, Petition 143 719 Preisendorfer, N.H. A.2d of (1998), 595 of Supreme Hampshire Court New held:
389 preponderance[-]of[-]the[-] requires that process “[D]ue whether determine any hearing apply standard evidence registry [citation] to the central be added name should individual’s working in his or from be excluded would that individual where listing.” that due to profession her Preisen unconstitutional. proof was standard “probable-cause” A Cavaretta, App. Ill. 277 52, at 592. See 143 at 719 A.2d dorfer, N.H. standard the “credible evidence” 28, (comparing 258 at N.E.2d at 660 standard). “probable cause” to a (1995), 831, 388, A.2d 835 Selivonik, 164 Vt.
In In re allowed 33, 4912(10), statute tit. Vermont’s Vt. Stat. Ann. quoting if registry state a child abuse into the agency complaint to enter “ that a is based ‘after agency determined lead a reasonable information that would upon accurate and reliable ” After neglected.’ the child has been abused to believe that person agency warned registry, name in the entering the petitioner’s continuing employ day-care center, a that employer, petitioner’s A.2d Selivonik, at 164 Vt. its license. petitioner would violate Selivonik, 164 at petitioner. Vt. day-care at center fired 833. though that supreme court held even A.2d at 833. register central name into the proof putting standard of someone’s evidence, the standard preponderance was than that of a lower right process alleged perpetrator had did not violate due because proof which the standard postdeprivation to a Selivonik, 670 A.2d at evidence. 164 Vt. preponderance regulations, the al- Here, under the Act and the under right prompt hearing to a leged perpetrator has possibly can Only preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. unconstitutionality. from save the credible-evidence standard child abusers placed suspected on the State “[B]eing Cavaretta, App. Ill. 3d at liberty interest.” implicates [f]ederal standard 254. To evaluate the “credible-evidence” 660 N.E.2d at following three factors: proof, weigh we “(1) may be affected private the nature of the interest (2) existing reliability of the decision; particular the fairness safeguards; procedural the effect of additional procedure and (3) Cavaretta, App. 3d at 277 Ill. governmental interest.” 660 N.E.2d at molester register as a sexual name in the central
Putting Lyon’s employer to his communicating of a child and the “indicated” ability pursue his greatly impaired and the State Board of Education 3d at Cavaretta, teaching. See occupation, his chosen society in which Considering deep abhorrence at 258. N.E.2d *12 holds predators children, sexual the “indicated” could make Lyon unemployable any profession. in Typically, job applications ask whether applicant ever why. was fired and private in interest this weighty. case is
The “credible-evidence” standard of proof rigorous is a less preponderance Cavaretta, standard than a evidence. App. 3d at Requiring N.E.2d higher proof standard recording findings “indicated” in the central could allow some abusers of Investigators children to continue. do not have the evidentiary hearing, benefit glean and the information they will seldom complete be as as that which emerge would a hearing. such potential injury While to alleged perpetrator great is if he or innocent, she is potential injury great to the child is also if the alleged perpetrator two, is guilty. child, Of adult and the latter is arguably the most vulnerable and powerful. alleged the least An perpetrator reinstated, can be and exonerated but the harm to the child permanent. can be Perhaps for those reasons the “credible- evidence” initially puts standard the risk of error on the adult rather child, than the the understanding right with that the adult has the to prompt, evidentiary hearing full proof which the standard of is a preponderance of the carry strong evidence. Statutes presumption of constitutionality. Burger v. Lutheran Hospital, General 198 Ill. 2d (2001).
The credible-evidence only alleged perpetra- standard is fair if the tor soon a hearing preponderance-of-the-evidence receives under the and, standard soon after the the Department issues a final decision. If enters an in the central register on the basis of “credible evidence” rather than a preponder- evidence, ance of the due process requires the Department strictly comply statutory regulatory with its and processing deadlines for appeal. By failing statutory regulatory meet and deadlines, right Lyon’s process. violated to due For reason, that judgment. we affirm the circuit court’s
Affirmed.
COOK, J., concurs. MYERSCOUGH, dissenting: JUSTICE respectfully I dissent.
I disagree with the circuit court that
the Department
failed to
provide Lyon
complete
timely discovery.
with
disclose,
provided
discovery
was not
that
it
when
received
majority’s
disagree
I
with
discovery
provided.
discovery, the
was
due
process.
Lyon’s
violated
opinion
eight
complete,
months to
process took about
appeal
the entire
While
delays
Lyon’s
to inadvertent
unreasonable due
delay
not
months
days or 3.5
of 104
period
A time
to continue.
agreement
time
accrued to the
Lyon’s
rights
time that
elapsed from the
only
from
However, it was
commenced.
the hear
day of
until the first
appeal request
filed his
time that
hearing began.
until the
hearing request
from the
ing, and 46
unconstitutional
than those found
are much shorter
periods
These
*13
(347 days), or Ca
334-35,
at 792
Stull,
at
606 N.E.2d
App.
239 Ill.
3d
(299 days), and
26-27,
at 257
varretta,
3d at
App.
277 Ill.
S.W,
App.
3d at
acceptable
found
period
well within
(180
680-81,
days).
The Director issued
final
Again, this
process began.
after the
or a little over months
(S.W,
3d
App.
court
276 Ill.
found
the S.W
period
acceptable
1307-08);
shorter
680-81,
significantly
and it was
at
658 N.E.2d at
Stull,
Ill. App.
period
than
that was found unconstitutional
(456
Cavarretta,
334-35,
277 Ill.
days),