*1 (No. 108184. THE RYAN, SR.,
GEORGE H. v. BOARD OF Appellee, THE TRUSTEES OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY SYSTEM et al., Appellants. RETIREMENT Opinion February filed *2 General, Springfield Attorney Madigan, Lisa (Michael Scodro, General, Hughes, and Jan E. A. Solicitor counsel), General, Chicago, Attorney Assistant appellants. Justin L. Jong, P. De Kyle R. Thompson,
James Carter, of & R. Winston and Matthew Leinenweber LLF) Chicago, appellee. Strawn judgment JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the court, with opinion. Freeman, Fitzgerald
Chief Justice and Justices Kil- bride, Carman, in the judgment and Karmeier concurrеd opinion. dissented,
Justice Burke with opinion.
OPINION whether, The issue in case a result of his multiple felony convictions, federal former Illinois Sr., Ryan, Governor H. has all of George forfeited pension benefits he earned from the Assembly General follow, For System. the reasons that we hold that he has.
BACKGROUND facts of this case are not in dispute. appointed was to the Kankakee board of County supervi- subsequently sors. was elected to and served on the Kаnkakee County board of from 1966 supervisors including a two-year period as chairman. While on the Kankakee board of County supervisors, Ryan contrib- *3 (IMRF). uted to the Municipal Illinois Fund 1972, In November Ryan was elected as a representa- to tive Assembly. General He reelected was served until in 1982. Assembly, Ryan While General was selected as the minority Speaker leader and of the House. In 1982, November Ryan was elected Lieutеnant Ryan Governor. won reelection to that office in In 1986. 1990, Ryan State, was elected Secretary of he served two terms in 1998, In position. Ryan November was elected he served in that office from Janu- ary 1999 January until 2003. Ryan
When was first elected to the General Assembly 1972, he became a member of the General Assembly (the Retirement System System). time, At that Ryan transferred the credits he had earned in the IMRF into in the participate Systеm continued to System. Ryan Governor, Secretary of State as Lieutenant
while 2002, his Ryan for applied and Governor. In December January annuity, begin retirement to Ryan indicted grand jury In December a federal fraud, mail racketeering, conspiracy, felony charges on Bureau to the Federal making false statements charges violations. These and income tax Investigation, out of and was on conduct that arose wеre premised Secretary of State and service as Ryan’s connection with on all Ryan guilty found April jury Governor. of the counts court dismissed two counts. The district to the claims support insufficient evidence finding after Ryan counts. remaining on the judgment and entered months in prison. was sentenced to 78 convictions, acting execu- Following Ryan’s felony Systems Illinois State Retirement secretary tive being benefits were all of his notified that thе Illinois Pen- 2—156 of to section suspended pursuant 2006)). (the Code) (40 ILCS sion Code 5/2 —156 the benefits herein provides “[n]one That section convicted who is any person be for shall provided of or in connec- arising or out relating to any felony 40 ILCS as a member.” his or her service tion with 5/2— (West 2006). the suspen- informed that was also him and coverage the insurance included all of sion to the made retroactive was suspension his wife. The Ryan’s sentencing. date of his suspension review of
Ryan sought (the Trustees Board of System’s benefits before Board). he earned as the benefits Ryan argued General As- member of the county supervisor, board subject not Governor were and Lieutenant sembly, acting and ratified disagreed Board forfeiture. The completely to terminate secretary’s decision executive *4 administrative sought annuity. Ryan retirement Ryan’s
319 review, circuit court Cook affirmed the County and the of termination of retirement benefits. complete Ryan’s the Ill. appealed, appellate App. court reversed. 388 According court, although Ryan 3d 161. to the appellate clearly had forfeited the benefits he earned while State, of serving Secretary as Governor he is entitled to receive the benefits he earned while Lieutenant Governor and as a member of the General Ill. Assembly. App. 388 3d at 168-69. appeal.
We allowed Board’s for leave to petition 315(a). 177 Ill. 2d R.
DISCUSSION earlier, As noted the facts of this case not in are dispute. The matter solely be resolved relates to the proper of interpretation forfeiture provision disqualifies System member of the receiving from if a felony “relating convicted of to or arising out or in connection with his or her service as (West 2006). a member.” 40 ILCS Although the 5/2 —156 interpretation a statutе by agency with its charged administration is generally deference, given interpre- tation of a statute question remains a that we law review de See novo. Taddeo v. Board Trustees the Il- Fund, linois Municipal 590, 216 Ill. 2d 595 (2005). Our primary goal when interpreting of a statute is ascertain give effect to the intent of the legislature. Devoney v. Retirement Board Policemen’s & Annuity 199 2d Ill. Benefit (2002). 424-25 plain language of a statute the best indication the legislature’s intent. In Christopher re (2005). K., Ill. 2d Where the statutory language is clear and it unambiguous, we will enforce written conditions, and will not it exceptions, read into or limitations that did not legislature express. re K., Ill. Christopher 2d at 364.
Here,
statutory
unambigu-
the
is clear and
language
“[n]one
the
provides
ous. Section 2—156 of
Code
that
of
the
any
for shall
to
provided
paid
herein
be
benefits
any felony relating
is convicted of
to or aris-
person
who
as а
out of
in connection with his or her service
ing
or
added.) 40 ILCS
(Emphases
member.”
5/2 —156
2006).
Code,
turn,
2— 105
defines
Section
of the
this
Assembly
“member”
“Members of the General
of
as
***
Governor, Lieuten-
serving as
person
State
and
Governor, Secretary
State, Treasurer,
of
Comptroller,
ant
of-
of
in such
Attorney
period
or
General
the
service
Thus,
any person
plain language,
fice.”
under
Code’s
or her
any felony relating
of
to his
who
convicted
as
or
of State shall receive
Secretary
service
Governor
Here,
none
for under the
provided
System.
benefits
multiple
there is no
that
was convicted of
dispute
relating
his service as
Governor
federal felonies
both
2— 156
Accordingly,
of State.
section
Secretary
that none
provided
mandates
plainly
benefits
forfeiture,
Ryan.
under
shall be
System
words,
is total.
gets nothing.
other
only
plain
not
This result
is consistent
with
statutes, but
with
also
governing
In Taddeo
recent
forfeiture decision.
court’s most
the Illinois
Municipal
v. Board
Trustees
concurrently
(2005), Taddeo was
This court that Taddeo had holding only forfeited those benefits to his relating employment Melrose In by Park. so the court holding, explained benefits are forfeited if “pension there is a clear and connection specific bеtween the committed and felony the participant’s employment.” 216 Ill. 2d at case, 597. Taddeo’s felony Taddeo’s convictions related solely to his employment mayor of Melrose Park and “were not related in any way to his employment town- ship supervisor for Proviso Township.” 216 Ill. 2d at And nexus, without such a there was no basis for disqualifying Taddeo from receiving his township *6 supervisor’s pension.
Moreover, under the plain language Code, of the Taddeо had effectively earned completely two separate pensions for his service as township supervisor, and —one one for his service as mayor. In relation to municipal employees such as section 7—203 of the Code provides:
“Separate reserves shall be maintained for each partici- pating employeein such detail necessary as is to administer provided herein, all benefits sеgregate accurately the separate liabilities of each participating municipality instrumentalities, and its any or of participating instru- mentality, with respect to each participating employee.”40 (West2004). ILCS 5/7—203
Likewise, section 7—204 of the Code provides that “each participating municipality instrumentalities, and its each participating instrumentality, shall be treated as an independent unit within the fund.” 40 ILCS 5/7 —204 (West 2004). In words, othеr although Township Proviso and Melrose Park IMRF, both into the the control- ling provisions Code state that specifically they are to be treated independent as is, units —that as separate employers. notably, And the relevant forfeiture provision in that case stated that “[n]one of the benefits provided for in this Article shall be paid person who is in arising to or out of or any felony relating
convicted of
an employеe.”
connection with his service (Emphasis
added.)
2004). Thus,
the court
40 ILCS 5/7 —219
Park are
concluded,
Township
if Proviso
and Melrose
Act,
of the
then Taddeo’s
separate employers
purposes
be treated
“employee”
separately,
status as an
must
Taddeo,
Thus, principle of all results in the forfeiture job-related felony tion of a employer in service of the public benefits earned Here, although held betrayed. Ryan trust was whose of his time in the offices over the course multiple public single to a all of those offices were service System, Illinois. And it was State of public employer —the he com- betrayed when State of Illinois whose trust then, felonies. Under job-related mitted he to forfeit all of expect should which, fact, Illinois, to the State of earned service 2—156 compels. outcome that section just outcome advances we note that Finally, underlie aims that important public policy 2—156. As this court as section forfeiture statutes such statutes were forfeiture previously, pension has explained *7 “ in public employ- conduct enacted to ‘deter felonious employees rights public the by affecting ment ” felony.’ Devoney, 199 Ill. 2d of a work-related convicted Systems, Retirement 305 Stillo v. State 418, quoting at (1999). Their is to 1003, purpose 3d 1007 App. Ill. the denying public by official malfeasance “discourage the retire- to his trust of unfaithfulness servant convicted have been he otherwise would to which ment benefits System, Employees’ Kerner v. State entitled.” (1978). Here, trust to which 507, Ill. 2d was unfaithful was the People that which he оwed to Illinois, the State years placed who for 30 their continuing confidence him and whose confidence he repaid by two of this state’s transforming highest constitutional an on-going wholly offices into self- enterprise. criminal to now collect Allowing any portion of his would not run afoul plain 156, of section but also would 2— undermine the public policy statute, underlying which is to ensure that the retirement of a corrupt public servant is nеver financed by very constituency whose betrayed. trust was
CONCLUSION Under section under this court’s established 2— precedent, and under the basic notions of justice that inform provisions such as section George H. 2— Sr., Ryan, has clearly forfeited all of he earned from the General Assembly Retirement System. As crimes, the victims of Ryan’s the taxpayers of State Illinois are under no obligation to now fund his retirement.
The judgment of the appellate court therefore is reversed, and the judgment of the circuit court is af- firmed. reversed; court
Appellate judgment circuit court judgment affirmed. JUSTICE dissenting: BURKE Today a this court reverses appellate court judgment and reinstates the decision of the Board of Trustees of the General Assembly Retirement System (Board) to deny former Governor George Ryan, Sr., H. all of the pension benefits he would have received as a result of his System сontributions to the as a member of the General Assembly, as Lieutenant as Secretary State, and as believe, however, Governor. I
324 at incorrectly provision construes the forfeiture
majority
here,
Pension Code
section 2—156 of the Illinois
issue
(40
(West 2006)). In
doing,
major-
so
ILCS 5/2 —156
implicitly
of stare decisis
and
ity ignores principles
Trustees
our decision in Taddeo v. Board
overturns
of
Fund,
Seсtion 2—156 of the Pension Code for shall be provided “None of the benefits herein any felony relating to or any person who is convicted of his or her service as a arising out of or in connection with (West 2006). 40 member.” ILCS 5/2—156 the term “member” as: The Code also defines Assembly of this State includ- “Members of the General military enter service while member ing persons who Governor, Assembly any person serving the General Treasurer, State, Secrеtary of Lieutenant of service Attorney period General for the Comptroller, or (West 2006). in such office.” ILCS 5/2—105 the majority this forfeiture Interpreting provision, unambigu- section 2—156 is “clear concludes that 320) (236 Ill. 2d at ous” is language, person who plain
“under Code’s or her service as any felony relating to his convicted of none Secretary of State shall receive Governor or Here, System. there no for under the provided benefits federal felonies Ryan multiple convicted of dispute that was Secretary of Governor and relating to his service as both mandates Accordingly, plainly section 2—156 State. System shall be for under the provided none words, forfeiture, in is total. Ryan. The other paid to Ill. 2d at 320. original.) nothing.” (Emphases gets “[tjhis result is consis- finds that also majority governing plain language with the tent not recent pension this court’s most statutes, but also with Trustees decision,” Taddeo v. Board forfeiture 2d 590 216 Ill. Municipal Illinois (2005). is incorrect. at 320. The 236 Ill. 2d view, In the majority’s it is irrelevant that the felonies to, for which was convicted were related arose out of or were in connection with his service as Secretary *9 State and but that he guilty was of no wrong- doing while he served in the office of Lieutenant Gover- nor or as a member of the Assembly. General For the majority, all that required to establish cоmplete forfeiture of all is that a felony be commit- benefits by ted a person while that person was one any position which falls within the definition of “member” under Taddeo, the statute. In however, we rejected the identical statutory analysis. we addressed the forfeiture
benefits under section 7—219 of the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund. This forfeiture provision, which paral- lels exactly the forfeiture provision at here, issue statеs: “None provided for in this Article shall be any person who is convicted felony relating
to or arising out of or in connection with his as an service added.) employee.” (Emphases 40 ILCS 5/7—219 2002).
In Taddeo,
the Pension Board argued the plain
section 7-—219 required us to find that “none
of the benefits provided for” in the relevant article of the
Pension
may
Code
be paid if the participant
commits
“any felony relating to or arising out of оr in connection
with his service as an
employee”
that “as an
employee” should be interpreted to mean “as an em-
ployee of any IMRF employer.” (Emphases in original.)
Taddeo,
In Taddeo, however, rejected we argument, concluding that the plain language of the simply statute 598) “does not speak” (Taddeo, 216 Ill. 2d at to those 326 in a pension is a person participant where a
situations Having one position. as a result of more than fund we language” interpretation, “plain the Board’s rejected susceptible was statutory language concluded legislative so that intent interprеtation, than one more “ act, entire its considering ‘the by had to be ascertained resulting from nature, consequences its and the object, ” 595-96, Ill. 2d at 216 different constructions.’ 204 Ill. 2d Judges’ System, Shields v. quoting Board Chicago Fumarolo v. (2003), citing (1990). Education, noted that 54, 96 also 142 Ill. 2d We construed favor “liberally are to be pension statutes Shields, Ill. 2d at rights pensioner.” & County Employees’ Matsuda v. Cook citing Officers’ (1997). 360, 365-66 & Ill. 2d Annuity Benefit acknowledge fails to in the case at bar argument plain language the Board’s rejected that we *10 why argu- that Taddeo and fails to offer rationale statutory analysis the Ignoring controlling. ment is now Taddeo, the emphasizes instead majority offered in Taddeo, employers. had two that, plaintiff in fact “Taddeo stands this, reasons that majority From felony a job-related the conviction of that principle in earned of all results in the forfeiture betrayed.” trust was whоse public employer service of the added.) way, In this 2d at 322. 236 Ill. (Emphasis with its hold- Taddeo be reconciled reasons, may is not reasoning however, is that ing. problem, statutory analysis. own majority’s with the consistent majority’s statutory above, to the according noted As one which plus position conviction felony a analysis, fund of the pension “member” to be a person permits the result in logic, same By that total forfeiture. equals felony conviction different —a Taddeo should have been of one which municipality an employee Taddeo was while fund should in the him to participate permitted have meant total forfeiture. This was not the result majority’s reasoning case, reached. The in this and the result reached in are irreconcilable. statutory
Because we concluded Taddeo that the provision did hand, not cover the situation аt we looked previous precedent, specifically, v. Retirement Devoney Board Policemen’s & Annuity Benefit (2002). applying “[w]hen Ill. 2d 414 we held Devoney, pension disqualification including statutes, section pivotal inquiry 227, the is whether a nexus exists 5— employee’s wrongdoing between the criminal and the performance of his officialduties.” Devoney, 199 Ill. 2d at Thus, 419. we concluded that without a con- Devoney, wrongdoing performance nection between the and the officialduties, there could be no loss of benefits. applied
In Taddeo, we this rationale and concluded Taddeo’s benefits could be forfeited if specific there was a clear and connection between the felony employment. he committed and his Taddeo, Ill. 2d Thus, at that, we found because felony there was a connection between the and Taddeo’s position mayor, but no such connection between the felony position township supervisor, and his there was disqualify supervisor pension. no basis to Taddeo’s Taddeo, 216 Ill. 2d at 598. analysis
The nexus was at the core of our decision in Applying analysis Taddeo. to the facts of the case at bar, I would conclude there is a connection between the Ryan’s position Secretary felonies and as Governor and But, State. as in Taddеo, there is no such connection *11 Ryan’s position between the felonies and in the General Assembly or as Lieutenant Thus, Governor. under nexus, without such Taddeo, there is no basis to dis- qualify Ryan receiving from those benefits related to positions. these that, of our conclusion support
I note
completely separate
two
found that Taddeo earned
we
which
independent
employer,
one from each
pеnsions,
Thus,
give
able to
Taddeo
the Board was
were severable.
yet “still adhere
supervisor
he earned as a
Taddeo with
by providing
the mandates of section 7—219
his
which
employment
derived from
‘none of the benefits’
convictions.”
felony
to or connected with his
was related
omitted.) Taddeo,
(No. 108575. (The al., In re J.L. et Minors of the State of Il People linois, L., v. Appellant, Stephanie Appellee).
Opinion February filed