Court Finds that Firefighter/Paramedic Entitled to PSEBA Benefits

Court Finds that Firefighter/Paramedic Entitled to PSEBA Benefits

  Wednesday, February 26, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In a recent case involving an interpretation of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act (PSEBA), the Appellate Court held that a municipality should have granted PSEBA benefits to a firefighter/paramedic. Ford v. Village of Northbrook.

A firefighter/paramedic was injured while transferring a patient to the hospital after responding to a call for service. He applied for, and was granted, a line-of-duty disability pension. Subsequently, he applied for PSEBA benefits, which provide health insurance benefits to public safety employees who meet a two part test. First, the employee must have suffered a catastrophic injury in the line-of-duty and second, that injury must have occured as the result of: (1) the officer's response to fresh pursuit; (2) the officer or firefigher's response to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency; (3) an unlawful act perpetrated by another; or (4) during the investigation of a criminal act.

The municipality denied the PSEBA application, finding that although the firefighter/paramedic did meet the first part of the test (that he had suffered a catastrophic injury since he was awarded a line-of-duty disability), the municipality determined that he did not suffer his injury as the result of responding to an emergency.

The firefighter/paramedic filed an appeal of the municipality's decision with the circuit court, which found the municipality's decision to be in error and that he was entitled to PSEBA benefits.

On appeal to the Appellate Court, the Court agreed with the circuit court that the municipality should have granted PSEBA benefits to the firefighter/paramedic. The Court held that the call was assigned priority 1 by dispatch, the patient was observed to be too weak to stand, presented with pale skin, was on numerous medications, and was given oxygen, all of which could support a reasonable belief by the firefighter/paramedic that he was faced with an emergency. The Court rejected the municipality's argument that even if there had been an emergency, that no longer existed at the time of transfer of the patient, which was when the injury occurred. 

In conclusion, the Court found that the firefighter/paramedic was injured as a result of his response to what he reasonably believed to be an emergency and, therefore, was entitled to PSEBA benefits.

Read More

Candidate's Appeal Dismissed For Failure to Serve Petition on Individual Electoral Board Members

Candidate's Appeal Dismissed For Failure to Serve Petition on Individual Electoral Board Members

  Tuesday, February 25, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In a recent judicial appeal to an Electoral Board decision that struck a candidate from the ballot, the Illinois Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the candidate failed to serve a copy of the judicial petition on the individual members of the Electoral Board. Williams v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board.

The Appellate Court noted that the service requirement of Section 10-10.1(a) was amended in 2024. The new language requires the party seeking judicial review of an Electoral Board decision to serve a copy of the petition "upon each of the respondents named in the petition for judicial review..." The "respondents" are identified in that Section as "the electoral board, its members, and the prevailing candidates or objectors in the initial proceeding before the [Electoral Board]."

Although the candidate did serve the objector and the Electoral Board, she did not serve the petition on each of the individual members of the Electoral Board. The Court found that to be fatal to her judicial appeal, holding that the General Assembly's amendment to the service requirement expressly requires that service of the judicial petition be made on each individual member of the Electoral Board, and not just on the Board itself.

Read More

Candidate For Mayor Removed From Ballot

Candidate For Mayor Removed From Ballot

  Thursday, February 20, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In a recent election challenge, an Illinois Appellate Court held that a city clerk did not have a conflict of interest to participate as a member of the Electoral Board and struck a candidate's name from the ballot for failing to fasten her nomination papers for candidacy. Benda v. Parkinson, et al.

A candidate for office of mayor filed nomination papers and other candidacy documents. An objector filed an objection to her candidacy on several bases, including that the nomination papers were not properly fastened and numbered consecutively, among other allegations. The City's Electoral Board scheduled a hearing on the objection, and the candidate's attorney objected to the city clerk sitting on the Electoral Board as the attorney argued she was going to be called as a witness. The Electoral Board Chairman rejected that argument, and the hearing proceeded. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Electoral Board ruled that the candidate's name must be removed from the ballot for failure to comply with the Election Code, including that the candidate's nomination papers were not properly fastened as required by section 10-4.

The candidate appealed the Electoral Board's ruling and the circuit court upheld the Electoral Board's decision and found no conflict of interest with regard to the city clerk serving on the Electoral Board.

On appeal, the Appellate Court also upheld the Electoral Board's decision that the candidate should not appear on the ballot. The Appellate Court rejected the candidate's argument that her due process rights were violated because the city clerk remained on the Electoral Board because the city clerk did not appear as a witness at the hearing. The Appellate Court also upheld the Electoral Board's finding that the nomination papers were not properly fastened, finding that there was testimony at the hearing that the paper clip was removed from the nomination papers before it was filed. As a result, the Appellate Court upheld the Board's decision, finding support for the candidate's removal from the ballot.

One Justice dissented from the majority opinion, and would have found a due process violation based on the Electoral Board's refusal to allow the city clerk to testify.

Read More

Cook County Tax Exempt Affidavit Information

Cook County Tax Exempt Affidavit Information

  Wednesday, February 19, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

For all of our Cook County government bodies who read Municipal Minute, we wanted to remind you of the requirement to file a tax exemption affidavit with the Assessor’s Office on or before January 31 of each year for property owned by the government body for the 2024 assessment year. In the past, the Cook County Assessor's Office sent out a notice to each Cook County taxing body with each taxing bodies’ unique agency control number, password, and a link to complete the application. Based on discussions with some Cook County government bodies, it isn't clear whether the Assessor’s Office has sent this notice for the 2025 filing or if some government bodies have not yet received the notice.

Fortunately, Cook County taxing bodies can still sign in to complete the 2025 affidavit by using their 2024 agency control number and password credentials at the link provided below. Since it is uncertain when Cook County government bodies will receive their 2025 notices, they should ensure that they complete their 2025 affidavit filing as soon possible.

The link to the 2025 tax exempt affidavit application can be found here. 

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Read More

Appellate Court Rules New Party Candidates for Village Office Should Be on the Ballot

Appellate Court Rules New Party Candidates for Village Office Should Be on the Ballot

  Tuesday, February 18, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court recently overturned an Electoral Board’s decision disqualifying a new party’s slate of candidates for including political images in the candidate’s nomination petitions, and ordered that the candidates' names be placed on the ballot in Maloney v. Janecyk. 

A political party (Party) filed new party nomination petitions last fall nominating a slate of candidates for village offices at the 2025 Consolidated Election. In addition to information required by the Illinois Election Code, the Party’s nomination petitions featured American flags at the top of the petition sheets. An objection was filed against the Party’s slate of candidates arguing the petition sheets violated the Election Code by containing political slogans and messages.

The Municipal Officers Electoral Board held a hearing on the objection. At the hearing, the objectors argued that including American flags on the petition sheets constituted prohibited political messaging under the Election Code. The Party candidates responded that no express provision of the Election Code prohibited displaying American flags on candidate petition sheets.

The Electoral Board ruled in favor of the objectors and issued a written order denying the Party’s candidates access to the ballot. Party candidates appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the Electoral Board’s ruling. The circuit court ruled that the Election Code’s restrictions on political slogans in candidate petition sheets only applied to names of candidates, and that the Board’s ruling improperly created a new exclusionary rule denying the Party’s candidates access to the Consolidated Election ballot.

On appeal, the Appellate Court agreed with the circuit court and ruled that as the Election Code provisions on candidate petition sheets were unambiguous, the Electoral Board improperly created a new exclusionary rule by denying the Party’s candidates access to the ballot. As no express provision of the Election Code prohibited displaying American flags in the heading of a candidate’s nomination petition sheets, the Appellate Court overturned the Electoral Board’s decision and ordered the names of Party candidates be printed on the 2025 consolidated election ballot for the village.  

Post Authored by Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink

Read More

PAC Issues Binding Opinion Requiring Public Body to Release Unlocked Version of Excel Records

PAC Issues Binding Opinion Requiring Public Body to Release Unlocked Version of Excel Records

  Monday, February 17, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor (PAC) issued its first binding opinion for 2025, finding a public entity in violation of FOIA. PAC Op. 25-001

In response to a FOIA request seeking copies of Microsoft Excel budget workbooks, a County Housing Authority (Authority) disclosed password-protected locked versions of responsive workbooks. The requestor subsequently filed a request for review with the PAC, alleging that the Authority’s disclosure of password-protected Excel workbooks, instead of unlocked versions of the workbooks, restricted the functionality of the records, and that the password prevented the requestor from examining cell contents for additional information (e.g., formulas and notes). In its response to the PAC, the Authority argued that it complied with FOIA by disclosing password-protected locked workbooks, because its workbooks are maintained in a locked format.

In PAC Op. 25-001, the PAC stated that when a requestor seeks records maintained in an electronic format, Section 6(a) of FOIA requires a public body to disclose the electronic records in the format specified by the requestor, unless doing so is not feasible. The PAC further stated that when a requestor asks for a record in Excel format, that means the record must be released in a format that allows the requestor to fully exercise the functions of an Excel program with regard to that record. The PAC rejected the Authority’s argument that it complied with FOIA by disclosing password-protected locked workbooks, because the requestor specifically requested records in Excel format, and the Authority did not demonstrate that it was not feasible to unlock the workbooks and disclose unlocked versions to the requestor. Therefore, the PAC concluded that the Authority violated FOIA, because the Authority was required to disclose an unlocked version of the records that allows the requestor to fully access and exercise the functions of the Excel program.

The PAC cited a 2013 Illinois Appellate Court case (summarized here) that found a public body in violation of FOIA where a requestor had specifically asked for an Excel record in an unlocked format but was provided a locked version of that record. 

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Appellate Court Disqualifies Village President Candidate From Ballot

Appellate Court Disqualifies Village President Candidate From Ballot

  Thursday, February 13, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Appellate Court recently upheld an Electoral Board's decision to disqualify a candidate for village president based on lack of residency in Poulos v. Smith.

A candidate filed nomination petitions and other candidacy paperwork last fall to run for office of village president. The filing attested that the candidate resides in the village in which she is running for office. An objection was filed against her candidacy arguing that she did not reside in the village for the statutorily required period and instead lived in a neighboring municipality.

The Municipal Officers Electoral Board conducted a hearing on the objection. At the hearing, the candidate argued that she had resided in the village since 1990 and that the other property she owned was an investment property. She also presented evidence that she received mail at the village address, her drivers license indicated the village address, on of her vehicles was registered to the village address, and her voter registration was the village address. The objectors presented counter evidence that the village property was a rental, and she was not listed as an occupant of that home. The objectors also presented evidence of a renter application that indicated the candidate's address in a different community, and that she was not receiving a "homeowners exemption" for the village property. She had also registered a second vehicle to this other address.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Electoral Board issued a written order ordering the candidate's name not be placed on the ballot, finding that she had abandoned her residency in the village in 2019 when she bought the home in the other community, and that she took up residency at that other home on or before February 25, 2024. She appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the Electoral Board's ruling, finding that although there was evidence that she was residing in both homes, the fact that her voter registration remained in the village was persuasive as to her residency there.

The case was again appealed, this time to the Appellate Court which reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Electoral Board's ruling that the candidate was not qualified to be on the ballot for the office of village president because she failed to meet the residency requirements. The Appellate Court acknowledged that the issue of residency and abandonment of that residency was a close one in this case because certain evidence, including her voter records, supported village residency. However, the Court found that the tax records and rental license applications indicating residency in another municipality was compelling, and supported the Electoral Board's ruling that she was not qualified to run for the office of village president.

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 90: Immigration Enforcement

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 90: Immigration Enforcement

  Friday, February 07, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast just released a timely new episode on immigration enforcement. See description below:

Quorum Forum - Episode 90:  Immigration Enforcement

The new federal administration is undertaking new immigration enforcement activities through executive orders, guidance, and more. Ancel Glink partners Keri-Lyn Krafthefer and Margaret Kostopulos join Dan Bolin to discuss what local governments and employers should do when federal immigration authorities visit; how to respond to their requests for records; and the relationship between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement. 

Read More

Appellate Court Reconsiders Apartment Demolition Case

Appellate Court Reconsiders Apartment Demolition Case

  Thursday, February 06, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In City of Springfield v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank, the City sued Metropolitan Commercial Bank (Bank) seeking an order of demolition of an apartment complex the Bank had a lien filed against. 

The City argued that its building inspector examined the premises and found various structural issues, such as standing water, missing windows and doors, and a failing foundation. The City’s building inspector compared the costs of repair, $2.6 million, to the cost of demolition, $1.2 million. The Bank responded that while the repairs were expensive, the City’s estimates did not consider the fair market value of the property after the repairs had been completed. Ultimately, the trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on its demolition complaint and ordered the property to be demolished.

On appeal, the Bank asserted that the circuit court did not consider genuine disputed issues between the parties and should not have granted summary judgment to the City. The Appellate Court affirmed certain rulings of the circuit court but reversed on the issue of the feasibility of repairs, sending it back to the circuit court for further proceedings on that issue.  

The Appellate Court rejected the Bank's argument that the City inspector was not qualified to evaluate the safety and disrepair of the buildings, citing several cases where municipal employees, including building inspectors, have testified in demolition cases.

The Appellate Court also rejected the Bank's argument that it was prejudiced by deficient notice. Although the Court acknowledged that the City's notice to the Bank was deficient because it did not specify the building that was the subject of the demolition complaint (and instead referred to the entire complex), the Court determined that the Bank was not prejudiced by the deficient notice since it had participated in the lawsuit and the case would be remanded back to the circuit court.

Finally, the Appellate Court held that there were genuine disputes by the parties as to thevaluation of the property repairs which made the case inappropriate for summary judgment. The Court overturned the order of demolition and sent the case back to the circuit court to allow the Bank to present its contrary repair and valuation evidence.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Bills Introduced to Amend the Illinois Freedom of Information Act

Bills Introduced to Amend the Illinois Freedom of Information Act

  Wednesday, February 05, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Yesterday, we reported on some of the bills introduced in the Illinois General Assembly to amend the Open Meetings Act. Today, we share some of the bills recently introduced that would amend the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Senate Bill 226 - This bill would amend Section 5 of FOIA to expand on the list of records that a public body must maintain and make available to also include a "plain-text description of each of the types of categories of information of each field of each database of the public body" as well as a "sufficient description of the structures of all databases" so that a requester can request a public body to perform specific database queries.

Senate Bill 1357 - This bill would amend FOIA to add a new Section 10.5 called "Abusive requests by elected officials using aliases." If passed, this bill would prohibit any elected official of a local government from using an alias, false identity, or other deceptive means to submit a FOIA request, and make that action a Class A misdemeanor and require an official found guilty of this offense to reimburse the local government for "unreasonable or excessive costs" incurred by the local government (as defined in this bill) in processing the FOIA request.

Senate Bill 1386 - This bill would prohibit a public body from appointing a private attorneys or law firms to serve as a FOIA officer, and only authorize appointment of an elected or appointed official (which change also seems to preclude appointment of an employee of the public body to serve as the FOIA officer, which practice is quite common).

Senate Bill 1489 - This bill would amend the FOIA exemption in 7(1)(d-5) to expand the exemption for "law enforcement records" to include those contained in a shared electronic record management system by a "criminal justice agency" (not just a law enforcement agency).

House Bill 21 - This bill would amend FOIA to express exclude "junk mail" from the definition of public records.

House Bill 31 - This bill would amend FOIA to create a new process for responding to FOIA requests that constitute an "automated request," as defined in this bill. An automated request is a FOIA request that the public body reasonably believes was drafted in whole or in part with the assistance of AI or other automating software and is submitted without any specific, affirmative action take by a human. If enacted, this would provide the public body with additional time to respond and the authority to charge fees to respond to the automated request, provided the public body follows the procedures set forth in the bill.

House Bill 1740 - This bill would amend FOIA to provide additional time for a public body to respond to a FOIA request for officer-worn body camera recordings. If the record is permitted to be released under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, the public body would have 15 business days to respond to that request (rather than 5 business days). The public body would also have the ability to extend the time for response for an additional 15 business days.

House Bill 1855 and House Bill 1856 - These two bills would amend FOIA to expand the definition of "public body" to include the judicial branch and components of the judicial branch of government. The bill would also exempt drafts of judicial orders or opinions from release.

House Bill 2334 - This bill would amend FOIA to provide that all electronically submitted FOIA requests must include the request in the body of the submission, and that no public body is required to open attachments or hyperlinks to view a request as a cybersecurity measure.

House Bill 2421 - This bill would propose the same changes as discussed above for Senate Bill 1489.

House Bill 2518 - This bill would add a new FOIA exemption to protect information and documents that are obtained by the Attorney General or State's Attorney and exempt under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act

House Bill 2576 - This bill would require a public body to release an unredacted copy of a traffic crash report if an attorney provides an affidavit confirming they represent an individual in the traffic crash.

House Bill 2578 - This bill would modify the definition of "person" under FOIA and authorize a public body to require a requester to verify that the requester is a person. The time for response would be tolled until the requester provides such verification, and if not response is made within 30 days, the public body is authorized to deny the request.

Read More

Bills Introduced to Amend the Illinois Open Meetings Act

Bills Introduced to Amend the Illinois Open Meetings Act

  Tuesday, February 04, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

There have been a number of bills introduced in the Illinois General Assembly recently that would amend the Open Meetings Act (OMA) that will be of interest to local governments and worth following. We have summarized a few of these below:

House Bill 1572 - This bill would amend the OMA to modify the current requirement that a quorum of a public body be physically present in order to allow other members to attend a meeting remotely. If this were to pass, a quorum could be made up of a mix of members attending remotely and in-person. Similar bills have been introduced in the past but did not make it out of committee.

House Bill 1595 - This bill would amend the OMA to modify the amount of a public employee's compensation that would trigger compliance with the "total compensation" posting requirements for IMRF employers. Currently, an employer participating in the IMRF must post the total compensation package for each employee having a total compensation package exceeding $75,000 within 6 business days after approving its budget. If this bill passes, that trigger would change to $125,000. That same provision of the OMA also currently requires those employers to post the total compensation package of any employee whose total compensation package exceeds $150,000 per year 6 days prior to approving that compensation. If passed, that trigger would change to $200,000. 

House Bill 1777 - This bill would amend the OMA to allow a public body to go into executive session to discuss self evaluation practices and procedures or professional ethics when meeting with a representative of a statewide or regional association of which the public body is a member.

Senate Bill 105 - This bill would amend the OMA to modify the definition of "meeting" to provide that for a three member public body, two members constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of two members is necessary to adopt any motion, resolution, or ordinance unless a greater vote is required. The bill also modifies the notice posting requirements to require posting at the principal office of the public body only "if such an office exists" and also provide that website posting of meeting notice is sufficient if the public body has no principal office or single building where meetings are regularly held. This bill would also add a new OMA exemption to allow a Chicago police district council to meet in closed session under specified situations and would add special provisions relating to remote meetings of that particular public body.

Senate Bill 155 - This bill would amend the OMA to allow township officials to satisfy their OMA training requirements through a course of training sponsored by an organization that represents townships. 

Senate Bill 243 - This bill would amend the OMA to expand the reasons a member of a public body can attend a meeting electronically to expressly include performance of active service on military duty.

Read More

Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Candidate's Challenge to Removal From Ballot

Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Candidate's Challenge to Removal From Ballot

  Monday, February 03, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In Williams v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board for the Village of Hazel Crest, an Illinois Appellate Court considered an appeal of a circuit court's dismissal of an appeal of an electoral board's removal of a candidate for the office of village trustee from the ballot. The circuit court had dismissed the case because the candidate failed to comply with the Election Code's requirement that each individual member of the electoral board be served when a lawsuit is filed to challenge an electoral board's decision. Here, the candidate had served the electoral board (as an entity) but did not individually serve each of the members of that board. The Appellate Court interpreted the Election Code's use of the term "each" to mean that each individual member of the board must be served, and that collective service on the board was not sufficient to meet the statutory requirement. As a result of the candidate's failure to meet the statutory service requirements, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and the dismissal was proper.

Read More