Costello v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 March 1987
• Docket Number: No. 5-85-0236,5-85-0236
• Citation: 106 Ill.Dec. 154,153 Ill.App.3d 956,505 N.E.2d 701
• Parties: , 106 Ill.Dec. 154 Jerry COSTELLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAPITAL CITIES COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and Richard Hargraves, Defendants- Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 701

505 N.E.2d 701

153 Ill.App.3d 956, 106 Ill.Dec. 154

Jerry COSTELLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.CAPITAL CITIES COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and Richard HargravesDefendants- Appellants.

No. 5-85-0236.

Appellate Court of Illinois Fifth District.

March 11, 1987.

Lewis & Rice, Robert B. Hoemeke, John M. Hessel, Joseph E. Martineau, St. Louis, Mo., Hayes, Murphy & Hayes, Robert J. Hayes, Belleville, for Capital Cities Communications, Inc.

Law Offices of Richard O. Erdmann, Richard O. Erdmann, Fairview Heights, for Richard Hargraves.

Cueto, Daley, Williams & Moore, Ltd., Amiel Cueto, Belleville, for Jerry Costello.

Justice JONESdelivered the opinion of the court:

Defendants, Capital Cities Communications, Inc. and Richard Hargraves, appeal a judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County rendered in a trial before the court sitting without a jury in the amount of $1,050,000.The judgment encompassed an award of actual damages in the amount of $450,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $600,000.Plaintiff's action was for libel.The defendantCapital Cities Communications, Inc., (Capital Cities) is the owner of the Belleville News-Democrat (News-Democrat), a newspaper of general circulation in St. Clair County.The defendantRichard Hargraves was the editor of the editorial page of the News-Democrat.The plaintiff, Jerry Costello, was at the time of the publication of the article in question, the elected chairman of the St. Clair County Board.The case is before us for a second time, a fact we will detail later in this opinion.

In 1980 there was an issue before the residents of St. Clair County regarding funding for the Metro East Mass Transit District, an instrumentality of the Bi-State Development Agency.That agency was created by a compact entered into between the states of Illinois and Missouri to afford a joint approach to concerns of mutual interest to the municipalities and counties of the metropolitan St. Louis area.The counties of St. Clair, Madison, and Monroe are Illinois counties encompassed by the compact.(Cf.Ill.Rev.Stat.(1979),ch. 127, pars. 63s-1 et seq.)The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) furnished public transportation to the urban areas of the St. Louis metropolitan area, including the three Illinois counties associated with the agency.

The method of funding for the mass transit system became a much debated subject, and various proposals were advanced to accomplish the purpose.In the summer of 1980 the Illinois legislature enacted an amendment to the Local Mass Transit Act(Ill.Rev.Stat.(1979),ch. 111 2/3, pars. 351 et seq.) that gave to the county boards of Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties the authority to create transit districts that would be governed by a board of trustees appointed by the respective chairmen of the county boards.Among the powers conferred upon the trustees was the power to impose a sales tax of up to 1/4 of 1% the proceeds of which would be used to subsidize public transportation.(Ill.Rev.Stat.(1979),ch. 111 2/3, par. 355.)The News-Democrat was adamantly opposed to the imposition of any tax for the public transportation system unless and until such tax was approved by the voters in an advisory referendum.An editorial in the issue of September 15, 1980, expressed this viewpoint.

In the general election in the fall of 1980the plaintiff was a candidate for the office of chairman of the county board of St. Clair County.Sometime in September 1980the plaintiff was invited to an interview with the editorial board of the News-Democrat.The purpose of the interview was stated to be for consideration of an endorsement of the plaintiff's candidacy.The meeting was held at the office of the paper.Present were plaintiff, defendant Hargraves, Steven Pounds, a reporter, and, at times, Darwin Wile, publisher of the News-Democrat.The parties' accounts of what transpired at the meeting differ.The discussions were apparently wide-ranging but were within the ambit of local governmental concerns and plaintiff's position regarding taxation.Plaintiff testified that

"[t]here was a general discussion about my position on a need for new taxes for any purpose; and my position was at that time, as I told the Editorial Board, Mr. Hargraves and whoever was present when the topic came up, that I was not in favor of any new tax for any reason during my first term of office without a referendum."

Defendant Hargraves gave testimony regarding his impression of the content of the meeting.He related that plaintiff told them that the new county chairman had to be a different type "because the law had been changed and the incoming county board chairman would not have a vote on the board * * *."(Emphasis supplied.)He then stated that plaintiff had told them that he had political clout and influence in St. Clair County to get things done:

"He[plaintiff] was opposed to the imposition of a transit tax without a referendum of the people.He said that--no new taxes without a referendum of the people.* * * He was going to vigorously use the political clout that he would have as County Board Chairman and personally to oppose that--the imposition of that tax without a referendum.He left that impression with us, and we believed him."

The testimony of Darwin Wile was similar to that of Hargraves.He stated that plaintiff had told them that

"he would do everything he could to oppose any tax increases without some kind of public referendum.When he said that, it became very important to me.And in my mind, he was stating a position, he was making a commitment to do everything he could to oppose tax increases."

Wile also stated that plaintiff had told them that he was going to be a strong county board leader and that "he not only had the will to oppose taxes, he had the ability to deliver on that."

In an editorial on October 19, 1980, the News-Democrat strongly endorsed plaintiff as the candidate for chairman of the county board, citing, among other things, his opposition to any new taxes without a referendum.

In the November election that followed, plaintiff was elected by a wide margin.The first meeting of the county board that was presided over by plaintiff as the newly elected chairman was held on December 29, 1980.A proposition to create the transit district and direct the appointment of trustees was on the agenda.A committee of the board, designated by plaintiff's predecessor in office to study the advisability of creating the district, had recommended its adoption.The record details the considerable efforts of plaintiff to defeat the motion for adoption or, at least, to forestall board action on the motion until an advisory referendum could be held.His efforts included lobbying with board members and various local officials and influential politicians.On the day of the December 29 board meeting, plaintiff met with another vocal opponent of the measure, board member Hickey, to prepare a motion to table any action on the measure until April 1981 to afford time to submit the measure to the voters in an advisory referendum.At the meeting of the board that evening, a proponent of the measure made a motion for adoption of a resolution creating the district.By prearrangement plaintiff then recognized Hickey who presented the motion to table.Also by prearrangement plaintiff's brother, another member of the board, seconded Hickey's motion to table.Upon vote being taken, the motion to table was defeated 22-6.The motion to create the district was then called for a vote, and it was adopted by the same margin, 22-6.Plaintiff did not speak to the board in opposition to the measure, and he did not vote against it.As presiding officer, he was prevented from doing so by the Code that governed the conduct of the board's business.Plaintiff's position as chairman of the board limited him to serving as presiding officer and parliamentarian.Reporter Pound of the News-Democrat was present throughout the meeting.

In a section of the News-Democrat of December 31, 1980, designated as "Opinions," two editorials addressed the December 29 creation of the Metropolitan Transportation System by the county board of St. Clair County.The editorials were carried under the subtitle of "Our Viewpoint."The first to appear was bitterly and sarcastically critical of the action of the board for its adoption of the resolution creating the district.This editorial furnished some of the background events that led to the adoption of the resolution and gave some indication of the momentum behind the proposal as it was presented to the board for action.The second of the editorials is the one that gave rise to this case:

Costello blew his first chance

Jerry Costello lied to us.

There's no nicer way to put it; he simply lied.

And, when he lied to us, he lied to you.

He said he was going to be a tough county board chairman, especially when board members wanted to spend taxpayers' money.

He said he would militantly oppose the implementation of any new tax without first seeking the voters' approval through a referendum.

He said he would lead the County Board down the proper paths, protecting the rights of the taxpayers.

Well, he lied.

He didn't do any of those things Monday night, thereby breaking his most sacred campaign promise at his very first meeting.

The County Board had an opportunity to conduct a binding referendum, asking you if you wanted to pay a new sales tax to support the Bi-State bus system.That's the very thing Costello had pledged he would do.He had promised, in the strongest possible terms, that he would let the voters decide.

But when the time came to make a decision, he was up there sitting on his gavel.

Some leader!

You couldn't tell him from any other politician in the bunch.He did absolutely nothing to protect your interests.

To say we're disappointed is too mild; we're irate.We supported Costello's election because of what he said to...