Cronholm v. Bd. of Trs. of the Lockport Fire Prot. Dist. Firefighters' Pension Fund
| Decision Date | 14 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 3–15–0122.,3–15–0122. |
| Parties | Robert CRONHOLM, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the LOCKPORT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND and Robert Mondrella, in His Official Capacity as President of the Board of Trustees of the Pension Fund, Defendants–Appellants, (The Lockport Township Fire Protection District, Todd Randich, Arthur Jacobs, Michael Lopina, and John O'Connor, Intervening Defendants). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Melinda S. Kollross (argued), Edward M. Kay, and Christopher R. Henson, all of Clausen Miller, PC, of Chicago, for appellants.
Thomas S. Radja, Jr. (argued), of Collins & Radja, of Naperville, for appellee.
delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 The defendant Board of Trustees of the Lockport Township Fire Protection District Firefighters' Pension Fund (Board) appealed a circuit court's order reversing a Board decision ordering the repayment of pension benefits for a period during which the Board determined that plaintiff Robert Cronholm reentered into active service as a firefighter.
¶ 3 Cronholm retired as fire chief of the Lockport Fire Department on October 31, 2009. Prior to that, on October 9, 2009, Cronholm submitted an application to the Lockport Township Firemen's Pension Fund for regular retirement benefits under section 4–109 of the Illinois Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/4–109 (West 2010)
) to begin on November 1, 2009. By letter dated October 12, 2009, the Lockport Township Fire Protection District (District) was advised by counsel that hiring Cronholm as a chief administrator would not constitute reentry into active service. Thereafter, on October 15, 2009, the Board approved Cronholm's application. On that same day, the District's attorney proposed a new administrative job description, the chief administrator. On October 26, 2009, Cronholm entered into a 3–year employment contract to be the chief administrator with the District. He began that employment on November 1, 2009.
¶ 4 The Board requested an advisory opinion from its regulator, the Illinois Department of Insurance (DOI), pursuant to section 1A–106 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/1A–106 (West 2010)
) regarding whether Cronholm's work as the chief administrator of the fire department constituted a reentry into active service under section 4–117 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/4–117 (West 2010) ). The DOI responded in a letter dated November 30, 2009, concluding that the fire chief and chief administrator were substantially the same position and would qualify as reentry into service for Cronholm. The DOI opined that the “work of controlling and extinguishing fires” in section 4–106(a) of the Pension Code did not require the individual to “go to the site of the fire and begin working to extinguish the fire.”
¶ 5 In response to the DOI's letter, the District crafted a new job description, “administrator” and planned to hire a fire chief. By letter dated March 12, 2010, the DOI stated that the new position as administrator would not qualify as reentry into service. The assistant Fire Chief, David Skoryi, was appointed as the new fire chief on March 18, 2010.
¶ 6 On May 19, 2010, firefighters with the District, who participated in the Lockport Township Firemen's Pension Fund, filed a declaratory judgment action, alleging that the Board breached its fiduciary duties by ruling that Cronholm did not reenter active service. In that case, we reversed the circuit court's order dismissing the action, finding that there was no final administrative decision, and remanded to the circuit court so that the Board could hold a hearing and issue a final administrative decision regarding whether Cronholm reentered active service. Randich v. Lockport Township Firefighters' Pension Board, 2012 IL App (3d) 120032–U, 2012 WL 6859329
. On remand, the Board conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Cronholm reentered active service under section 4–117 of the Pension Code.
¶ 7 At the hearing, Cronholm testified that he remained in the same office, the fire chief's office, on November 1, 2009. He switched offices with Skoryi after Skoryi was appointed fire chief in March 2010. As chief administrator, Cronholm no longer responded to fire calls, nor investigated fires, nor engaged in code enforcement. After November 1, he no longer had an emergency response vehicle. Cronholm testified that after November 1, Skoryi had the ultimate authority to approve or disprove a grievance. Cronholm did sign off on a resignation agreement in February 2010 as chief administrator. He no longer contributed to the pension fund. Skoryi testified that he was told he was acting chief as of November 1, 2009, but he did not get an increase in pay until he was appointed chief on March 18, 2010. Cronholm submitted monthly reports to the Board, signed as the fire chief, from November 2009 to March 2010. Starting with April 2010, Skoryi submitted the fire chief report and Cronholm submitted an administrator's report. Skoryi testified that after November 1, 2009, as acting chief, he believed that he was the ultimate authority over the investigation of fires. He had the authority to discipline and assign firefighters, and he was the highest ranking person at the fire department with regard to supervising firefighters.
¶ 8 The Board concluded that Cronholm reentered active service from the date that he began his service as chief administrator (11/1/2009) until the organization structure of the District was reorganized and Skoryi was appointed fire chief (3/18/2010). In reaching this decision, the Board made the factual finding that during this time period, Cronholm's responsibilities remained the same, except for on-scene fire suppression. The Board relied exclusively on the DOI's interpretation of the Pension Code in concluding that Cronholm had reentered active service. During that 4 ½ month time period, the Board held that Cronholm's retirement benefits should have been suspended pursuant to section 4–117 of the Pension Code. The Board ordered that $1,000 per month be deducted from Cronholm's pension until the $17,693.68 paid during the reentry was repaid.
¶ 9 Cronholm filed a complaint for administrative review. The circuit court found that the case involved mixed questions of law and fact and applied the clearly erroneous standard of review. The circuit court concluded that the Board's decision that Cronholm had reentered service was clearly erroneous. It reversed the Board's decision and ordered that any pension monies taken from Cronholm be restored. The Board appealed.
¶ 11 The Board argues that its determination that Cronholm reentered active service under section 4–117 of the Pension Code from November 1, 2009, until March 18, 2010, was grounded in fact and law. Cronholm argues that the Board failed to properly apply the undisputed facts to the Pension Code and its decision was manifestly contrary to the statute. Cronholm argues that it was undisputed that his civil position did not include firefighter duties, so he did not reenter service.
¶ 12 Judicial review of a decision of the Board is governed by the Administrative Review Law. 40 ILCS 5/3–148 (West 2010)
; 735 ILCS 5/3–101 et seq. (West 2010). Rulings on questions of fact will be reversed only if against the manifest weight of the evidence, questions of law are reviewed de novo, and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board, 225 Ill.2d 497, 532–33, 312 Ill.Dec. 208, 870 N.E.2d 273 (2006). The plaintiff in the administrative proceeding bears the burden of proof. Marconi, 225 Ill.2d at 532–33, 312 Ill.Dec. 208, 870 N.E.2d 273. We review the decision of the Board, not the trial court's decision. Roselle Police Pension Board v. Village of Roselle, 232 Ill.2d 546, 552, 328 Ill.Dec. 942, 905 N.E.2d 831 (2009).
¶ 13 The facts are not in dispute. The crux of the disagreement is whether a civil employee, no longer sworn as a firefighter and no longer tasked with on-scene fire suppression duties, qualifies as a “firefighter” under the Pension Code. Since this critical factual issue is not in dispute, this is an issue of statutory construction, which is a question of law that we review de novo. Roselle Police Pension Board, 232 Ill.2d at 552, 328 Ill.Dec. 942, 905 N.E.2d 831
.
¶ 14 When construing a statute, our primary goal is to determine the intent of the legislature, and the plain and ordinary language of the statute is the best evidence of legislative intent. Roselle Police Pension Board, 232 Ill.2d 546 at 552, 328 Ill.Dec. 942, 905 N.E.2d 831
. However, we must also afford considerable deference to the DOI's interpretation of the Pension Code, because it was expressly given the responsibility for providing advisory services to funds covered by the Pension Code “on all matters pertaining to their operation.” Roselle Police Pension Board, 232 Ill.2d at 559, 328 Ill.Dec. 942, 905 N.E.2d 831 (quoting 40 ILCS 5/1A–106 (West 2004) ). We are not bound to an administrative agency's interpretation of the law, though, and will not afford deference if the interpretation was arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Id. at 559, 328 Ill.Dec. 942, 905 N.E.2d 831
.
¶ 15 Section 4–117 of the Pension Code provides that “[i]f a firefighter receiving pension payments reenters active service, pension payments shall be suspended while he or she is in service.” 40 ILCS 5/4–117 (West 2010)
. Section 4–106 of the Pension Code contains essentially three different definitions of “firefighter,” dependent on whether the municipality adopted division 1 of article 10 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/10–1–1 et seq. (West 2010)), was subject to division 2.1 of article 10 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/10–2.1–1 et seq. (West 2010)), or was subject to neither division 1 nor 2.1. See 40 ILCS...
To continue reading
Request your trial