Drezner v. Civil Serv. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 17 November 1947
• Docket Number: No. 30021.,30021.
• Citation: Drezner v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 398 Ill. 219, 75 N.E.2d 303 (Ill. 1947)
• Parties: DREZNER v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

398 Ill. 219

75 N.E.2d 303

DREZNER

v.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al.

No. 30021.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 18, 1947.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 17, 1947.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Joseph A. Graber, judge.

Proceeding by Herman Drezner against the Civil Service Commission of the State of Illinois and others to review an order of the State Civil Service Commission approving an order of the Liquor Control Commission discharging Herman Drezner from a civil service position as a field investigator. From an order confirming the order of the State Civil Service Commission, Herman Drezner appeals.

Order reversed.

Joseph I. Bulger and Ode L. Rankin, both of Chicago, for appellant.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (Albert E. Hallett, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

FULTON, Justice,

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court of Cook county, approving and confirming an order of the State Civil Service Commission which, in turn, had approved an order of the Liquor Control Commission discharging the appellant herein, Herman Drezner, from a civil service position as a field investigator. The order was entered on November 13, 1946 in a proceeding brought under the provisions of the Administrative Review Act, approved May 8, 1945. The appeal was taken directly to this court because the State is an interested party.

On June 2, 1945, Herman Drezner, hereinafter called appellant, received a notice of discharge from the Liquor Control Commission on the ground that he did solicit and attempt to obtain a bribe from one Dorothy Stoker for the alleged purpose of permitting the said Dorothy Stoker to avoid the payment of an additional liquor license fee. Upon receiving the notice of discharge, the appellant filed a statement in writing with the Civil Service Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act, alleging that his removal was without just cause, that on hearing he would be able to establish that fact, that he denied the charges made and requested a hearing. The hearing was held on October 16, 1945, before a trial board appointed by the Civil Service Commission to hear the charges.

The record and the evidence taken by the trial board disclose that the appellant was certified on May 1, 1939, as a special agent in the classified service of the State and was assigned to the Liquor Control Commission. His title was that of ‘Field Investigator II’ in which position he served until the discharge of June 2, 1945. The appellant's work consisted of making special investigations upon specific directions of his chief in the office of the Liquor Control Commission. As a part of his duties, appellant often checked up on licenses to see if there were any discrepancies in them Field investigators were not allowed by the department to receive any money from tavern keepers.

There is some conflict in the evidence as to the exact dates upon which Drezner contacted Dorothy Stoker. Drezner's testimony indicates that he called at the tavern of Dorothy Stoker in the middle of the afternoon of April 20, 1945. An examination of the licenses displayed therein indicated that Dorothy Stoker had a partner in her business, and he, therefore, made a report to his chief, Max Loeb, noting that the government license indicated that a sister of Dorothy Stoker was a partner in the business, but that the city and State licenses were in the name of Dorothy Stoker, only. Dorothy Stoker was not present in the tavern on the date of this call. A written report of this April 20 call was received in the office of Max Loeb, the chief of special agents, on April 23, and Loeb made a note on Drezner's report, ‘Advised agent that partnership owes fee.’ On the same day, Loeb wrotr a letter to Drezner headed ‘Special Assignment’ in which it was suggested that, if Dorothy Stoker had added a partner in her business, an additional license fee had been incurred and that Drezner was to advise the office further.

The appellant then says that he saw and interviewed Dorothy Stoker on April 28, 1945, and that he wrote a report to the office on the face of the special assignment given him by Max Loeb to the effect that he had the matter up for discussion with Dorothy Stoker and that Dorothy Stoker informed him that she had been instructed that it was not necessary to have the license in both names and she had, therefore, made the application in her own name. The appellant, at the conclusion of this report, stated that he thought the error was an honest mistake and that she should not be asked to make the application for the partnership license as suggested by Loeb. This report was stamped as received in the office of Max Loeb on May 3, 1945.

Upon the receipt of this report, Max Loeb in a telephone conversation requested the appellant to obtain an affidavit from Dorothy Stoker as to these facts, to be filed in the office as a basis for waiving the requirement of a partnership license. The appellant again called on Dorothy Stoker, according to his testimony, on May 5, 1945, to obtain the requested affidavit. At this interview Dorothy Stoker informed him that she had been told by someone in the city hall that she did not need any other license than one in her own name. On this basis, the appellant sent another report to Max Loeb in which he stated that, in view of the fact that Dorothy Stoker had not been misled by someone in the office of the State commission, the additional license fee should be paid by Dorothy Stoker. He stated that she asked for an application and promised to pay the fee. This special report of May 5 is marked as received in the office of Max Loeb on May 10. The appellant states he sent applications to Dorothy Stoker an his story in this regard is borne out by a stenographer in the office of the commission who stated that she typed an envelope addressed to Miss Stoker and saw the appellant place it in the outgoing office mail.

Max Loeb, the chief of the special agents in the office of the Liquor Control Commission, testified that after he had received this final report from the appellant he had a discussion with him during which he argued with the appellant as to whether or not the additional fee should be paid and stated that he gave orders to the appellant to drop the matter entirely.

The appellant stated that he did nothing further concerning this matter and that he never talked to Dorothy Stoker subsequent to May 5, 1945.

Dorothy Stoker, on the other hand, although very confused as to the dates in question, placed the first time when she saw the appellant herein as May 5, 1945. She states that on April 28 1945, she was not in the tavern when Drezner called. She further states that on May 5, 1945, the appellanthad told her that there was a discrepancy between her State and Federal liquor licenses and that her State license had to be corrected. She says he further told her that the amount of the penalty was out of the hands of the office and was up to him and she says that she told him that she would pay whatever was due.

Dorothy Stoker further states that she never received any application which Drezner claimed to have mailed her but that he called on her at the tavern on Saturday, May 12, 1945, and again on Monday, May 14, 1945. On May 12 she says that they had a conversation at a table in a small room just off the bar and at that time Drezner told her it would cost $41.66 for the license fee. He further told her at that time, she states, that if she went along with him it would cost her only $20. She further states that on May 14 the appellant returned to the tavern and she offered him a check for the $20 but that he refused to accpet a check. At that time she asked Drezner, ‘If this isn't a fine or a penalty, what is it?’

One Harriet Wald was called as a witness by the commission. Her testimony is not particularly helpful inasmuch as she experienced considerable confusion in trying to place dates. Appellees admit that there is much confusion as to dates to be found in her testimony.

Shortly after the date of May 14, but prior to May 21, 1945, Dorothy Stoker was in contact with her lawyers and with officials of the Liquor Control Commission. It was not until May 21, 1945, however, that she made any mention of the $20 bribe offer alleged against Drezner.

The discharge notice of June 2, 1945, followed the meeting with Dorothy Stoker in the offices of the Illinois Liquor Commission. At the subsequent hearing of the cause before two hearing officers appointed by the Civil Service Commission, the evidence was taken and, at the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officers made certain findings, the essential portions of which found that there was much direct controversy in the testimony but that after considering such testimony, it was the opinion of the trial board that the appellant was guilty of the charges; that the appellant went to the tavern operated by Dorothy Stoker early in May, 1945, and advised her an additional license fee was due because she and her sister were partners; that he again visited her tavern on May 12, 1945, and made the alleged bribe offer and that he returned again on May 14, 1945, to obtain the money; that she refused to give him cash; that Dorothy Stoker reported the matter to the Liquor Control Commission on May 21, 1945; that Max Loeb, Chief Agent, instructed the appellant to get an affidavit from Dorothy Stoker to justify the noncollection of any further fee; that the appellant testified that he was not instructed by Loeb to get an affidavit; that the statements of appellant were in directed controversy with the statements of Loeb and Dorothy Stoker and for that reason his testimony was discounted; that appellant attempted to get the bribe from Dorothy Stoker to settle an alleged liability due the Liquor Control Commission and that the appellant did not carry out the instructions of Loeb in obtaining the affidavit. The findings of the board...