Hadley v. Board of Trustees of Firemen's Pension Fund of City of Batavia

• Decision Date: 29 March 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-543,82-543
• Citation: 69 Ill.Dec. 523,113 Ill.App.3d 866,447 N.E.2d 958
• Parties: , 69 Ill.Dec. 523 Leroy HADLEY and Charles Beckman, individually and as members of the Board of Trustees of the Firemen's Pension Fund of the City of Batavia, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND OF the CITY OF BATAVIA: and others, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 958

447 N.E.2d 958

113 Ill.App.3d 866, 69 Ill.Dec. 523

Leroy HADLEY and Charles Beckman, individually and as

members of the Board of Trustees of the Firemen's

Pension Fund of the City of Batavia, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND OF the CITY

OF BATAVIA: and others, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 82-543.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

Second District.

March 29, 1983.

Edward T. Graham, Glen Ellyn, for plaintiffs-appellants.

LeRoy W. Gudgeon, Northfield, Beck & Thompson, Ralph S. Beck, Batavia, for defendants-appellees.

SEIDENFELD, Presiding Justice:

This appeal presents the question whether the members of an administrative agency, who dissent from its decision, have standing to challenge the decision by seeking judicial review under the Administrative Review Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 110, par. 264 et seq.

Robert Hodge, chief of the Batavia Fire Department, applied for a duty-disability pension under section 4-110.1 of the Pension Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 108 1/2, par. 4-110.1). After proper notice, the Board held a hearing, received medical statements from the designated examining physicians and additional reports, and heard testimony. By a four-three vote, the Board granted Hodge an occupational disease disability benefit fixed at 65% of his salary at the time he was to be removed from the payroll (March 6, 1982) based on the Board's finding that Hodge was unable to perform his duties "by reason of heart disease resulting (in part) from his service in the department." Trustees Beckman and Hadley were two of three Board members voting against the pension.

Hadley and Beckman, plaintiffs, thereafter filed a complaint in circuit court seeking administrative review of the Board's decision. Hadley and Beckman alleged, as material, that they were firemen, members of the Board and contributors to the Pension Trust Fund, that granting Hodge a pension was in violation of a provision of the Illinois Pension Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 108 1/2, par. 4-110.1), and that their interests in the fund were adversely affected by wrongful disbursement of money from the fund. They further requested that the Board produce a record of proceedings. Named as defendants were the City of Batavia, the Board, the four majority members of the Board, and Hodge.

Hodge did not answer but moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiffs as trustees lacked standing to sue the Board, that the complainants were not proper parties of record to the proceeding, and that they were not adversely affected by the Board's decision. Other named defendants joined in Hodge's motion to dismiss.

Without having a record of proceedings before it, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the Board "alone is charged with the duty of protecting and defending the funds"; and that plaintiffs as taxpayers, residents of the City of Batavia, or trustees were not proper parties to institute an action seeking reversal of the Board's decision. Plaintiffs appeal.

Since, before answering, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that plaintiffs lack standing to obtain administrative review, we are in the position of not having the record of the administrative agency before us. As a general rule, where a complainant's status as a party of record is raised, the court cannot determine that question absent the record. (See Pisano v. Giordano, 106 Ill.App.3d 138, 140-41, 62 Ill.Dec. 101, 435 N.E.2d 899 (1982).) It appears, however, that the particular question before this court can be decided without the transcript of proceedings since it is apparent from the pleadings that the plaintiffs were present at the hearing before the administrative agency in their official capacity as trustees.

The plaintiffs argue that they were parties of record as members of the Board and that the Administrative Review Act does not further condition their right to appeal except to require that they be parties. They also argue that they were adversely affected by the decision of the administrative agency, individually, as members of the pension fund and as taxpayers and, thus, that they had a sufficient interest to permit them to appeal.

The right to review an administrative decision is limited to parties of record before the agency whose rights, duties or privileges have been adversely affected by the decision. (Speck v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 89 Ill.2d 482, 486, 60 Ill.Dec. 643, 433 N.E.2d 685 (1982).) In Speck, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a zoning board of appeals was not a "party" authorized to appeal the reversal of its decision by the circuit court because its duties as the board of appeals under the Chicago zoning ordinance empowered it to conduct hearings and to render decisions, thus giving it an adjudicatory or quasi-judicial capacity. The court also noted that the Board was not expressly empowered under the ordinance to act as advocate for the purpose of prosecuting appeals. 89 Ill.2d 482, 485, 60 Ill.Dec. 643, 433 N.E.2d 685.

The plaintiffs argue that the Pension Code, unlike the zoning ordinance in Speck, does give them the right to appeal.

It is true, as Speck indicates, that a substantive statute, such as the pension code, could provide that persons who were not parties to the administrative proceeding may be allowed to appeal. (See e.g., Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 24, par. 11-13-1 et seq., providing that under the Zoning Act property owners entitled to notice but not served may appeal.) We are not persuaded, however, that the Pension Code provides a basis for the plaintiffs to appeal the administrative decision. The provision of the Pension Code which plaintiffs rely upon is that giving the board the power and duty "to control and manage the pension fund." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 108 1/2, par. 4-123.) This, they claim, allows dissenting members of the board to prosecute appeals. We cannot agree. First, the duties under the Pension Code are stated as those of the board, not of the individual members. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 108 1/2, par. 4-122.) This is in keeping with the usual rule that members of an administrative board are powerless to act except as a board. (Hotchkiss v. City of Calumet City, 377 Ill. 615, 620-21, 37 N.E.2d 332 (1941).) Further, nowhere in the Pension Code do we find an express authorization of appeals by individual members of the pension board; and we are not persuaded that the language which gives the board certain powers and duties can be stretched to authorize individual members of the board to seek review of the administrative decision of the board as a whole.

We also do not agree with the further argument of plaintiffs that section 271 of the Administrative Review Act additionally gives the board members the right to seek administrative review. The section states, "the administrative agency and all persons, other than the plaintiff, who were parties of record to the proceeding before the administrative agency shall be made defendants." (Plaintiffs' emphasis.) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981 ch. 110, par. 271.) The provision that parties of record before the administrative agency may sue as plaintiffs and need not sue themselves as defendants does not assist us in determining whether the individual board members can sue as plaintiffs.

The argument of the plaintiffs, that since the Administrative Review Act gives parties a right to appeal and does not specifically exclude members of the board we should not go beyond the language of the statute, ignores established case law. Absent a provision in the substantive law, the Administrative Review Act requires that the parties also have an adverse interest, that is, that their rights, duties or privileges have been adversely affected by the decision. (See, e.g., Speck v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 89 Ill.2d 482, 486, 60 Ill.Dec. 643, 433 N.E.2d 685.) Plaintiffs are members of a board which exercises quasi-judicial powers to hear and decide (cf. Eddy v. The People, 218 Ill. 611, 616, 75 N.E. 1071 (1905); see also Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 108 1/2, par. 4-125);...