Rule 23 – Decided February 13, 2024
In this case, the former Deputy Chief for the Romeoville Fire Department received a $25,000 salary increase from the Mayor which was later approved by the Village Board of Trustees. Ibrahim retired from the Fire Department less than 30 days later. The Pension Board approved the retirement pension, but at the previous salary the officer had received which did not include the $25,000 pay increase.
The Deputy Chief filed an appeal of the decision. Ibrahim argued his due process rights were violated by the Pension Board because it did not provide him with a formal hearing prior to making a determination of his salary calculation. The Board argued that Ibrahim’s due process rights were not violated because he did not have a right to an illegally increased pension. Also, the Board argued that even if there was a due process right, Ibrahim received due process because he was allowed to appear before the Board at a meeting where he presented his objections. The Circuit Court agreed with Ibrahim and remanded the case back to the Board for a full de novo hearing on the issues, with Ibrahim permitted to call and cross examine witnesses. The Board filed an appeal of the Circuit’s Court’s order to remand.
The Illinois Appellate Court found in favor of the Pension Board on appeal. In finding in favor of the Pension Board on the due process argument, the Court stated due process does not require a hearing at every stage of an administrative proceeding but requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Here, Ibrahim received notice of the Board meeting where his pension salary issue was discussed, and he had an opportunity to present his objections at the meeting.
On the issue of the correct pensionable salary, the Pension Board argued it is against legal precedent, public policy, and the regulations of the Illinois Department of Insurance for the Pension Fund Board to award a retirement pension on a sum of money that has been artificially increased. According to the Board, the granting of the increased salary amount would result in an unauthorized pension spike that it was not permitted to perform, which would conflict with its fiduciary duties to the Fund and its members. Furthermore, the increased salary was not established by an appropriation ordinance. However, the Appellate Court did not address the issue of whether the Board’s decision to base the retirement pension on the lower salary was appropriate. That issue will have to be decided based upon further litigation.