{ "id": 3500929, "name": "ALEXANDER GORR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE VILLAGE OF ADDISON, et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Gorr v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners", "decision_date": "1986-06-24", "docket_number": "No. 2\u201485\u20140204", "first_page": "517", "last_page": "521", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "144 Ill. App. 3d 517" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "46 Ill. 2d 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 N.E.2d 491", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 Ill. App. 2d 895", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2824334 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/130/0895-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 532, "char_count": 10185, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.184991920046476e-08, "percentile": 0.26762525537203136 }, "sha256": "3f26b3d72d90271ca3e8acb1551e33e702629e4307a2a990d81fcc7c852ee8e6", "simhash": "1:7807c4bfacb30419", "word_count": 1672 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:09:36.612611+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ALEXANDER GORR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE VILLAGE OF ADDISON, et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE NASH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, the board of fire and police commissioners of the village of Addison (board), appeals from an order of the circuit court which, on administrative review, reversed the board\u2019s order discharging plaintiff, Alexander Gorr, from his employment as a police officer by the village of Addison. Defendant board contends that the court erred in finding (1) that the board lacked jurisdiction to discharge the plaintiff; (2) that the charges were insufficient; (3) that the board\u2019s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence; (4) that there was no cause for dismissal; and (5) that the board should have held a hearing of plaintiff\u2019s motion to excuse commissioner Robert Martinez for cause.\nOn November 8, 1983, members of the board of trustees of the village of Addison (village trustees) filed charges against the plaintiff before the board which, in substance, stated that while plaintiff was chief of police of the Addison police department: (1) on September 21, 1983, he heard a loud bang in the police station and failed to determine whether it was caused by the discharge of a firearm and then failed to take corrective action; (2) on October 10, 1983, at 3:45 p.m., he knew that Sergeant Guy Hoffrage was planning to point a pistol loaded with a blank cartridge at an individual in the police station and did not forbid or prevent this act but aided and abetted it by instructing Hoffrage to alert the communications division; and (3) as to both incidents he failed to take proper police action and file reports as required by departmental procedures.\nIn January 1984, prior to a hearing of the charges by the board, plaintiff\u2019s appointed term as chief of police expired and the village trustees voted against his reappointment, whereupon plaintiff reverted to his prior rank of captain. Plaintiff thereupon moved to dismiss the pending charges on grounds the board lacked jurisdiction to entertain any charges pertaining to his conduct and duties as chief. The board denied plaintiff\u2019s motion and held evidentiary hearings on March 10, 27 and 28.\nWitnesses testified that on September 21, 1983, at about 4 p.m., after the filming of a training exercise involving the use of blank ammunition, a loud bang occurred at the Addison police station. Plaintiff, who was in his office, heard the bang and ordered all officers to report to the communications area. On his way there, plaintiff was joined by Lieutenants Gendusa and Tyndall. Tyndall, who was commander of detectives, told plaintiff that one of his men had been \u201cgoofing around\u201d and that he would handle it. Plaintiff told Tyndall that he had better do so, and returned to his office.\nDetective Gorniak testified that on September 21, 1983, he saw Detective Hayden fire a blank round of ammunition at the floor. He heard plaintiff page all officers on the public address system, and saw plaintiff and Lieutenants Tyndall and Gendusa laughing outside the detectives\u2019 office.\nPlaintiff testified he did not know that a blank round had been fired on September 21 and therefore did not make any further inquiry; that he relied upon the lieutenants to take care of matters involving the men under their authority.\nOn Monday, October 10, 1983, Timothy Bryers, a reporter for the Addison Press newspaper received injuries when Addison police Sergeant Guy Hoffrage fired a blank cartridge at him as a prank in the detectives\u2019 room of the police station. Bryers was assigned by his employer to cover the police department, and was engaged in a running joke with Hoffrage and Gorniak to the effect that if Bryers did not deliver the newspaper containing the account of an arrest made recently by the officers he would not get any more news stories from them. During the course of the joke, Hoffrage pointed his revolver at Bryers and said, \u201cWe want our newspapers delivered, damn it,\u201d and fired his weapon, which was loaded with a blank round of ammunition.\nBryers received powder burns on his wrist and hand from the discharge of the blank cartridge and blood appeared from pin-prick wounds caused by the discharge. Immediately after the shot, plaintiff asked Bryers if he needed medical attention and offered to call the paramedics but Bryers declined, indicating that he would take care of it himself.\nPrior to firing the blank round, Hoffrage told the plaintiff, \u201cI am going to fire a blank at Tim.\u201d Plaintiff testified that he thought Hoffrage meant Officer Tim Hayden, not Tim Bryers, and he instructed Hoffrage that he should notify the communications desk first. After the shooting, plaintiff questioned Bryers, Hoffrage and Gorniak regarding it, and on October 11, he spoke to Hoffrage and Gorniak about the incident. That evening, plaintiff advised three of the village trustees and the village president of the incident and told them they would receive a report which he was preparing.\nOn October 12, plaintiff attempted to discuss the incident again with Bryers, but Bryers declined to answer any additional questions. Plaintiff tested Hoffrage\u2019s gun at the shooting range and discussed possible disciplinary action with the village attorney. On October 13, plaintiff imposed a five-day suspension on Hoffrage and a three-day suspension on Gorniak. Both officers were also required to pay Bryers\u2019 medical bills and to prepare a video tape on the duty of an officer to refrain from engaging in pranks. On October 14, plaintiff\u2019s 16-page report of the incident was completed and submitted to the village trustees.\nAfter the hearing, the board found cause for disciplinary action in that plaintiff violated police department Rule 3.2 (performance of duty) and Rule 3.3 (obedience to laws and regulations), and it discharged plaintiff from his employment as a police officer.\nPlaintiff thereafter sought administrative review in the circuit court which reversed the board\u2019s decision and the board appeals.\nThe board contends that the circuit court erred in finding that the board lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff. In its memorandum of decision, the court found:\n\u201cthe Board of Police Commissioners of the Village of Addison had no jurisdiction to entertain charges against Plaintiff as Police Chief because the allegations contained in the charges were predicated solely upon his administrative duties as Chief of Police.\u201d (Emphasis in original.)\nThe shooting incidents upon which the charges were based took place in September and October 1983, at which time plaintiff held the position of chief of police, and the charges were directed to plaintiff\u2019s conduct and duties as chief. On November 7, 1983, when plaintiff was still police chief, the charges were filed with the board. The record of proceedings before the board discloses that on January 3, 1984, the village board of trustees had voted not to reappoint plaintiff as chief expressly because of his involvement in the shooting incidents and, as a result, plaintiff reverted to the rank of captain. In March, the board held its hearings on the charges, over plaintiff\u2019s objection that the board lacked jurisdiction to consider charges brought against him as chief of police.\nSection 10\u20142.1\u201417 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 24, par. 10\u20142.1\u201417) determines which administrative body has disciplinary authority over a chief of police:\n\u201cIf the chief of fire department or the chief of the police department or both of them are appointed in the manner provided by ordinance, they may be removed or discharged by the appointing authority. ***\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 25, par. 10-2.1-17.)\nSection 14\u201410 of the Addison Village Code specifically prohibits the board of fire and police commissioners from hearing charges brought against a chief of police. It provides:\n\u201cThe Board of police commissioners shall make all necessary rules and regulations and shall make all appointments and removals, except those of chief of police and assistant chief of police, and shall have such other and further powers as are contained in Ch. 24, Art. 10, Div. 2.1 of the Illinois Revised Statutes.\u201d Addison, Ill., Village Code sec. 14\u201410.\nThe board argues that whatever action the village trustees took against plaintiff as chief of police left intact the board\u2019s authority to discharge plaintiff as a member of the department, relying on Edwards v. City of Marion (1970), 130 Ill. App. 2d 895, 266 N.E.2d 491, appeal denied (1971), 46 Ill. 2d 593. Although the court in Edwards held that the chief of police is also a member of the police department, it did not authorize the city to exercise the powers of discharge conferred on the board of fire and police commissioners by statute. In the present case, plaintiff was appointed as chief of police by the village board of trustees pursuant to sections 2\u201453 to 2\u201455 of the Addison Village Code. Thus, only the board of trustees could remove or discharge the chief of police, and it did so in voting against plaintiff\u2019s reappointment as chief of police because of his involvement in the shooting incidents. The charges subsequently considered by the board were predicated entirely upon plaintiff\u2019s lapse of his supervisory duty as chief of police and did not relate to any conduct by him in any other capacity. We note that the village attorney sought to amend the charges before the board prior to the hearing to meet that problem, but was not permitted to do so by the board.\nWe agree with the conclusion of the circuit court that the board lacked authority to discharge plaintiff on the basis of the charges brought against him as chief of police and its judgment will be affirmed. As resolution of this issue is dispositive, we need not consider defendant\u2019s other assignments of error.\nAffirmed.\nHOPE and UNVERZAGT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE NASH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Stephen J. Culliton, of Civinelli, Bakalis & Culliton, of Bloomingdale, for appellant.", "Wayne B. Giampietro and Gregory N. Freerksen, both of DeJong, Poltrock & Giampietro, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ALEXANDER GORR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE VILLAGE OF ADDISON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201485\u20140204\nOpinion filed June 24, 1986.\nStephen J. Culliton, of Civinelli, Bakalis & Culliton, of Bloomingdale, for appellant.\nWayne B. Giampietro and Gregory N. Freerksen, both of DeJong, Poltrock & Giampietro, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0517-01", "first_page_order": 539, "last_page_order": 543 }