Board of Fire And Police Commission Had No Jurisdiction to Hear Disciplinary Charges and more...

Board of Fire And Police Commission Had No Jurisdiction to Hear Disciplinary Charges

An Illinois Appellate Court held that a board of fire and police commissioners did not have jurisdiction to hear disciplinary charges against a police officer because the hearing was not held within 30 days of the filing of the charges. Harris v. City of Madison Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

A city police chief filed written disciplinary charges with the city's board of fire and police commission seeking a police officer's removal from the police department. The charges alleged that the officer fraudulently documented time spent patrolling. The board commenced a hearing but heard no testimony, received no evidence, did not render a decision, and instead continued the matter. The officer filed a lawsuit against the board claiming that because the board failed to conduct a hearing within the 30 day time frame required by state statute, it did not have jurisdiction to hear the pending disciplinary charges. After the circuit court denied the city's motion to dismiss because of the city's failure to conduct a hearing within the statutory timeframe, the police chief filed a second set of disciplinary charges with the board. The officer then filed a motion with the circuit court seeking an injunction to stop the board from conducting a hearing, arguing that the board had no jurisdiction because it did not conduct the original hearing within the statutory timeframe. The circuit court ruled in favor of the city, finding the second set of disciplinary charges to be a new filing that could proceed to hearing.

The officer appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed. The Appellate Court cited to section 10-2.1-17 of the Illinois Municipal Code that requires a board of fire and police commission to conduct a hearing on written charges "within 30 days of the filing" of the charges with the board. The Appellate Court found that the original disciplinary charges were never voluntarily dismissed by the city nor was the original proceeding terminated by the board (it was continued by the board). As a result, the Court held that the second set of charges (which were identical to the first) did not "restart" the statutory 30 day period for commencing a hearing, so the board had no jurisdiction to proceed on the disciplinary charges against the officer.

Ordinance Violation Order Vacated for Failure to Properly Serve Notice of Administrative Hearing

An Illinois Appellate Court reversed a city's decision regarding an ordinance violation, finding that the city lacked jurisdiction because it failed to properly serve the homeowner under the city's hearing and notice procedures. McCain v. City of Granite City.

A city sent a homeowner letters notifying her that her property was in violation of several local property maintenance regulations. The letters gave her a few weeks to cure the violations, and when that deadline passed without a cure, the city sent notice to the homeowner by regular mail of an administrative hearing on the violations. The homeowner argued that the city's service of notice of the hearing was defective because she was not served personally as required by section 2-203 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The homeowner did not appear at the administrative hearing, and the city's administrative officer found her liable and issued a decision ordering her to pay fines in the amount of $575, plus court fees. The homeowner appealed the judgment to the circuit court, arguing that the administrative hearing officer had no jurisdiction to issue the decision because she was not properly served with the complaint.

The city argued that its notice to appear was adequate to initiate an enforcement action that doesn't involve a jail sentence, and that personal service of the complaint and a summons was not required. The circuit court agreed with the city, finding that the city properly served the homeowner with notice to appear, and that there was no violation of the homeowner's due process rights where she had notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the ruling in favor of the city. As an initial matter, the Appellate Court rejected the homeowner's argument that the Code of Civil Procedure (state statute) applied to the city's administrative hearing process, finding that the city had authority to establish its own hearing process and notice requirements for administrative hearings on ordinance violations. Nevertheless, the court did find that the city violated its own hearing procedures, which required that notice of an administrative hearing be served personally, by certified mail, or by posting notice on the property. Because the city served the notice by regular mail (which was not identified in the city's procedures), it did not comply with the city's own service requirements. The Court also noted that the city's own procedures required that certain information be included in the notice, such as the fine and any penalties for late payment or failure to attend the hearing, but that information was not included in the city's notice to the homeowner. Because the city failed to comply with its own service requirements, the Court found that the hearing body did not have jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing and vacated the violation order and fines.

In the Zone: Court Rejects "Takings" Challenge to City's Rental Assistance Ordinance

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a "takings" challenge to a city ordinance that protects tenants in residential buildings when ownership is transferred through a foreclosure action. BBLI Edison, LLC v. City of Chicago.

In 2021, the City of Chicago adopted the "Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance." That ordinance requires anyone who obtains a rental property through a foreclosure action to negotiate new leases with existing tenants in good faith and if the tenant declines to renew a lease, pay the tenant $10,600 to assist with relocation expenses. When BBLI took control of a rental property through a sheriff's deed in 2024, BBLI followed the procedures under the ordinance for negotiating new leases, but at least five tenants declined new leases and requested the relocation assistance fee. BBLI filed a lawsuit against the city claiming that the ordinance violated its civil rights because requiring payment of the fee constituted an unconstitutional "takings" under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, and BBLI appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh Circuit uphold the dismissal of the case.

First, the Court found that the city had authority to adopt the ordinance as a regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship.

Second, the Court rejected BBLI's argument that the relocation assistance fee requirement was a "physical" taking because it transfers wealth, finding this ordinance to be similar to rent control regulations which courts have found are not "physical" takings.

Third, the Court did not find a "regulatory" taking because, among other things, the city's ordinance did not interfere with BBLI's "investment-backed expectations" since the ordinance was already in effect when BBLI purchased the property.

Finally, the Court rejected BBLI's "unconstitutional conditions" argument because BBLI was not asking for permission to build or engage in some other lawful activity that the city was withholding or imposing conditions on the issuance. Instead, the ordinance was enacted to further the city's interest in keeping its residents housed.

In short, the Court upheld the dismissal of BBLI's "takings" challenge to the rental assistance ordinance.

PAC Finds Public Body in Violation of OMA Because Agenda Description Was Not Sufficient

In its 7th binding opinion for 2026, the Public Access Counselor for the Illinois Attorney General (PAC) found a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Act by taking final action at a board meeting without setting forth the general subject matter of the item on the meeting agenda. PAC Op. 26-007. The PAC did find the board provided an adequate public recital prior to voting on the matter, however.

A reporter filed a complaint with the PAC alleging that a public body voted on the creation of new employment positions without adequately describing the proposed action on its meeting agenda or providing a sufficient public recital prior to voting. The vote to create the new positions was taken under the agenda item "Approval of Supervisor's Report." The PAC watched the video recording of the meeting and noted that the Supervisor suggested adding five new employment positions during his Supervisor's report, and that a motion was made to approve the necessary hires, the motion seconded, and then a vote taken by the board to approve that motion.

The board defended its actions, stating that no formal action had been taken by the board since these hires were within the Supervisor's authority, and that the board's vote was not final action but "merely a formality." The PAC rejected that argument, stating that the board's vote "resolved the question of whether the Board approved of the creation of those positions," which constituted final action under the OMA. The PAC then determined that the agenda listing did not comply with Section 2.02(c) of the OMA, which requires that a meeting agenda set forth the general subject matter of any ordinance or resolution that will be the subject of final action at a meeting. (Note that the PAC opinion does not state that the action taken by the board even involved the approval of an ordinance or resolution, and instead only references a motion being made, seconded, and voted on at the meeting).

As for the reporter's claim that the board did not provide an adequate public recital prior to taking a vote, the PAC rejected that argument, finding that the Supervisor described each of the positions involved in the motion and detailed the justification for the proposed new hires. The PAC noted that a discussion of the financial impacts of the new hires was not required, and that the discussion prior to the actual vote complied with Section 2(e) of the OMA.

Appeals Court Rules in Favor of City in Challenge to Firefighter's Termination for Social Media Posts

A federal court of appeals upheld the termination of a city firefighter after he posted several racially charged and offensive posts on his personal Facebook account. Inendino v. Nance-Holt.

A firefighter worked for a city fire department for 16 years. Most of his work was at a station in a predominantly Black neighborhood of the city. As an EMT, he had frequent contact with the public and engaged directly with patients. He had a personal Facebook page which was publicly viewable. On his personal Facebook page, he identified himself as a city firefighter, and his profile picture depicted him on the back of a fire truck, wearing his firefighter gear. After the city received multiple complaints about content he posted on Facebook, the city conducted an investigation and prepared a report that found that a number of his Facebook posts were racist and offensive, targeted Black and Asian Americans, and showed a contempt for the residents of the community he served. The report recommended that the city terminate him. Shortly after, he was terminated for violating the city's personnel rules relating to social media and professional conduct. The firefighter filed a grievance under the city's collective bargaining agreement, but the arbitrator ruled against him, finding just cause for his termination.

The firefighter then sued the city, claiming it violated his civil rights in firing him, and challenging the city's policies as unconstitutional. The district court ruled in favor of the city, and he appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Seventh Circuit upheld the city's termination, rejecting the firefighter's constitutional claims. The Court applied what is known as the "Pickering balancing test" which applies when a government employee challenges a negative employment action on First Amendment grounds.

First, the Seventh Circuit accepted for purposes of applying the Pickering balancing that some of his Facebook posts might address matters of public concern. However, the Court rejected the firefighter's argument that the First Amendment protected those posts, finding that (1) he identified himself as a city firefighter on his Facebook page, (2) his Facebook posts were racially offensive, (3) he targeted groups that his position required him to protect, and (4) that the city's interest in ensuring that its fire department succeed in performing its public safety mission outweighed any interest in his posting the offensive content on Facebook.

In sum, the Court upheld the city's termination of the firefighter for his Facebook posts and comments.

Municipal Minute