THE ABCs OF DUPAGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCTION: Established in 1839, DuPage County, located 20 miles
west of the City of Chicago, is one of the fastest growing counties
in the United States. Originally a part of Cook County, DuPage County,
named after DuPazhe, a French fur trader who established his home and
trading post at the fork of the east and west branches of the DuPage
River, began as an agricultural county. DuPage County has developed
into 39 municipalities and several unincorporated areas. Very few of
the old farms remain. The county's landscape now includes new residential
subdivisions, commercial buildings, industrial parks, shopping centers,
and the county's corporate high-tech corridor. In 2000, DuPage County's
population was 904,161, an increase of 15.7% since 1990, making it the
second most populous county in Illinois. It is now among the top 50
largest U.S. counties. During the 2000 November elections, there were
482,789 registered voters, 365,124 (75.63%) of whom cast their ballots.
DuPage County Government- Operating under the township form
of government with nine townships in six County Board Districts, DuPage
County's governing body elects four members (24 total) to its Board
from each elected district. Elected at large, the County Board Chair
oversees the Board. DuPage County voters elect the following officials
on a county wide basis: Auditor, Circuit Court Clerk, Coroner, County
Clerk, Recorder, Regional Superintendent of Schools, Sheriff, State's
Attorney, and Treasurer. Overall, there are approximately 3,223 paid
county employees, including elected officials, and not including the
Health Department employees. DuPage County, like all other counties
in Illinois, except Cook County, does not operate under Home Rule power.
Thus, DuPage does not have the statutory responsibility to budget and
fund primary and secondary schools or to administer State Medicaid funds.
DuPage County Facts- Created; February 9, 1939 Area: 332.1 square
miles County Seat: Wheaton 2000 Population: 904,161 2000 Median Income:
$60,433 Number of Registered Voters During November 2000 Elections:
482,789 Number of People who voted In November 2000 elections: 365,124
DuPage County Population -According to the 2000 census, Naperville,
located in the County's southwest corner, with a population of 128,358,
has the largest population. Of the remaining municipalities located
entirely within DuPage County borders, Wayne has the smallest population.
(2,137)
COUNTY BOARD
The County Board is responsible for the management of County funds
and business, and has broad fiscal and regulatory powers. The Board
governs where no other agency or body is assigned. Policies and programs
of the board are implemented through the levying of taxes and the appropriating
of funds. The County Board meets at 9:30 am on the second and fourth
Tuesdays of each month on the third floor of the DuPage County Administrative
Building. All meetings are open to the public, and public comment is
accepted for a maximum of 30 minutes at each meeting. Citizens must
sign up before the start of each meeting on a public comment sheet if
they wish to speak. Ten Board members earn a salary of $33,003 and fourteen
Board members earn a salary of $40,000 for this part time position.
In June of 2001, the DuPage County Board approved new boundaries for
the six districts, effective in 2002. Every seat is up for election
in 2002, and each district will elect three Board members instead of
four. There will be a total of 18 Board members, whereas currently there
are 24.
DuPage County Board- Robert M. Franzen-Chairman District
1: Linda J. Bourke Hilbert (D)-Elmhurst; Roger A. Jenisch (R) Bloomingdale;
William J. Maio, Jr (R) Itasca; D. Dewey Pierotti Jr (R) Addison District
2: Olivia G. Gow (R) Elmhurst; Edward A. Merkel (R) Elmhurst; Patrick
J. O'Shea (R) Lombard; Irene Stone (R) Lombard District 3: Thomas
F. Bennington, Jr (R) Downers Grove; Wallace H. Brown (R) Downers Grove;
Kyle A. Gilgis (R) Downers Grove; Michael F. McMahon (R) Hinsdale District
4: Paul P. Didzerekis (R) Wheaton; Michael R. Formento (R) Glen
Ellyn; Gwendolyn S. Henry (R) Wheaton; John E. Noel (R) Glen Ellyn District
5: James D. Healy (R) Naperville; Robert A. Heap (R) Naperville;
Alice D. Peterson (R) Woodridge; Robert W. Schroeder (R) Naperville
District 6: Roger G. Kotecki (R) Glen Ellyn; Linda A. Kurzawa
(R) Winfield; Pamela H. Rion (R) Bloomingdale; James F. Zay Jr (R) Carol
Stream
DuPage County Board Standing Committees-Finance- William
Maio, Robert Heap, Thomas Bennington, Wallace Brown, Paul Didzerekis,
Kyle Gilgis, Gwendolyn Henry, Roger Jenisch, Linda Kurzawa, Edward Merkel,
John Noel, Pamela Rion, Robert Schroeder, James Zay Development-
Gwendolyn Henry, Alice Peterson, Wallace Brown, Olivia Gow, Linda Hilbert,
Irene Stone, James Zay Environmental- Thomas Bennington, James
Healy, Michael Formento, Olivia Gow, Roger Kotecki, John Noel Health
and Human Services- Robert Schroeder, Linda Kurzawa, Kyle Gilgis,
Gwendolyn Henry, Linda Hilbert, Edward Merkel, Alice Peterson Judicial
Public Safety- Robert Heap, Patrick O'Shea, Thomas Bennington, Paul
Didzerekis, Roger Kotecki, John Noel Public Transit- John Noel,
Pamela Rion, Kyle Gilgis, Roger Kotecki, William Maio, Robert Schroeder,
Dewey Pierotti Public Works- Roger Jenisch, Michael Formento,
James Healy, Linda Kurzawa, William Maio, Michael McMahon, Patrick O'Shea
Solid Waste- Kyle Gilgis, Paul Didzerekis, Roger Jenisch, Roger
Kotecki, Alice Peterson, Irene Stone Stormwater- James Zay, Wallace
Brown, Olivia Gow, Robert Heap, Linda Hilbert, John Noel Technology-
Paul Didzerekis, James Zay, Robert Heap, Roger Jenisch, Michael McMahon,
Edward Merkel Transportation- Pamela Rion, William Maio, Thomas
Bennington, Michael Formento, James Healy, Patrick O'Shea Ad Hoc
Committees for: Ethics Government Efficiency Legislative Reapportionment
ELECTED OFFICIALS
County Board Chair. The Board Chair is the chief operating member
of the County Board. This position is part-time. Mr. Robert Schillerstrom
serves as the current Chair. Besides presiding over Board meetings,
the chair's duties include: · Preparing the agenda and scheduling meetings
of the Board · Recommending new and special committees if problems in
the community arise · Serving as the Liquor Control Commissioner for
unincorporated areas of DuPage County · Appointing representatives to
other county boards and commissions (with the advice and consent of
the County Board) and · Overseeing the rule-making body of the County
and serving as the voice of authority. The Chair can be reached at:
421 N. County Farm Rd. Wheaton, IL 60187 (630) 682-7282 The Chairman
receives a salary of $87,987.
County Auditor. The Auditor, currently James W. Rasins, is the
final examiner of the distribution of County money. The Auditor's duties
include: · Conducting internal audits of the county's separate operating
departments · Auditing all bills against the County, and recommending
their payment or rejections · Judging whether the county departments
operate efficiently and how they can be improved · Responding to citizens'
complaints of government waste and misuse of resources To Contact the
County Auditor: 421 N. County Farm Rd. Wheaton, IL 60187 (630) 682-7190
auditor@dupageco.org Currently, the annual salary of the Auditor is
$95,420 for the full time position.
Clerk of the Circuit Court. DuPage County encompasses the State
of Illinois 18th Judicial Circuit. The office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court, the trial level court, is a constitutional office. This means
that the duties are defined by State Constitution, Illinois Statutes
and administrative Rules, and thus, the position is not strictly county
controlled. Currently, Joel Kagann is the Circuit Court Clerk. The Clerk
is responsible for making sure all sessions of the Court are attended
by someone from the Clerk's office, keeping and preserving all records
and files of the Court, and keeping the Seal of the Court. The Office
of the Clerk is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but court
records are accessible through common law and statutory access rights.
To reach the Circuit Court Clerk: 505 N. County Farm Rd. Wheaton, IL
60187 (630) 682-7110 The Clerk's current salary is $106,423.
County Clerk. The duties of the County Clerk, currently Gary
King, include: · Serving as the Clerk of the Board, attending all Board
meetings, keeping a record of the proceedings, and attesting to all
ordinances and resolutions passed by the Board · Serving as the Secretary
of the Liquor Control Commission · Serving as the Secretary of the Forest
Preserve Commission · Issuing marriage and liquor licenses · Filing
and furnishing copies of birth certificates, death certificates and
marriage certificates · Compiling property records for tax assessments
and calculating and certifying property tax amounts to the county treasurer
for collection · Authorizing the County treasurer to pay all county
bills The County Clerk can be reached at: 421 N. County Farm rd. Wheaton,
IL 60187 (630) 682-7035 The current annual salary for the County Clerk
is $95,419.
Coroner. Richard Ballinger, as the current County Coroner, investigates
the nature of County citizens' deaths. This includes natural deaths
as well as suicides and homicides. The coroner holds the same powers
as the Sheriff in order to preserve the peace. If the Office of Sheriff
is vacant, the Coroner fills in temporarily. The Coroner's Office: 414
n. County Farm Rd. Wheaton, IL 60187 (630) 682-7500 The current annual
salary of the coroner is $95,420.
Recorder. Rick Carney, the current DuPage County Recorder, is
responsible for indexing DuPage County land. The current value of County
land is over $50 billion. The Recorder accepts deeds, mortgages, and
similar documents, which determine who holds title to every parcel of
land. The Recorder's Office: 421 N. County Farm Rd. Wheaton, IL 60187
(630) 682-7200 The Recorder's salary is $95,420.
Sheriff. The Sheriff's duty to preserve the peace within the
borders of DuPage County. John E. Zeruba, the current DuPage County
sheriff, is charged with the enforcement of the criminal statutes, court
system and corrections. The DuPage County Sheriff's Office is the largest
office administered by an elected official within the County. The Sheriff's
Office: 501 N. County Farm Rd. Wheaton, IL 60187 (630) 682-7256 The
salary of the DuPage County sheriff is $109,273.
DuPage County State's Attorney. The office of County State's
Attorney is divided into civil, criminal and administrative divisions.
The two main responsibilities of the State's Attorney, Joseph Birkett,
are: · To prosecute all criminal matters brought before Illinois 18th
Judicial Circuit Court on behalf of the People, and · To provide legal
counsel for the County. State's Attorney's Office: 505 N. County Farm
Rd. Wheaton, IL 60187 (630) 682-7050 The current salary for the State's
Attorney is $129,807.
Treasurer. John Novak, the County treasurer, distributes County
money, pays the County bills and collects the taxes. The treasurer is
responsible for more than one billion dollars each year. At various
times of the year, his office distributes real estate tax funds to DuPage's
more than 300 taxing bodies. Treasurer's Office: 421 N. County Farm
Rd. Wheaton, IL 60187 (630) 682-7012 The treasurer's current annual
salary is $95,420.
DuPage County Health Department
Mission: The Mission of the Health department is "to promote
health and prevent disease" for all DuPage residents. Four District
Branches: Environmental Health, Nursing, Mental Health and Administration,
and Health Fraud. Health Centers: Located in Wheaton, Lombard, Addison
and Westmont. Financing: Public and private interests contribute fees
and grants. Property taxes also play a role in financing health services.
Every resident, regardless of income, has the opportunity to receive
care.
DuPage County Employment and Financial Condition*
The County Finance Department determined that, in 1990, about 36% of
the population had four or more years of college. The DuPage County
Department of Development found that the largest job creator in the
area is Lucent Technology in Naperville/Lisle, employing 12,500 in 1999.
According to the Finance Department, real estate tax revenue received
by the county increased slightly in 2000, amounting to $43.8 million,
as compared to $43.5 million in 1999. DuPage County revenues that came
from Governmental funds for fiscal year 2000 were $268,754,389, a one-year
increase of $24,465,928. Government fund expenditures between 1999 and
2000 decreased $5,823,547, totaling $283,587,351.
2000 DuPage County Revenues · Property Taxes-$58,236,158 · Sales/Gas
Tax-$61,960,651 · Intergovernmental-$73,649,715 · Court Fees, Fines,
Forfeits-$18,293,276 · Fees, Licenses, Permits-$22,473,966 · Charges
for Services-$8,509,204 · Interest Income-$12,535,936 · All Other Revenue-$13,095,483
2000 DuPage County Expenditures · General Government-$72,854,724 · Hwy.,
Streets, Bridges-$36,084,466 · Judicial-$44,444,094 · Public Services-$38,927,585
· Heath & Public Safety-$70,851,103 · Debt Service-$19,858,760 · Educational
Services-$566,619 *Figures provided by DuPage County Finance Department.
Forest Preserve District of DuPage County (630) 933-7200
In 1992, DuPage established, by Ordinance, the Forest Preserve District
of DuPage County as a separate "body Politic and corporation organized
and existing under the Downstate Forest Preserve District." The Forest
Preserve District owns and manages 58 preserves totaling over 23,000
acres of land. A Forest Preserve Commission composed of all the County
Board members currently governs the District. The members elect officers
themselves from within their own numbers. "Dewey" Pierotti, Jr is the
current acting Commission President. Commissioners receive an annual
stipend of $2,500 and the Commission President receives $19,000. Commissioners
meet at 9:30 am on every first and third Tuesdays of each month on the
third floor of the county's Administrative Building. In 2002, a separately
elected six-member Forest Preserve commission will replace the current
Commission. One commissioner will be elected from each district and
the president will be elected by voters of the county, rather than by
the commissioners. Also, the president's pay is set at 85% of the County
Board Chairman's salary, instead of being set by the commissioners.
Commissioners must divide themselves into two groups for the purpose
of staggering terms. The County Board Chairman and Board Members may
not simultaneously serve as commissioner or president of the board of
commissioners of the Forest Preserve District.
DuPage County's Governmental Bodies
DuPage has a total of 143 separate government entities: One county
government, nine townships, thirty-nine municipalities (village or cities),
forty park districts, thirty-one fire protection districts, fourteen
library districts, eight sanitary districts (five treatment and three
collection only), and one county forest preserve district. DuPage also
has over 300 taxing districts: DuPage County, DuPage County Forest preserve,
DuPage Airport Authority, DuPage Water Commission, nine townships, four
township special police, thirty-nine municipalities, twenty-two increment
financing districts, forty park districts, thirty-one fire protection
districts, eight sanitary districts, five mosquito abatement districts,
four surface water protection districts, one hospital district, fourteen
library districts, one hundred and ten special service areas, one street
lighting district, thirty-one grade school districts, eight high school
districts, ten twelve grade unit school districts and three junior college
districts..
TOWNSHIPS: Addison, Bloomingdale, Downers Grove, Lisle, Milton, Naperville,
Wayne, Winfield, and York.
REPRESENTATIVES: Eight state senators, twelve General Assembly representatives,
thirteen 18th Judicial Circuit court judges, and twenty-six associate
judges.
Loan Repayment Assistance Programs:
How They Work, Who Offers Them and How to Start One at Your School
On average, law students at private schools graduate with $70,000 to
$80,000 debts, generally facing payments of $900 a month for 10 years
- nearly $11,000 a year. In contrast, the average public-interest starting
salary is $31,000. In a 10 year period, 1988-1998, law school tuition
has more than doubled - at public law schools, from $2,810 to $7,035
and at private law schools, from $9,048 to $19,256. Due to these huge
debts, low salaries, and offers from top firms nearing $140,000, public
interest work is becoming less feasible for many students. To alleviate
some of the financial burden, a few schools offer some form of loan
forgiveness. Currently, there are 49 law schools with loan repayment
assistance programs, which help students pay off their debts, and 14
schools with public interest scholarship programs, which help students
avoid accumulating huge debts while in law school. The numbers of both
these programs have been on the rise since 1986, when there were only
5, but no new programs have been established since 1994. 5 law schools
have actually eliminated or decreased funding since 1994, although the
amount spent on LRAP's has increased from $3 million in 1994 to $7 million
in 1999. (From Financing the Future: NAPIL's 2000 report on Law School
Loan Repayment Assistance.)
Government agencies are another option for public interest work. Under
5 U.S.C. 5379, some Government agencies repay the federal student loans
of their employees. Each individual Government agency voluntarily establishes
the program and pays for the loan repayment out of its individual budget.
Financial assistance is limited to $6000 per year per employee, with
a $40,000 maximum per employee.
Status of Chicago Law Schools
Depaul- No Program
University of Chicago- has an excellent program. The school provides
an interest free loan after graduation to pay University of Chicago
law school debt, and after five years of participation in the program,
forgives 100% of the post graduation loan (33% after 3 years, 66.6%
after 4 years). If the participant remains in the program after five
years, they will continue to receive money in the form of a grant. Income
eligibility is calculated using many factors.
Loyola- has a LRAP. Participants must work one full year in public
interest work after graduation before qualifying, make less than $41,000
a year, and have incurred at least a $50,000 debt.
Chicago-Kent- No program.
Northwestern University- has a very successful LRAP. The program provides
interest free loans, and depending on the length of employment, these
loans are partially or wholly forgiven. The school had nearly forty
participants last year and disbursed approximately $125,000.
John Marshall- No program.
Establishing an LRAP at Your School
ORGANIZE First, find out which organizations and students at your school
would be willing to work together to establish an LRAP program, such
as the · student bar association; · student government; · public interest
student organizations; · minority organizations; · women's organizations;
· legal service groups; · local public sector employers; · state or
local bar associations; · and any faculty members. Involving many diverse
groups will show the importance and widespread interest in establishing
an LRAP.
RESEARCH · financial impact the LRAP would have on your school; · percentage
of students who work in public interest or government agencies upon
graduation; · percentage of students who incur law school debt; · average
monthly debt of the graduating class; · average amount of monthly living
expenses for a graduated class; · factors that students consider in
choosing a job; · student body's interest in the creation of an LRAP.
STRATEGIZE 1. Goals- Establish a written list of short term,
intermediate and long term goals. Short term: · draft a program proposal;
· obtain the dean's support; · obtain a petition with signatures of
at least 50% of the law school's student body. Intermediate: · determine
the percentage of students seeking enrollment in the program that the
fund should be able to support; Long term (broad goals): · create a
supportive atmosphere financially, through expanding curriculum and
administrative support; · ensure that 15% or more of each class chooses
to work as a public interest or government lawyer; · ensure that 35%
of those in private practice donate pro bono services each year; 2.
Resources Determine what resources are available and what problems
might stand in the way of success. · Who will do the work that the campaign
requires? · How many hours can each person contribute? · What meeting/office
space and equipment is available? · How much money is available? · What
internal relationships are going to get in the way of success and how
can damage be minimized? · How will the lack of financial resources
be overcome? · Who might be potential opponents to the coalition goals
and what might they do or spend to defeat it? · Who is our primary target
(the person whose decision would result in achieving the goals)? 3.
Tactics Increase the visibility and support for the LRAP through
education and recruitment. · Media Events - use at the start of the
LRAP campaign to obtain press and television coverage. Announce that
a coalition from the law school is working on the LRAP and to dramatize
how it will help students, the community and the law school; · Actions
- approach your target (the decision maker) with a specific request,
such as scheduling an appointment or hearing where the issues can be
aired; · Education and Teach-ins - invite a well known speaker to increase
awareness and draw positive media coverage about the LRAP to the law
school; · Public Forums - sponsor a forum to educate people on the LRAP
by inviting school administration, students, professors, lawyers and
the community and provide an opportunity for the coalition's views to
be heard; · Letter Writing Campaigns - combined with a personal visit
to the letter recipient. Outline how an LRAP program would personally
affect the writer and detail the specific goals of the coalition;
Writing a Proposal
Set forth the LRAP plan in specific terms and include the results of
earlier research. Work in coalition with a school that already has implemented
an LRAP and ask for a copy of the school proposal and use it as a model.
All allies of the coalition should review and sign in support of the
proposal and determine the best time and method for presenting the proposal
to the target.
Administering an LRAP
Form a committee composed of students, alumni, faculty and administration
to oversee the funding, publicity and improvement of the program. Ask
if the public interest oriented student groups are willing to take on
an oversight role to ensure a well-run LRAP.
FINANCING · Within the School - encourage the administration not to
view an LRAP as an alternative program or a frill in the financial aid
package, but as an essential component of the financial aid package.
Some funding sources from within the school include a Dean's discretionary
fund, continuing legal education course revenues, alumni donors, class
gifts, student fees, publications revenue, law school application fees
and on-campus interview fees; · Foundation Funding - the development
office at school is the best resource to research this. This office
usually has close relationships with the local and national foundation
community and can help the coalition focus its research to potential
foundation sources; · Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts - these are
accounts that lawyers set up to temporarily hold their clients funds.
They generate millions in interest and are typically used to fund programs
for low-income persons; · Law Firm Contributions - law firms have become
increasingly conscious of their community reputation due to the competition
for top graduates, and may be willing to contribute to improve their
reputation.
Publicizing the Program
The oversight committee should continue to publicize the program once
it has been established and emphasize its continuing importance to the
school. This is especially important, considering that in recent years,
five schools have eliminated or decreased funding for their LRAP's.
Publicize the LRAP in newsletters, law school brochures, catalogues,
alumni magazines, flyers, etc. The career development office should
also feature the school's LRAP and educate public interest employers
about the program. (From Kidd, Susan, "Take Action: Establish a Law
School Loan Repayment Assistance Program", The Public Lawyer, Winter
2001.)
SAMPLE PROPOSAL OUTLINE
I. Cover Page
II. Coalition Members and Organizations
III. Table of Contents
IV. Background of the Problem (Why this program is necessary) · High
Tuition (national and school figures) · Cost of Living (geographical
differences) · Rising Law School Debt (national and school figures)
· Low Public Interest Salaries (national and school figures) · Low Actual
Income (after taxes and loan payments-school figures-are subtracted)
· Effect on Career Choice/Encouraging Lawyers to Enter the Public Interest
Sector
V. Solution/Recommended Changes (How this program will solve the problem)
· Definition of LRAP's · Why an LRAP Will Help · Law School's Mission
· ABA Resolution · Other law school's with LRAP's (U.S. News and World
report schools in top 25; Peer schools)
VI. Program Description (How this program will be implemented) · Program
Design · Program Administration · Program Decisions · Program Funding
(costs and ways to raise funds)
VII. Summary
VIII. Appendices · Letters of support from individuals · Letters of
support from organizations
Sample Timeline for the First Year of the Campaign
August-September · Recruit interested students and organizations
· Make contacts and plan the year using the Planning Strategy chart
· Assess your resources; people, time, supplies, office space, money
and contacts · Divide tasks between committees · Research past efforts
at the school to implement or expand loan repayment assistance and public
interest scholarship programs
September-October · Draft a strategy chart by mid-September
· Recruit allies-faculty, administration, local alumni · Conduct survey
and continue research · Hold a general meeting to recruit volunteers
and members · Pass out survey and financial aid information around the
same time students receive financial aid checks
October-November · Cultivate support within the student body
and among administrators · Begin drafting proposal · Identify funding
resources
November-December · Polish up proposal · Identify fundraising
sources
January-February · Present proposal to members of the administration
and faculty · Present proposal to the target(s) identified in the strategy
chart · Continue to bring in new student participants · Begin more active
publicity to help insure widespread approval and adoption of the proposal
February-March · Work with the administration to raise money
once the proposal is adopted · Monitor and publicize the administration's
activities · Make sure the administration follows through on their funding
commitment
March-April · Celebrate victories and recognize the time the
coalition's leaders and volunteers have put into the campaign · Regroup
and begin revamping the campaign strategy if certain goals are not achieved,
and consider what efforts will survive through the summer · Identify
new student leaders to begin transition of knowledge, roles and campaign
strategy · Evaluate and celebrate the coalition's successes and victories
April-May · A new timeline for fall should be in the planning
stages, ready to be finalized next fall
Ten Commandments
1) Organize a coalition in support of the LRAP - breadth and diversity
of groups who support the LRAP is more important than size in helping
to expand your contacts. Make a "best of all possible groups" including:
student groups, professors, administration, bar association, law firms,
judges, etc.
2) Develop a strategy, timetable and plan - consider all consequences
before plunging in. Create a 12-month calendar with short, intermediate
and long term goals, establish who is responsible for what task and
set deadlines.
3) Anticipate your opponent's objections - be ready to counter with
specific facts.
4) Do not lie or mislead anyone.
5) Activate your grassroots support-talk to students one-on-one, hold
informal gatherings to talk with students about the program, distribute
fliers and fact sheets.
6) Be ready to compromise - no program ever looks the same as when
it was proposed. Create the ideal plan and know where compromise is
most likely.
7) Thank anyone who has helped - cultivate relationships for the long
run. Hold gatherings once a semester to celebrate the hard work.
8) Be ready to follow through - don't abandon the project mid-stream,
it will be more difficult for a group trying again in the future to
be taken seriously. Have a meeting with the incoming officers of the
student groups and explain the project and participate in orientation
day to involve 1L's and 2L's.
9) Use the media to generate interest in the issue - Issue press releases,
write letters to the editor and become involved with the school newspaper.
10) Don't get mad, get even - if the school is not supportive of an
LRAP, let them know that it is bad publicity to ignore the concerns
of students interested in public interest work.
Law Schools with LRAP Programs
American University, Benjamin N. Cardozo, Boston College, Brooklyn
Law School, Case Western Reserve, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Fordham,
Franklin Pierce, George Washington, Georgetown, Harvard, Hofstra, Loyola,
Los Angeles Loyola, Chicago Loyola, New Orleans, NYU, Northeastern,
Northwestern University, Northwestern at Lewis and Clark College, Pace,
Rutgers, Newark, Santa Clara University, Stanford, Suffolk University,
Temple University, Beasley, Tulane, University of California, Berkeley,
University of California, Davis, University of California, Hastings,
University of Chicago, University of Georgia, University of Iowa, University
of Michigan, University of the Pacific, University of Pennsylvania,
University of San Diego, University of San Francisco, University of
Southern California, University of Toronto, University of Utah, University
of Virginia, Valparaiso, Vanderbilt, Vermont, Yale
Law Schools with Public Interest Scholarship Programs
Boston College, Drake, Fordham, Georgetown, Gonzaga University, Loyola,
Los Angeles, NYU, Northeastern, Santa Clara University, Stanford, University
of Denver, University of Iowa, University of Kansas, University of Pennsylvania
THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD AND
THE ILLINOIS COURTS COMMISSION
The Illinois Constitution creates and empowers the Illinois court system.
The Constitution provides that all state judges (except associate judges)
are elected. Illinois citizens, by electing the judges, entrust the
officers of the judicial system to make just decisions and to ensure
justice for all. While most judges fulfill their objective role admirably,
some judges make mistakes. Many errors result from accident or ignorance
and others arise from individual avarice. The behavior of judges is
guided by a judicial "ethics code" that seeks foremost to preserve the
integrity of the judicial office. The State Constitution provides for
the creation of the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board and the Illinois
Courts Commission to help ensure that judges are acting in the best
interest of Illinois and its citizens and to allow the people of Illinois
to file complaints against judges who display 'inappropriate behavior.
OVERVIEW OF THE ILLINOIS JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Article VI, Constitution of the State of Illinois (I 970) The Illinois
Constitution divides the state court system into five judicial districts
and into three levels: the Supreme Court, the Appellate Courts, and
the Circuit Courts. The jurisdiction (authority to hear a case) and
organization of the different levels differ: Supreme Court: The Supreme
Court, the highest tribunal 'in Illinois, consists of seven justices
elected for ten-year terms. Three of the justices are elected from the
First Judicial District, which encompasses Cook County. The other four
justices are elected from each of the remaining judicial districts in
Illinois. The justices select one justice to serve a three-year term
as Chief Justice. Four justices must be in agreement for a decision
by the Court. The Court may exercise original jurisdiction (the power
to be the first to hear) in cases enumerated under the State Constitution
and may hear appeals from the appellate courts as provided by its own
rules. The Court must hear appeals from circuit courts involving death
sentences and certain appeals from the appellate courts as enumerated
under the State Constitution. The Court also serves as the general administrative
and supervisory authority of all other state courts. Appellate Courts:
There are five Appellate Court districts in Illinois. Each appellate
court judge is elected for a ten-year term. The appellate courts are
empowered to hear appeals from the Circuit Courts in their districts
and administrative agencies. Circuit Courts: The 22 judicial circuits
in Illinois are comprised of circuit judges elected for six-year terms,
and associate judges, appointed for four-year terms by the circuit court
judges in their districts. Circuit courts have original jurisdiction
of all matters that can be brought before a court of law, except when
the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction as provided
by the State Constitution.
JUDICIAL "ETHICS CODE" The current Illinois "Code of Judicial Conduct"
closely parallels the American Bar Association's 1972 code of judicial
ethics. The Code serves as a normative guide for proper behavior and
decorum: CANON 1 (rule61): A judge should uphold the integrity and independence
of the Judiciary. CANON 2 (rule 62): A judge should avoid impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities.
CANON 3 (rule 63): A judge should perform the duties of judicial office
impartially and diligently. CANON 4 (rule 64): A judge may engage in
activities to improve the law, the legal system and the administration
of justice. CANON 5 (rule 65): A judge should regulate his or her extrajudicial
activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the judges' duties.
CANON 6 (rule 66): Nonjudicial compensation and annual statement of
economic interest-a judge may not receive compensation for the law related
and extrajudicial activities permitted by this code; however, he or
she may receive an honorarium and reimbursement of expenses if the source
of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge
in his or her judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety.
CANON 7 (rule 67): A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from
inappropriate political activity.
The Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board and Courts Commission
California was the first state to fulfill the need for formal procedures
in addressing questions of judicial misconduct and incapacity. By 1981,
every state had developed a system. Nonetheless, not all misdeeds are
properly punished, nor do all states act uniformly.
Illinois' Attempts to Discipline Judges
1870: Illinois' attempt to curtail judicial indiscretion arose
right after the Civil War. The 1870 Illinois Constitution empowered
the general Assembly to remove any judge from office "for cause...upon
concurrence of three-fourths of all the members elected, of each house."
This rarely used procedure was one means of discipling judicial officers
for imprudent conduct. Another method was for the electorate not to
re-elect the judge to office.
1962: In November of 1962, the electorate adopted a new constitutional
Judicial Article which created a new Courts Commission to discipline
judges. The new act provided that "any judge may be retired for disability
or suspended without pay or removed for cause by [the Commission]."
Each court commissioner served until his successor was designated. The
Supreme Court commissioner was the chairman of the Commission. The Supreme
Court clerk was the clerk of the commission, and the marshal was the
marshal. Anyone who believed that grounds existed for the "retirement
for disability or suspension without pay or removal for cause of a judge"
was encouraged to inform the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts
in writing. If the Supreme Court determined that there was a reason
to convene the commission, or upon request of the Senate, the Chief
Justice ordered the commission to convene. The Illinois Attorney General
then prepared a complaint that reasonably informed the judge of the
grounds upon which the charges were based. All matters prior to the
filing of the complaint were confidential. At least three commissioners
had to agree for a decision to be reached once a hearing was initiated.
Originally, the powers of the Courts Commission were extensive. It could
determine whether to investigate and prosecute, and it could impose
sanctions, suspend without pay, or remove judges. The Director of the
Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, designated as the Commission's
secretary, was empowered to receive written complaints of judicial officers
and could launch investigations and relay recommendations to the commission.
The Commission could then direct the filing of the complaint. All subjects
related to the complaint's filing were confidential. If the complaint
was filed, the commission would hold a public hearing. The Commission
investigated charges, prosecuted accused judges, and made final rulings
to determine whether a judge should be disciplined. This Courts Commission
lasted seven and a half years and received 922 complaints about the
conduct of judges. However, the commission was convened on only three
occasions to hear charges. In one case, the judge resigned from office
prior to his hearing. The complaint was dismissed in another. And in
the last, the judge was removed from office after a hearing.
1970: The 1970 Illinois Constitution creates a two-step process,
using two separate bodies to perform separate functions. This system
substantially changed the way judges are disciplined. The Constitution
succeeded in dividing the powers of the preceding Courts Commission
by establishing investigative and prosecutorial functions within the
Judicial Inquiry Board. While complaints against Illinois judges are
filed with the Illinois Courts Commission, the Constitution provides
that the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach judicial
officers. The Illinois Constitution also provides for the adoption by
the Supreme Court of a judicial disciplinary process. Section 15(b)
of Article VI creates a Judicial Inquiry Board, the first step of the
two-tiered process. The Board is composed of two Circuit Judges selected
by the Supreme Court, and four non-lawyers and three lawyers appointed
by the Governor. No more than two of the lawyers and two of the non-lawyers
can be members of the same political party. The terms of the Board members
are four years, with an eight-year term limit. The Board has the authority
to conduct investigations and receive and initiate complaints. The Board
will file a complaint if at least five members believe that a reasonable
basis exists to charge the judge with "willful misconduct, persistent
failure to perform duties, or other conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice or that brings the judicial office into disrepute." Section
15(e) provides for the second tier of the disciplinary process by reestablishing
a permanent Courts Commission "to hear complaints filed by the Judicial
Inquiry Board." The five member Courts Commission is composed of one
Supreme Court Justice selected by the Supreme Court Justices, two Appellate
Court Judges selected by the Appellate Court Judges, and two Circuit
Court Judges selected by the Supreme Court. The Courts Commission retains
only the responsibility to adjudicate matters presented by the Board.
Both agencies are partially insulated from outside government interference,
but the Illinois Supreme Court determines if the agencies have acted
within the confines of the Illinois State Constitution. The process
seems flexible and efficient, but its application has not proved effective.
ILLINOIS' TWO-TIERED SYSTEM TO DISCIPLINE JUDGES
COMPLAINT IS FILED WITH: The Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board · Nine
members, four year terms, eight year maximum service; · Two Circuit
Court Judges selected by the Supreme Court, four non-lawyers and three
lawyers appointed by the Governor; · No more than two of the lawyers
and two of the non-lawyers can be from the same political party; · POWER:
Conduct investigations and receive and initiate complaints; · If at
least five Board members believe that a reasonable basis exists to charge
the judge with "willful misconduct, persistent failure to perform duties,
or other conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice or that
brings the judicial office into disrepute," it will file a complaint
with the Courts Commission. Current Board Members- William A. Sunderman,
Chairman Milton H. Gray Sharon Gist Gilliam Gloria C. Moringstar Lester
Foreman Rodney Gholson Lindsey Parkhurst John W. Rapp
COMPLAINT IS HEARD BY: The Illinois Courts Commission · Five Members:
One Supreme Court Judge selected by the Supreme Court, one of whom serves
as the Chairman of the courts Commission, two Appellate Court Judges
selected by the Appellate Court Judges and two Circuit Court Judges
selected by the Supreme Court; · POWER: Hear complaints filed by the
Judicial Inquiry Board; After proper notice and public hearing, the
Board has the power to: - Remove a Judge from office; - Censure (issue
official disapproval of actions) or reprimand a judge for "willful misconduct
in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, or other conduct
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that brings
the judicial office into disrepute"; - Suspend a judge without pay;
- Suspend, with or without pay, or retire a judge who is mentally or
physically unable to perform his or her duties. · Decisions of the Courts
Commission are final. Current Commissioners- Hon. Mary Ann G. McMorrow
Hon. Robert Chapman Buckley Hon. Fred S. Carr, Jr. Hon. Raymond Funderburk
Hon. James A. Knecht Michael Lawrence Paula Wolff
THE PITFALLS OF ILLINOIS JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
During 1994-1995, California and New York disciplined 36 judges and
30 judges respectively. While having half as many judges, Illinois disciplined
only one judge during the same time period. Although these figures do
not display the quality of results, they certainly demand an explanation.
Yet, because matters prior to a formal complaint are confidential, no
official answers are forthcoming. In the 30 years that the current system
has operated, the Board has received over 4000 complaints of injudicious
conduct, but has presented only 70 formal complaints to the Courts Commission.
The majority of the formal complaints were either dismissed or simply
handled with reprimands. Furthermore, a loophole exists in the process:
judges who resign during an investigation are immune from commission
scrutiny. Illinois judges subject to this process and its lackluster
application simply have nothing to fear. Not all states employ the same
methods nor achieve consistent results in their search for judicial
integrity. But there is no simple way to explain the state of Illinois'
languishing judicial discipline. Illinois has often been unable to investigate
judges worthy of concern, let alone exact discipline, because the system
operates without adequate personnel and money. For Example: · Twice
between 1993-1997, Governor Edgar let a majority of the Board members'
terms expire, leaving the Board without a quorum to conduct business.
· The 1999 budget of the Judicial Inquiry Board was $525,171. Investigating
and disciplining judges cost California and New York $3.98 million and
$1.64 million a year, respectively. Although New York and California
use unicameral disciplinary systems (one disciplinary body), as do 42
other states, it is not necessarily the organizational scheme that determines
success. Pennsylvania has a reliable two-tiered system, but had a 1997
budget of $1.2 million. Illinois must make a commitment to strengthen
its system financially. · All matters prior to a formal complaint are
confidential. Because of the Board's essentially confidential process,
the public is unable to monitor its activities. This includes the investigative
work of the Board. If a judge resigns before the complaint is made,
the file stays closed. The Board has plea bargained matters and sent
private letters to judges warning of impending action without making
a formal complaint, thereby releasing the offending judge from public
scrutiny. These methods do not deter judges from acting inappropriately.
Typically, plea-bargaining stems from an overburdened system, yet the
courts commission has heard no more than three cases a year. · Judges
will not change their behavior if they know the voting public will not
view their indiscretions, that investigations will be confidential,
and that they may avoid prosecution altogether through resignation.
· The answer is not necessarily to scrap the two-tiered system and try
to reformulate the entire process. The Pennsylvania two-tiered system
works because judges work in concert with the public in both organizations
to ensure judicial propriety, and the budget is sufficient to enable
a competent staff and through investigations.
A REPRIMAND AND A SMILE
Judicial indiscretion and penance in Illinois include:
· In 1978, a judge was accused of striking a deputy sheriff who had
informed the judge that the sheriff's department would issue a ticket
to the judge's son for driving a motorcycle without a license. Action
Taken: Charges dropped because the commission reasoned that this was
just "one instance in which the judge threatened trouble" and thus "did
not warrant disciplinary action." Furthermore, the judge was displaying
common behavior of a man defending his son. The Commission attributed
the criminal charges to bad feelings between the judge and the sheriff's
office.
· In 1981, a judge ordered three men charged with traffic violations
to sign jury waiver forms, then stated that they signed them voluntarily.
Action Taken: Dismissed because "there had been no showing of a general
attitude of arbitrariness on the part of the judge in the performance
of his judicial duties or in the exercise of judicial authority."
· In 1987, the Courts Commission found that a judge a) fired his secretary
for ending their romantic relationship; b) while presiding in a criminal
case, impaneled a jury that included a police officer and the criminal
defendant's former mother-in-law, without the presence of the prosecutor,
defendant, or defense counsel, and without allowing challenges to jurors.
At the defendant's hearing, in open court, the judge admitted that his
actions were inappropriate, but displayed a blatant disregard for the
defendant's rights; c) refused to answer several questions asked by
the Judicial Inquiry Board regarding the charges, asserting his "right
of personal privacy." Action Taken: Six months suspension without pay.
· In 1989, a judge singled out a high school student whose class was
allowed to observe the proceedings in the judge's courtroom. The judge
criticized the student before the bench for creating a disturbance,
when none had occurred. He then ordered the student taken into custody.
A deputy sheriff took the student to chambers and handcuffed him to
a chair. The judge again berated the student, brought him before the
bench, handcuffed him once more, and finally made the student apologize
in court. The student, nor his teacher, was ever informed of the grievous
actions demanding this punishment. Action Taken: Censured for his actions.
· In 1995, a judge falsely represented that he had won the Congressional
Medal of Honor. He allowed others to maintain the lie and even spoke
publicly about it. Action Taken: Censured for his actions.
· In 1996, Illinois Supreme Court Justice James D. Heiple, who, at
the time, served as chairman of the Courts Commission, was stopped for
speeding. He led police on a car chase that ended at the Justice's home.
The Justice allegedly resisted arrest. He plead guilty to charges of
speeding and disobeying police, but other charges, including resisting
arrest, were dropped. · Action Taken: Censured for his actions.
FILING A COMPLAINT:
To file a complaint against a judicial officer, write to: The Illinois
Judicial Inquiry Board 100 W, Randolph Street, Suite 14-500 Chicago,
IL 60601 To obtain a complaint form, call: (312) 814-5554 or (800) 227-9429
The information you will need to provide to the Judicial Inquiry Board
to begin an investigation about the alleged misconduct or inability
of a judicial officer to perform his/her duties includes: · When: Provide
the specific date, location and time of the alleged judicial misconduct
or disability. If the alleged misconduct or disability occurred during
a lawsuit, provide the case name and case number and what kind of case
it was (e.g. criminal), what relation you plated in the case (e.g. party
or attorney to the witness, etc.), and the name of any attorney involved
in the case. · Documentation: Include all documents that support the
alleged misconduct or disability. You will also need to provide the
name, address and phone number of any other witnesses to the challenged
conduct. · Specific Behavior: Finally, describe in detail your allegations
of the judge's misconduct or disability. THERE IS NO FEE TO FILE A COMPLAINT
JUDGING THE JUDGES' BEHAVIOR
The Illinois Courts Commission has tended to be protective of judges.
This is not surprising since members of the Commission are judges. The
success of any disciplinary system is dependent upon the complete scheme.
Funding and support must come from the state level. Judges, attorneys
and law enforcement officials should be reminded of their legal and
ethical obligations to report misconduct and cooperate with investigations.
The public, hungry for access, must be made an equal partner in the
process. Although confidentiality is a valid and important right, judges
should not be allowed to shield themselves from public scrutiny simply
because they are judges. Finally, the courts must be just and appear
to be just to have the respect of the public. The Illinois Commission
on judicial conduct should be more responsible and accountable to the
public.
--HOME
--
Help
Citizens Act