Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

02/11/88 Gus Pflugmacher, v. Jerry Cosentino

February 11, 1988

GUS PFLUGMACHER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

v.

JERRY COSENTINO, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

THE RULES OF CONSTRUCTION PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SECTION ARE APPLICABLE TO ACTS ENACTED BY THE SAME GENERAL ASSEMBLY THROUGHOUT THE 2 YEAR PERIOD OF ITS EXISTENCE." (ILL. RE

v.

STAT. 1981, CH. 1, PAR. 1105.) ALSO OF SIGNIFICANCE IS ARTICLE IV, SECTION 8(D), OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1970, WHICH STATES IN PART:



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT

519 N.E.2d 1123, 165 Ill. App. 3d 1083, 116 Ill. Dec. 908 1988.IL.198

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County; the Hon. Simon L. Friedman, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

PRESIDING JUSTICE GREEN delivered the opinion of the court. LUND and SPITZ, JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE GREEN

On June 2, 1987, plaintiff Gus Pflugmacher filed a complaint in the circuit court of Sangamon County seeking a writ of mandamus to order defendants Jerry Cosentino, treasurer of the State of Illinois (Treasurer), and Michael Tristano, director of Central Management Services (Director), to reinstate plaintiff to a position in the office of the Treasurer. Upon issue being drawn, both parties moved for summary judgment. On July 10, 1987, the court entered summary judgment for the plaintiff. Defendants have appealed. We affirm.

The facts of the case are undisputed. Prior to April 1, 1983, plaintiff held a position in the office of the predecessor to the defendant Treasurer. At that time, section 8b.18 of the Personnel Code (Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 127, par. 63b108b.18) provided that certain middle management positions in various offices subject to the Code could be filled by the employer by appointments for a term of four years, with the employer having the power to refuse to renew the appointment at the end of that term. On April 1, 1983, the then Treasurer appointed plaintiff to such a position. That term expired on April 1, 1987; at that time, the Treasurer refused to renew plaintiff's appointment and discharged him. Defendants contend that plaintiff's discharge was proper, because the foregoing legislation was still in force and gave the Treasurer discretion in regard to plaintiff's continuation in service. Plaintiff maintains that section 8b.18 had then been repealed, thus returning the position he held to the civil service status under the Code and preventing the Treasurer from discharging him without cause.

Determination of whether section 8b.18 of the Code has been repealed requires consideration of various legislative enactments. They must be viewed in the context of the following provisions of sections 5 and 6 of "An Act to revise the law in relation to the construction of the statutes:"

"In construing an amendatory Act printed in any volume of the session laws published after January 1, 1969, matter printed in italics shall be construed as new matter added by the amendatory Act, and matter shown crossed with a line shall be construed as matter deleted from the law by the amendatory Act." (III. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 1, par. 1104.)

"Two or more Acts which relate to same subject matter and which are enacted by the same General Assembly shall be construed together in such manner as to give full effect to each Act except in case of an irreconcilable conflict. In case of an irreconcilable conflict the Act last acted upon by the General Assembly is controlling to the extent of such conflict. . . .

An irreconcilable conflict between 2 or more Acts which amend the same section of an Act exists only if the amendatory Acts make inconsistent changes in the section as it theretofore existed.

"A bill expressly amending a law shall set forth completely the sections amended." Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 8(d).

The first legislation which concerns the specific problem before us is Public Act 81-1002, which became effective January 1, 1980. Section 1 thereof was in italics and created section 8b.18 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 127, par. 63b108b.18). (1979 Ill. Laws 3811, 3812.) Section 2 was in ordinary type and provided that section 8b.18 was to be repealed January 1, 1984. (1979 Ill. Laws 3811, 3813.) The effect of the Act was to make section 1 a part of the Code, but to provide for a "sunset" date or date of repeal which was not a part of the Code but which was contained only in Public Act 81-1002. Next, the General Assembly enacted Public Act 82-789, effective July 13, 1982 (1982 Ill. Laws 1259), which made substantive changes in section 8b.18 of the Code, but did not purport to change section 2 of Public Act 81-1002.

The next General Assembly then enacted four more pieces of legislation which are crucial to our decision. The first was Public Act 83 -- 98, effective August 18, 1983 (1983 Ill. Laws 1384), which amended section 2 Public Act 81 -- 1002, to change the date of repeal from January 1, 1984, to October 1, 1986. The bill printed the new repealer date in italics and also included the former repealer date with a line through it. No mention was made of section 8b.18 of the Code. Then came Public Act 83 -- 1362, effective September 11, 1984. (1984 Ill. Laws 1703.) It was a revisory bill to correct technical errors and make non-substantive revisions in many different laws. Article IV, section 37, of this Act amended section 8b.18 of the Code by adding the following words which appeared in italics: "this section is repealed October 1, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.