MOUNT VERNON – Madison County Board members who terminated administrator Doug Hulme and information technology director Rob Dorman in 2020 didn’t violate their rights, Fifth District appellate judges ruled on June 15.
They affirmed Associate Judge Ronald Foster in rejecting claims that the board failed to follow the Open Meetings Act and the law for judicial review of administrative action.
The appellate court also affirmed an earlier decision of former Associate Judge Thomas Chapman, denying a motion from Hulme and Dorman for a judge from another county.
Justices Randy Moore, Mark Boie, and Michael McHaney rendered the decision.
County Board Chairman Kurt Prenzler appointed Hulme and Dorman after defeating incumbent Alan Dunstan in 2016.
Former State’s Attorney Tom Gibbons formed a task force of county and municipal officers to investigate Hulme and Dorman.
In January 2018, they raided offices in the administration building and seized computers.
Prenzler, Hulme, and Dorman petitioned the circuit court to find a conflict of interest on the part of Gibbons, claiming his actions clashed with his duty to represent them.
Former Chief Judge David Hylla asked the Illinois Supreme Court to assign a judge from outside the Third Judicial Circuit.
The Supreme Court referred it to Second Circuit chief judge Thomas Tedeschi, who assigned Circuit Judge Jerry Crisel.
At a hearing, Gibbons told Crisel that Prenzler, Hulme, and Dorman alleged no evidence that his office was exercising authority over the task force.
“Search warrants are not issued by the state’s attorney’s office,” he said.
“The state’s attorney’s office is simply facilitating the proceedings of a grand jury,” he added.
He said search warrants and a subpoena didn’t constitute prosecution.
Crisel declared a conflict in June 2018, finding a grand jury has a right to subpoena and question anyone against whom a state’s attorney is seeking indictment.
He directed former Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appoint a prosecutor, and she appointed current Attorney General Kwame Raoul.
In early 2020, he declared he lacked enough evidence to bring charges.
On April 16, 2020, the county board held a meeting by telephone due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
The agenda indicated they would hold a closed session to discuss personnel and an open session to take action on personnel.
After the closed session, they terminated Hulme and Dorman, 25 to one, alleging they acted beyond the bounds of ethical conduct and standards of leadership.
Hulme and Dorman sued under administrative review law in May 2020, claiming the board included insufficient factual findings and conclusions of law.
Hulme and Dorman sued under the Open Meetings Act in June 2020, claiming the agendas did not identify them by name.
Former Chief Judge Bill Mudge assigned current Circuit Judge Christopher Threlkeld, then an associate judge.
Hulme and Dorman moved for substitution.
In Illinois, any party can substitute a judge once without cause if the judge hasn’t made a substantial ruling.
Threlkeld granted substitution, and Mudge assigned Associate Judge Thomas Chapman.
Hulme and Dorman moved for an outside judge, and Chapman denied it.
The county board moved to substitute Chapman, and he granted it.
Mudge assigned Foster.
In 2021, the county board moved to dismiss the administrative review suit and enter summary judgment that they complied with the Open Meetings Act.
Foster granted both motions last year.
On the Open Meetings Act, he found Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s executive order suspended provisions of the Act requiring attendance in person. Hulme and Dorman appealed.
The Fifth District consolidated the appeals with a pending appeal of Chapman’s order.
Moore, Boie and McHaney approved Chapman’s order because Hulme and Dorman didn’t verify the motions or attach a necessary affidavit.
They found Hulme and Dorman couldn’t pursue administrative review because they didn’t serve a summons in a timely fashion.
On the Open Meetings Act, Moore wrote that Hulme and Dorman implied there wasn’t a quorum because members weren’t physically present.
He found the board conducted the meeting by Pritzker’s executive order, and Hulme and Dorman didn’t allege the order was improper or invalid.
He found the agendas fulfilled the obligations of notice under the Act.
“Plaintiffs have failed to cite any law that specifically requires that a county board state the names of the specific individuals it plans to discuss, discipline, or terminate in the agenda and this court is aware of none,” he wrote.