administrative review of the board's decision finding that former governor ryan is entitle to none of his pension benefits the pension board made that conclusion based on the plain language of section two one five six of the pension code and that reads that none of the benefits shall be paid to any person convicted of any felony relating to arising out of arc in connection with his service as a member and member is the key word the board concluded that this one language was plain and that it did not need to look any further to determine that this would be a full i don't know that he would lose all of those benefits on the appellate court on the other hand errored because it looks to the meaning of the word member it discovered that member under the statute first to service in the period of such office and member in the system refers to members of the general assembly the governor lieutenant governor secretary of state comptroller treasurer and attorney general governor ryan agreed that he should lose his pension relating to his service as governor and secretary of state because he held those offices when he committed his crimes he did not agree that he should lose his pension  the definition of service of the word member and the stanch it says in the definition of a member added for the period of service in such two dash one ten but this merely tells who is eligible to serve section to dash one ten simply says that a person becomes a member when the person first becomes a member and then ends a service in it's on the period under consideration excluding all periods of knowing that membership so one person does not serve in a public office they are not a member but all of the other periods beginning at the first elected state office and the end they are remembered throughout that entire period it is only periods if for example the because under this court's precedent it had to and the board discovered that nexus was established because the crimes were committed while he was a member and because the nexus was a stablished the question then became the extent of the forfeiture and if the board correctly found that all of the benefits would be forfeited because of the language of the statute but hinges on the word member service as a member of the pension system so the nexus was established misuse in terrio this court stated quote pension statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the petitioners rights you'd agree with provision would state none of the benefits here in provided ship or shall be paid to any person who is convicted of any felony relating to or arising out of his or her service as governor and cetera for the period of service in such office you just explain to us your interpretation of what for the period of service in such office means and maybe the legislature never intended that the for the period of service and such office that creates demand simple offices for purposes of that i think for future provision again i think if we're going to take the word member from section one five six and look up the definition of member we also should look up the definition of service and service is only talking about who's eligible and so the people of the period of service or your position is yet to be the forfeiture provision uses the defined term member current but service is also defined so that if it's fair to look at the term member and look at the definition it's also fair look at the definitions that's what i think it is it is fair if you're going to look at the definition of one and why not look at the definition of the other and certainly i think even in a plain language study it would be appropriate if the statute defines terms to look at the definition of those terms so if we look at the definition of service there's absolutely nothing in there that talks about creating divisions of these offices all it talks about is when a member is so much more and doesn't that make they've created limitations for them not existing to the plain language and certainly not exist in the legislative intent that could be implied from the statute so i we believe that it would be only fair to continue to look at the definition of service if we are looking at the definition of member wanted to do so and knew how to write a statute that would provide so and all we have to do is look at the employee's municipal retirement fund and under the act fund the statute talks about but each minister pallid a is a separate division and this court recognized that in the tadeo case it is treated as an independent unit within the fund here on the other hand the system was created as one entity for the benefit of the members of the system its funds are separate from our other funds also in the i m r l each minister palely make separate  contributions to the fund for their employees here on the other hand the state makes all of the contributions not each of the offices i suppose if each office for example if the attorney general office had to make her contributions or if the secretary of state had to make that office had to make contributions then it would be more likely that is not the case the statute was not written that way the st that the state that one entity makes all the contributions the state also pays all of the expenses also under the i m r after the liabilities and reserves of each municipality a separate here in contrast the assets of the system are invested as one fund and it says that no person or entity shall have a right in any specific part other than an undivided interest in the huddle so in other words under this particular statute there are no divisions and there was absolutely no basis to imply divisions under the meaning of the phrase for the p i take it it would have been eligible i'm sorry your honor i have trouble hearing ok is there any significance to the fact that there was a part of the i am or funds that were in the program when ryan was a member of a count mentioned when he joined the general assembly retirement system he purchased those credits from his county service and they became part of his pension from this fund so there is no significance to that  fact i'm sorry i'm puzzled by the phrase the present for the period of service in such an office is found with the definition of the wor what does that mean the period of service that he actually served in the office your honor if it appears to be what it says and i and i'm sorry if you've been over this no no no i would prefer going over  yeah i'm looking at that and trying to read the language i think i have it at accurately phrase with peers this is expressed as a legislative intent to narrow the scope of the term member and to limit the forfeiture to the forfeiture provision to the period in service in such an office is directly related to a felony is the period that the plaintiff actually served in the office rather than to continue periods continue periods and your honor we have to look to the meaning of service service it is still talking about eligibility it is not talking about creating some proto offices but just to find the allergy ability that you well frankly i'm not sure why i'm not sure why the phrase was added well i mean that it becomes a problem because it has to mean something well it does mean something anything to excite your body here in a bit what it what it means from the governor or you but i think the more reasonable is the fact that the phrase is in the definition of member and typically i think anything that would follow the definition of member would just describe who is eligible for membership and i think that it's a reasonable interpretation suggest that this phrase is simply referring to who is a member not to not creating separate divisions for purposes of of another section that is talking about a felony forfeiture provision and so that's i think all that it means i and my other reply brief looked at some of the history of this provision to determine you know is that correct and we believe that it is correct and when the constitutional officers there used to be in the state employees retirement system when they were moved into the general assembly retirement system there was but had their own paragraph the prior paragraph talked only about the general assembly and the last sentence on pep paragraph refers to eligibility of membership and so i think based on bad it is also fair to assume that for the period in service of service and such office also know you personally to membership it doesn't refer to a goon creating such offices to protect someone who is is is general and just describes who belongs to the system and they are in the definition of number is consistent with that so i don't know that we have a situation where there's a general or more specific i mean i think reading them together it is just that when someone is a member of the system they would lose our of their family if all of their pension benefits due to a felony forfeiture conviction relat to discourage official no fees since and governor ryan even part of this pension does nothing to promote those policies you had indicated you had indicated earlier i think that member had to do with the time of service in office that if someone was serving in elected office he or she was a member no longer office no longer a member reelected then becomes a member that a fair statement yes in the event and we don't have this situation but would you also argue in this in this sit in that situation if someone had served number of years in office started drawing a retirement and then became elected again some five  rejected that and i think that it is consistent with each time someone is elected to office when their member of the system but they reaffirm that commitment to honorable service and because the felony is tied to membership in the system then that person would lose all of the benefits no matter if there was a plank in service and that's consistent to promotes the policy is even if it was a different off i'm sorry even though it's a different well as long as it's an office covered by this pension system yes if if if someone were a member of the general assembly and left office and five years later decided to run for secretary of state and won that office and committed a felony during the secretary of state because of the way for services to find and eligibility is defined and membership is to find that membership is is as seen as a whole and so none of the benefits would be paid thank you thank you thank you mr chief justice and may it please the court my name is jim thompson and i represent the plaintiff happily in this case governor george ryan before i begin the argument let me refer to two questions that were asked the assistant attorney general at the conclusion of her argument first to she in response to a question said that even if you assume the statute is ambiguous then you would look to the public policy of the statu to see whether forfeiture of all the pension served the purpose of the public policy with all due respect that's not what this court has held in the past as recently as four years ago in that teddy you case the court quoting prior decisions again made it clear that pension statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the pension or you said that in tadeo you said that in shields and you've said that in other cases so if this statute is ambiguous than this court should adopt the construction which statutes right section two one five six plainly states if a person is convicted of a felony relating to or arising from his services governor or secretary of state the person sh receive none of the benefits provided for by the general assembly retirements correct not only some of the benefits but none of the benefits against the word none is clear or none means none it's not the divisible into smaller parts  h the counterpart of the question i had for opposing counsel on the interplay of the statute in the wording is what is your position on the clear meaning of non in that sense my position is two fold if our legislature meant what council claims it meant and what the pennsylvania supreme court said and she has our legislature would have written the statute differently you cannot take the word nun in isolation the word nun like the word service like the word member has to be read in the context of the entire statute and so the answer would still be the same if you commit a crime or if you're convicted of a crime during your service in a particular office you get none of the benefits that would ordinarily flow from the pension for that office that does not mean that you get none of the benefits if you're not convicted of a crime when you're serving in an office and that would be the interplay that we talk about that's corrupt and if in response to that opposing counsel indicated that we have to look at the definition of service as well and earned alice and the definition of service that portion of it relates to eligibility well you know i looked at that argument in her brief as late as this morning and with all respect i came to the conclusion that it doesn't make any difference because  question at the end as the appellate court found is if you are elected to divisible offices as governor ryan was and if you do nothing wrong in some of those offices and if you've made your pension contribution to some of those offices you're entitled to your pension and there is nothing in that whole technical section of the statute defining service that compels a contrary conclusion let's put to one side what this case is not this case is not wells governor ryan was not in the employee of the state of illinois as much as the attorney general would like to make it appear governor ryan like the members of this court was an officer of the state of illinois elected to separately  defined a constitutional offices with separately defined duties elected by the people not appointed by somebody as an employee in those offices had a beginning and then specified by the constitution the term and each time he was elected whether is a member of the general assembly or as lieutenant governor of the state of illinois or as secretary of state of the state of illinois or as governor of the state of illinois he became a member of new of the general assembly pension fund and he is entitle to the pension for the service in the office which had nothing to do with it governors are is  are who are lawyers based on who pays us or what office we'll i'm just thinking if you go in to apply for a mortgage and they say employer yes we're going to say the state of illinois yes but not as an employee of the state of illinois this is not wells were a man was employed in one position and through a long career was promoted within that position and had to forfeit all of his pension benefits because he committed a crime at the end this is akin to taddeo where the men held t retirement system and separate funds or counts for the various offices that are covered by the system they do not but just governor ryan's contributions and governor ryan be easily divided by the retirement fund there is no issue as to that and so the argument of the attorney general that because the m retirement fund contains these neat accounting sections that that is an intention of the legislature to but the fact that this is a case of first impression does not mean that governor ryan is not entitled to his partial engine because there is literally no difference in the makes an important point here general to punish governor ryan by depriving him of his pension benefits i sympathize with the attorney general however the attorney general must interpret and apply the statute in the manner in which it is written the attorney general must not rewrite the statute to make it consistent with the attorney general's idea of orderliness and public policy that fits this case i believe no one standing here defends the conduct of governor ryan in his office as secretary of state and as governor for that he was indicted and convicted and in person rated and he remains in the penitentiary in terre haute today and unless the president of the united states exercises mercy he will remain there till nearly eighty years of age he has lost his reputation pension and health benefits even his social security which is stripped from you when you were sent to the federal penitentiary on the grounds that it's the federal government is supporting you in the penitentiary you don't need your social security so he literally he and his wife have nothing left but his partial pension our belief is that the words of the statute are clear our belief is that even if they were in big us you must construe it in his favor as you've held many times our belief is that for twenty four years as a member of the kankakee county board as a legislator and as lieutenant governor george ryan gave honest and important service to the people of illinois he made his pension contributions he is entitled to his pension for those years even is he is not entitled clearly to his pension for secretary of state and governor as this court pointed out and tadeo the public policy behind the forfeiture statute has served with this divisible pension far greater payments would have been made for the more highly compensated offices of secretary of state and government he loses those so the balance is clear he is punished believe yes and and there isn't any dispute is there by the board that the governor receives those pension credits but it's not enough credit to gain him a pension is that he would have a right he would not have gained a pension for his service as a member of the cake he county board but they buy a selfie they can see that he has not forfeited those credits as i am so well know they don't concede he was unable to transfer that service those six years of service to his general assembly retirement fund pension if his entire general assembly retirement fund pension is struck down as they want that he loses that six years as well because it doesn't stand independently and they're not they're not sufficient by themselves to qualify that is correct  proposal that is correct you would have nothing it's also important to note as just as her mayor question that if you look at the ability of governor ryan to transfer those six years into the general assembly pension fund it does speak to the fact that the legislature would not have intended to strip the governor of credit for service which did not relate to a a crime committed while in office so we ask this court to follow the principles of patio which you decided just four years ago unanimously except for a special concurrence by justices freeman and kilbride court november eighteenth one thousand fifty now and fifty years in one week ago today that i made my first argument in this court little has changed except the faces and no matter what other offices i've held whether across the street or down the street or in the city of chicago i've always regarded this for as my home and it's a privilege each time i come here to argue and i hope i have in that respect at least serve the court well thank you your honor so i think it's important to talk about the tadeo decision and how that is to stink on the under underlying the decision in that case was the explicit language of the i m r f which creates separate divisions of employers and i've gone over that before but this case is not the same as chatty oh this is a case where there are no divisions nothing in this provision talks about dividing these offices in any their terms of contributions of benefits and responsibilities of the state at all there is nothing so the terrio decision the board thought that it could be read together with this decision because of the difference in the stanchions and the walls decision was was brought up by mr thomson and in that case it is more similar to us because in that case there was zero one employer the employee had various positions for the village and when he committed a felony and one of the positions he was stripped of his benefits that accumulated for all of the other positions  state well the i am i refuse a sort employer and employee because that obviously best describes the members but i think that the legislature did not choose the word employee an honest answer because i mean it really isn't whether elected offices really isn't appropriate and the word member which she was so so there's no distinction they are that there was a difference in wording between employee and member and to take mr ryan's argument a step further and was it was a relatively low level employee who lost all of his benefit and this case we have a very high level him officer and he thinks that he should keep part of his pension but the fallacy of that is that a high level person such as all of these offices that make up the system can do the most harm to the public good just because of the positions that they hold and it would make no sense at all for someone like mr ryan to be able to keep a portion of his pension when someone like mr wells who was a very low level employee and couldn't affect all of the citizens citizens of the state through as criminal conduct should be stripped of all of his benefits i mean that simply makes no sense is consistent with the plain language of the statute and it makes certain that the citizens of illinois whose trust ryan betrayed do not have to fund any of his pension there is nothing in the supports the board's position the board was correct that this promotes the policies underlying the fortune for future provision and we would ask this court to uphold the board's decision and reverse