attempting to use this private right of action to collaterally attack and reverse the decision made by the police pension bill were a decision that was within its exclusive original jurisdiction  decision which was subject only to judicial review under the administrator to review law section one dash one one five has never been used in the manner the attorney general was attempting to use it in this case court and the police pension board at concurrent jurisdiction to resolve any issue in this case and if so whether the attorney general's complaint brought pursuant to section one one five the properly  d the circuit courts concurrent jurisdiction this case arises under article five of the pension code which governs police pensions in cities with populations of exceeding five hundred thousand  deciding the issues in this case and the legislative intent there's two provisions in article five that i think that who are to consider the first it's section five deaths one seventy eight and five this one seventy nine which provides for the creation of an eight member board of trustees which is charged with the responsibility to administer the pension fund for the benefit of police officers that eight member board is comprised of four members appointed by the mayor and four members who are elected by police officers so in this circumstance unlike other provisions and other sections or articles in the code you have a board that has equal representation by labor and management and that brewer is designed to ensure that there is adequate consideration given to the competing interests that arise in the administration of this particular  section one of the other provision of the of the code that is it is obviously not relevant here is section five dash one eighty nine and in five dash one eighty nine the general assembly explicitly granted to this board this representative or original exclusive jurisdiction to determine all issues pertaining to the payment the encrease the reduction the suspension or terminations of police officers benefit so consistent with this framework police officers have the right to expect that the board and their elected representatives are going to be making the decisions that affect their pensions in addition because of the cold expressly limits review of the board's decision to pursue things under the administrative review law these police officers ask the right to expect that those board decisions are not going to be subject to collateral  by the attorney general or anyone else in the circuit court there is nothing in the language of section one dash one one five the legislative history of that section or any prior application of that section that suggests that the general assembly intended to work a radical departure from the statutory framework of article five for the purposes of making decisions for the benefit of police officers if the conduct violates a provision of the code they're acting outside the provisions of the cold the board is established and then the board is told how you are to exercise your exclusive jurisdiction in for example the board has to have a w is alleging that no the attorney general was not alleging that it all the attorney general is alleging that the board's decision although they he frames it she frames in a different manner the attorney general is saying that the board's decision as implemented violates the pension and that that argument here are all dressed in a moment but that's the argument that that we say is is makes no sense  but in this case what what if what the attorney general is alleging and what the the college court found was that the section one one five provides a basis for the circuit court to exercise concurren issue that either the agency or the court has to decide has been exactly the same for example in the middle and railroad case the common question was whether the plaintiff in that case was entitle to a tax refund the question was could the board that was the single issue that either would decide skilling was the same thing there was that question of coverage a worker's comp worker's compensation insurance policy and crossroads the issue was whether the that a truck dealership had been wrongfully terminated these claims in each of these cases was identical whether they had that claim was going to be decided by the circuit court or whether it was going to be so be decided by the administrative agency in disputed pension issues in this case but it didn't say what those disputed pension issues were in fact what the board did was it went beyond the eight attorney general's complaint and found a pension issue that what it attorney general says that the board also has duress bichon to adjudicate the same questions but again what is the question that that the board can decide and the the court can decide what is this this same question or same subject matter section one one five crates of private cause of action in favor of the attorney general but there are the action is limited to in this case in joining violations of the pension co know concurrent jurisdiction etc exclusive jurisdiction but right but do they not have a right i mean i guess you did sit in a parade to but you don't believe it or a place here but no but i'm trying to understand why it does not apply here the  with the the the appellate court and the attorney general argues that there's concurrent jurisdiction to decide and we hear the issue here and it is not clear what they both have to decide the order in this case has no authority  it should be discontinued or not yes and there was no majority correct for it for the record the board it acted within clearly within the scope of its a power to make the decision whether that to terminate the pension benefit and i didn't do the attorney general's complaint here what was it that they said was wrong that's a good question they said they never say they never say what what was what happened what work or book actually violates section one eighty nine of the five hundred eighty nine of the code so they came up with a violation because they recognized that the attorney general's complaint isn't really alleging a violation of anything however with eight member you could always have or every time there's a book you could have for four absolutely absolutely but the legislature obviously understood that when they created an eight and eight member board with you know four sides labor and management having equal representation apparently i'm not sure but apparently for four votes to occur and in which case as it's typical whatever action you're taking doesn't care but that but that's that's a risk you take when you create a fourth quarter birch israel where presented by counsel whom the ready given some of the arguments in this case i believe the issues very clear in very short the issue in this case is and so far as the board is concern is whether the attorney general under the guise of section one one one five of the pension act has a right to initiate a civil proceeding civil procedure the challenge  discretionary decision of an administrative agency now i have never questioned whether or not the attorney general can bring such an action the i want the rise under one one five to do so the question is does it apply to this type of a situation the board is controlled by the administrative review of the administrative review act which is never been changed to my knowledge as a provision which says that the administrative review law shell apply and govern all actions to review traditionally a final decision of an administrative agency and the key language is in all such cases any other statutory one one five case we have to see what happened here burj was granted a retirement benefit some fifteen years prior to his conviction felony conviction he already had that benefit now to take that benefit away from him due process required that the board have an evidentiary open hearing at which time it would hear what other or not there was a nexus between the crime committed and his police service if there was an excess then he would lose is benefits they would be terminated if there was no nexus between that and the benefits would continue in this case for trustees found that there was a nex voted to deny four vote for trustees found there was none so them in this case the board of the board had the burden to prove that berge was no longer  benefit ed birch come before the board initially anybody making any application whether it be felony disability or what any applicant has the burden to prove his case play one one fifteen comes into play because the legislature then decided well if the board x p and the scope of the authorities granted to it in the act for example if you look at twenty seven of the act there is a second paragraph in there that says an officer and disability who gets convicted of anything any loses his benefits now there is no discretion  board's part on that case if the officer is convicted of a felony while in disability his benefits are lost if the board were to grant him that benefit ignore the plain language of the sta or if the board were to invest in real estate out of the country when the powers that you're in that give it to and say you can't invest in real state out of the country then one fifteen would come into play because then they're doing something beyond the scope of their authority they did and it's a void an act of void act can be challenged anyplace at any time and not mistake not a not a mistake and that's what's happen is something beyond the scope of the authority given to it by the legislature the board is a creature the leavitt's legislature all of the provisions from one a v or to one ninety five of the act outlined with the board's duties and responsibilities are if they go beyond that they may be committing a void  merits of the attorney general's claim brought pursuant to section one dash one fifteen of pension code that claim alleged that the payment of pension benefits to defend john birch violates section five dash two to seven of pension code and should be enjoined because his felony convictions for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about what he did as a police officer under both our convictions relating to his the wording of one fifteen minutes really what this is going to hinge on isn't it obtain appropriate relief under section one hundred fourteen of this code beast as enjoying any act or prayer has which violates any provision of the that the rub is what is the act or practice right i think opposing counsel would have us think that where you're really you're doing is you don't like the decision and the failure of the motion to terminate unless absolutely correct we don't like the decision but it's incorrect for them to constantly characterize our complaint as one the sikh's review of that decision the circuit in order said and i think that's what this what has to be the focus here because if indeed that is the case if it's only a question ok we don't like the decision then i mean the attorney general's office or an individual could do this or any time when they don't like a board to see whether that's the point of horribles that they that they raise the specter of an conjure up but what i would suggest is that section one dash one fifteen has been mentioned in appellate court decisions in the past that it's based forbade him on a provision of the arista statue in action they agree that it's there they just say it doesn't apply here let me focus on that question then because i think the the critical distinction is is the difference between appellate jurisdiction which for administrative agencies is typically administrative review jurisdiction and original jurisdiction and we are asserting be a three given to the circuit courts under section one dash one fifteen gives them original jurisdiction to decide the old image substantive merits of the claim which is does some act or practice violate the pension code that jurisdiction exists independent of the existence of any concurrent jurisdiction in front of a given to administrative agency it doesn't seek to review any such decision it operates even if that agency never reach such provisions of a risk or the plan in junction is to address that violation which is the violation or the board's violation in our complaint is very clear on this is not a decision that's the the violation that the attorney general's complaint alleges in this case is the payment of benefits to mr burgess they're prohibited by section five pairs two to seven of the pension code but those benefits fifteen years before th board isn't granting them well the the the violation could only exist once there is a qualifying conviction which is a felony conviction related to a person services a policem once their conviction does arise the question comes up five to twenty seven said no more payments are allowed the language is clear it says none of the benefits provided for in this article shall be paid to any person the violation is the payments and in essence the attempt to try and characterize this complaint is one for the exercise of appellate review jurisdiction is a mr rection that is intended to shift the focus away from exactly what one dash one fifteen does and does it mention boy does the pension board have the authority to decide whether the benefits should be continued because that's what this is about have they both have that authority there is no doubt that the board had the authority to determine whether five section five to twenty seven would be violated by paying benefits to burgeon it addressed that issue in its original jurisdiction that original jurisdiction is concurrent with the separate and independent original jurisdiction of the circuit court granted by section dash one one dish one fifteen to address the very same matter to the attorney general now is saying that circuit courts original jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the claim it doesn't isn't dispositive of the circuit court circuit the subject matter jurisdiction but the attorney general had already to intervene in the case and she  conceivably the attorney general could of could have but the statute creates a separate vehicle for going before the circuit courts to exercise their concurrent original jurisdiction remember there are thousands of these pension board decisions that are entered every year in this state and attorney general filed a complaint in others this is first this is the first one and then we think this is an important case for the court to declare the section one dash one fifteen means exactly what it says good department assurances issued courts know every day about violations of the pension cobra people get spikes in their pension fund by a one day fifty percent increase in their salary that they treat as a fifty percent increase in their annual salary that increases their pension by fifty percent know we never got a bite of the in front of the board on the first apple but there's no duty to intervene the attorney general can't now hire hundreds of people to surveil all of the pension we're proceeding throughout the state in piano here trigger to try and get the record review them and intervene if there's some runaway board that makes a decision authorizing the pain of public funds in violation of the pension code and i think due process is clear that we cannot be bound by a decision in which we were not a party even if we had the right to intervene but did not do so so it really means that the attorney general no i think not a fair characterization the attorney general has the right to bring a suit and it is the judge in that case that decides in the first instance on a clean slate whether there's been a violation of the pension because we simply have  standing to be a plaintiff to seek the adjudication of that some of that sufficient one america mr has if you're saying that you have a right under one one five to use two to seven because there was a violation of the pension code because there was a violation from the board with not strictly complying with two to seven by by continuing to make payments right that we're not focusing on their decision that's not an element of our claim if they never acted our claim would exist within the circuit court's jurisdiction issue the grant payments in violation of the pension code this is the necessary failsafe chack to give circuit courts the power to stop those violations were the not ever serial process of these things and the public interest in public funds being spent justifies this separate creation of independent of original jurisdiction in circuit courts to address those may well if this court believes that this was only brought as a reaction to the failure of the motion to terminate why isn't there a parade of horribles that would that's sheer speculation your honor there was a history under our recess for six years before this statute was passed this statute has been on the books it's been referred to the appellate courts on multiple occasions for thirty some years this is a gesture that there's a parade of horribles that's going to happen seems to be the type of surmise that can change the plain meaning of the statute and if there's a problem based upon the interpretation of the statute according to its plain terms the legislature can fix it let me give an example here because i do want to illustrate and i want to make this very clear the difference between concurrent original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction in the administrative context one of the cases that we cited in this case is the n l industries cases one of protection act before the pollution control board any private citizen can file a complaint in front of the pollution control board and they can seek to have the pollution control board issue a cease and desist order and grant other relief and if the pollution control board does not do so or whatever it does that private citizen has the right to seek administrative review but separate and apart from that the legislature expressly created a power in the attorney general to bring an independent civil action in the circuit court to enjoin of violation of the environmental protection act and so the fact that there may be an administrative tribunals proceeding that's available for people who can pursue that does not foreclose in the legislature made it very clear that it does not foreclose in this court said the same thing does not foreclose and independent a regional action by the attorney general seeking to june the ultimate substantive question there is there a court to decide whether or not these counties were rising in connection with his services chicago police department is that the issue that you will be bringing to the court that is the issue here really to get exactly the same issue that was brought before the board if we clear i'm not i don't want to say reliving eight in the sense that we're you know we litigated once before we didn't but it would be a separate and independent litigation of that same subject matter which is not another four four split that's a no no you're right the focus of our complaint is that the payments to violate the pension code because his felonies were connected to exactly right yes the board may have had original jurisdiction to decide that issue the legislature has given the circuit cour concur original jurisdiction to decide that very same question is there a violation of the pension code by virtue of these payments to following his felony convictions for lying under oath about what he did as a police officer we don't think that's going to require don't know what the evidence was before the board we want a party to admit you they haven't filed the administrative record we post judgment intervention is disfavored so the possibility that we could have intervened i don't think changes the analysis with respect to the  jurisdiction and we're the one doesn't exclude the other the fact that we may have been able to intervene although they dispute that and then petition for administrative review doesn't mean that the circuit courts lose original jurisdiction under section one dash one fifteen if an action is properly brought before them within the scope of that original jurisdiction the evidence may well be the same i'll concede that the issue may be identical and that's the same as the situation that the legislature contemplated understood relevan sections of the environmental protection act where they said private citizen can go before the pollution control board to seek to stop an alleged violation of the environmental protection act but the attorney general regardless of that no matter what the outcome may have been or whether there was any such proceeding they go straight to the circuit court and seek a violation of exactly the same thing it doesn't matter whether the board had a hearing or not for purposes of determining whether section one dash one fifteen gives circuit court's original subject matter party could have done so and that is one of our arguments is that the defendants suggest that it would be absurd to create this possibility of independent separate original jurisdiction where the result may  be that the circuit court's judgment may have a different outcome than one that the board may have reached on the same issue but that absurdity i think really shows the wisdom of the legislation because you have public monies at stake you have a nanny adversarial process where nobody is advocating against the expenditure of public funds to the claimant and because there's no part of the record in that proceeding to seek administrative review opposing the decision the board is not going to bring review of its own decision the claimant who one is indirect interest in the city in the nature of some type of systemic violation as opposed to a one off departure from what they believe was the correct result that they had the ability to seek administrative review and b because they didn't they were  decision is difficult to square with this court's clear precedent including most recently in the roxana schoolboy case the says it really straight review is limited to parties or record if there is no other party of record in the case to seek administrative review you have the risk of this type of thing and this is not the only and this specific case law that says that parties including members of the board are prevented from bringing mr a view of cases that say i can't definitively tell you that the board itself or members of the board are folklorist but the you know i haven't seen a situation in which a disgruntled or dissenting member of a board has been given standing to seek administrator view as a part of your record to  majority of the members which means a minimum of five that would be an incorrect decision but it would also be a violation the pension code it happens to be a procedural one they can see that the attorney general can seek to enjoin breaches of food issue or a duty that would seem to include all sorts of violations of the pension code i can imagine that maybe there are incorrect decisions that might not constitute violations of the pension code it's strictly a you know whether you're arguing about just how discretion should have been exercised but but the i think  the problem they have is is that they're saying this language can't mean what it says because if it does the sky is going to fall and there's going to be thousands of people who will bring suit to seek a different outcome from board decisions for no reason at all and the answer to that is that's a question for the legislature to decide where they've created a regional jurisdiction your time's expired just from his would you comment briefly on the special concurrence just as  vote we have not taken a position in this court on the merits of the type of issue we think that that the that question whether the typo constitutes a violation of the pension code goes to the merits of our case as to pose to the subject matter jurisdiction do you want further comment by our office or on iran on that issue other than thank you thank you so much  yours i'd like to address just two of the issues that counsel raised one is the argument that a violation of section two to seven occurred in this case immediately upon the conviction of mr berg back in two thousand and eleven well that relates to arises out of or was in connection with the service of an officer so a decision has to be made whether that conviction relates to arises out of or occurred in connection with the service of an officer and in this case the the general assembly specifically gave the exclusive jurisdiction to make that decision to the pension and then to the general assembly a limited the ability to review that decision for the  administrative review law so to suggest that violation occurred because mr byrd was convicted without any decision by anyone and that his benefit should have been terminated immediately is inconsistent with section five to seven and of course violates due process the second the only second point i want to make is this is the question that just the scar men have and that was whether any violation under the attorney general for you in this case or any what circumstances a pension can be paid to whom when when it can be reduced when it can be changed and there's all kinds of provisions that pension boards have to follow and making decisions whether to grant reduce increase or complies with the code then europe and the justice carmen you're correct any single payment authorized by a pension board can be challenged by not only the attorney general but anybody that has an interest in the pension code at any time because their whole theory in this case is that it's not the decision of the board it's the the consequence of the board's decision that is the payment but constitutes a violation so when the board makes a wrong decision and authorizes a payment i can come into court on the beneficiary on that plan and i can say the words wrong because they didn't apply the provisions of the code properly therefore they violated the code and the payment should be enjoined and we think that's an absurd interpretation  had like to just maybe respond slightly to a couple of points number one the administrative review it provides for a thirty five the period in which to file period as i view it why does it have no statutory time period i think it has no to its authority time period because it and it was meant to address acts which are void they can beyond the scope of and they could then come under one one five to challenge that case two years later three years later there's not time the way there's no end to the administrative process if their position be they would make whatever argument they want to make if they were allowed to intervene in that case and then they would probably be as a big party in that case they would have had the right to file and the procedure go up to challenge the board decision but when they wa in this case back to the trial court and make it that you know i'm that's why i'm not going to stand what they would do there i want to be clear on this you talked about with her we talk about two different things perhaps one is intervening as a party or appearing as a give them standing in the circuit court right to say that the board did not grant us this or did grant us this there would be something there for the court to consider if they did not if we would find they didn't have the right to intervene chief justice germond earlier question about the new and prevailing wouldn't seek administrative review of the board making a mistake would seek administrative review is it of any consequence in this case well i don't know the attorney general might then be a party to seek to make it a judge i mean i'm sure if they were not allowed to intervene if they were not allowed well i'd still say they would go to court and they would file the complaint and say the board was in error by not letting us intervene would be an issue to be raised are you saying that they could complain about that the actual decision of the board or just the interventional i don't know they think you can play you know they can complain about not improper decision by not allowing us to appear in the case that would be one of the allegations in their complaint i don't want to get caught up on that my question is broader than that my my question is let's just say there was already law in this area that they were not allowed to general if there was a void decision or a decision which was not provided for under the board's authority to come in and question that just as i pointed out before if if if the board does something that it's not empowered to do then the attorney general or a taxpayer or someone else can question that because the board is acting beyond the scope of what the legislature gave it but making a mistake making a bad decision is not the same as making avoid this and if i may just and i know my time is up to say one thing you know i just get taken back we have really represented the board for some time  the attorney general's assertion that this automatically resulted in than the nexus being established you have to take away the benefits or deny the benefit on the basis that it's a rising out of in connection with are related to his service as a place but that requires fact finding and it requires a mix question of the facts as applied to the law to just say because he got convicted  perjury charge he automatically forfeits this case would have been a lot simpler at someone during the time of all these crimes that mr burgess been alleged because they actually tried him for the crimes any number of cases in which it denied bench and benefits to an officer who sought them because of a phony conviction because a nexus was established in this case by the vote of the board they could not