Si xth Di vi si on February 10, 2011
No. 1-10- 0994 ESTHER COLLINS, Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t,
v. THE RETI REME NT BOARD O F THE P OLICE MEN’S ANNUITY AND B ENEFIT FUND OF THE CITY OF CHICAG O, STEPHA

NIE D. NEE LY, Tru stee, ST EVEN J. LU X, Trus tee, GENE

R. SA FF OLD , Trustee , JA

MES P. MAL ONEY, Trustee, MIC HAEL K. SHIELD S, T rus t ee , MI CH AE L L AZ ZA RO , Re co r di ng S ec r et ar y, KENN ET H A. H AUSE R, V ice Pre sident, ROBE RT F. REUSC HE, Pres i den

t, and JOH N J. G AL LAGHER , JR., Exe cuti ve Di rector, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court of Coo k C oun

ty

09 CH 20737

Honorable Da nie l A. Rile y, Judge Presidin

g. JUS TI CE McBR ID E d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Pr esiding J ust ice Ga rc ia and J ust ice Ca hill co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Plaint iff Est her Co lli

ns ap pea ls fro m the c ircu it co ur t ’s o rd er affirming the a dministr at ive dec ision o f defend ant s, t he Re t irement Bo ar d o f the Po licemen’s Annuit y and Be nefit Fu nd o f the Ci ty of Ch ic ago (t he Board), whi ch den ie d Coll in s’ appl ic ation f or pensi on servi

ce credi ts for her work as a pol i ce di spa tche r aide, a c i

vi l i an em ploye e, f or the C hi cago pol i ce de partm en t. On ap pe al, Co llins a r gu es t ha t t he Bo ar d’ s int er pr et at io n o f se ct io n 5
- 21 4( c) o f t he I llino is Pensi on Code (40 ILCS 5/5-214(c) (West 2008)) was clearl y e rroneous when i

t held tha t her positi on as a poli

ce di spatcher aide, a civ

il ia n em ploy ee, did n ot qual if y f or credit as prior other
serv i ce. On Ma rch 20, 200 9, C ol l i

ns f i l ed a l ette r wi th th e B oard se ek i ng pe ns i on c

red i t f or pr i or1-10-0994

2

servi ce wi th the Chi cago poli ce departmen

t under section 5-214(c) of the Il li nois Pensi on Code (4 0 I LC S 5 /5 -2 14 (c ) (W

est 20 08 )). Se cti

on 5- 21 4( c) al

l ows mem b er s of th e P oli cemen ’s

A n n ui ty and B enefit Fund t o r ece ive cre dit for pr ior ser vice “while pe rfo rming invest igat ive wo rk for t he department as a ci

vi li an em ploy ee of the departme

nt.” 40 ILCS 5/5-214(c) (West 2008). In her le tt er, Collin

s stated that she had be en em ploy ed as a poli

ce off ic er with the C

hicago poli ce depa rtme nt si nc e Ma y 6, 1996 , and was

requi red to take m

andatory reti rem en t on Ap ri l 19, 200 9. Pr ior t o he r e mployment as a po lice officer , C ollins wo rk ed a s a p olice d ispat cher aide w ith t he Chi cago poli ce departmen

t from Fe bruary 28, 1990, t o April

30, 1996. Collin

s requested her ye ars of serv

ic e as a poli

ce di spatcher aide to be credited to her years of servi ce as a polic e off

ic er wi th the Pol i cem en ’sAn nui ty a nd B en ef i t Fun d of Ch i cago. In the letter , Colli

ns describ ed her duties as a police di spatcher aide as foll ows.

“ A s a Pol i ceDi sp atc he

r Ai de , I w asthe

f i rs t pe rs on involved in t he po lice invest igat ion. I e licited k ey invest igat ive and
saf ety i n f orm ati on f rom 91 1 c al l er s to de ter

m i n e th e a pp rop riate
re so ur ces need ed fo r p olice s er vice, e. g. , t he nat ur e o f the emergency/in

cident/r equest /co mplaint, incident locat ion, o ff ender’s descript ion, if weapons wer e inv olved, we apo n location, offender’s direct ion of fl

ight, o ff ender’s vehicle description, and victim’s
me dic al condi tion. As I was

obtaini ng thi s i nf ormation, I was si m ul tane ousl y prepa ri ng a di spa tch re port for di

spa tch. In si tuati ons w

here I rec ei

ve d 911 c al

l s f or poli ce s ervi ce that were
n ot em ergen cy i n n atu re , I w as v ested wi th th e d i scre ti on n ot to1-10-0994

3 pr epa re dispa t ch r epo rt s for po lice ser vice and re ferr ed t hese nonpol i ceem erg en cy cal l s to th

e a ppr opri ateCi ty De pa rtm en ts or age ncies. I a lso p re par ed lo ok ou t and w ant ed mes sag es, and documen ts for dispa

tch of traff

ic , evidence techn

ic ia n an d police crim e lab orat ory units to scenes of emergency in cidents. I was also LEAD S ce rt ifi

ed a s a P olice D ispat cher Aide which a llowed me the auth ority to conduc t li

cense p l ate an

d na me ch ecks . In a

ddi tion , I tran sl ate d Sp an i sh sp ea ki ng 911 cal l s f

or pol i ceservi cef

rom Sp an i sh to En gl i sh an d e l i ci ted key i n v esti ga ti v e a n d s af ety i nf orma tion f rom th ese Span i sh spe aki ng c al l ers f or di spa tch.” On A pri l 29, 200 9, th

e B oard con duc ted an ad m i ni stra ti ve he ari ng on C ol l i ns ’ p eti ti on f or servi ce credi ts during i ts monthl y m eetin g. Coll in s subm itted mul tiple documen

ts and testif

ie d be fo r e t he Bo ar d. On e o f t he do cu men t s p r es en t ed t o t he Bo ar d w as t he “Jo b O pp o r t un it y Bid An noun cem en t” f rom F ebruary

17, 198 9, wh

i ch des cri be d the posi tion of p oli ce di spa tche r aide. The bid anno unce ment s t at ed t he du t ies o f the po sitio n.

“Mo nito rs z one and c ity wide c ommunicat ion co nso les, a nd
re spo nds t o c omp laints a nd/ or re que st for po lice ser vice fro m the publ ic via the 911 system. Soli

ci ts descripti

ve i nf ormation suc

h as
na t ur e o f co mpla int an d lo ca t io n o f t he inc ide nt . Pr ep ar es r ad io dis patch cards. Prepares l ooko ut and wanted m essages a nd other noti f i ca ti ons f or f i l ed un i ts. P rep are s n

ec es sa ry doc um en ts f or di spa tch of traf f i c, ev i den ce techn i ci an and poli ce cri

me lab oratory1-10-0994

4 un it s t o sc en e o f inc ide nt . Co o r din at es r eq ue st fo rfield ve hic le
repai r s er v i ce . Rec ei

v es an d r ef er s n on -p oli ce re l ate d c al

l s to appropriate City

department or agency . Performs rel ated duties as requi red.” Co lli ns t est ifi ed t hat she w as “alwa ys an inside pe rso n” and she d id no t go ou t side o n t he st re et wit h ot her po lice officer s as p ar t of he r jo b funct ion. Co lli ns st at ed t hat she w ou ld t ake t he informat ion fro m a call and “o nce t he infor matio n was t ake n, [ she] wo uld hand it o ver t o t he di sp atc he r to b e di sp atc he d.”

Th e i nf orm ati on wasen tere d on to ca rds , wh i ch we re p l ac ed

i nto a slot for a messe nger t o t ake exce pt if i t was a high pr ior ity call, t hen she wo uld hand -d eliver t he
ca rd to th e di sp atc he

r. C ol l i ns ad m i tted th at on cesh e took the i nf orm ati on, tha t wa s th e end of h er i n v ol v em en t. H owev er , C ol l i

n s state d th

at i n som e i n sta n ce s s h e w oul d m ake n oti f i ca ti on s to di f f eren t departm en ts an d sh e also ran na me an d li cense p l ate ch

ecks
. Col l i n s te sti f i ed th at sh e d

i d n ot wor k di re ctl y wi th mem b er s of th e g en er al pu b l i c to tran sl ateSpa ni sh . He r rol e w asto transl

atecal l s f rom Spa ni sh -s pe ak i ng cal l ers , but s he

di d n ot handle individua l tr anslat ion r equ est s fro m po lice officer s. C ollins st at ed t hat she ha d t he dis cretion to decide wh

ether to pass on i

nf ormation on pran

k calls . She al so prepared lookout and w ant ed mes sag es fo r w hich she w ou ld ask for informat ion, suc h as, whet her t her e we re any wa rra nts , th e n um be r wh ere the pe rs on c oul

d b e m et, a nd whether h

e or s he ha d a ny i nf orm ati on for the poli

ce. Coll in s m ade notif ic ations wh

en requests f

or eviden ce techni ci ans or the cri

me la b
weremade b

y f i l l i n g ou t a f orm an d th en mak i n g th e c al l . C ol l i n s state d th

at sh e d i d n ot s ub sti tute f or the di spa tche r i f the d i spa tche r was sick or on a

bre ak. W h en aske d w h y sh e w ai ted f rom 19 96 to 20 09 to ap

pl y f or th e p ensi on se rvi ce cr ed i t,1-10-0994

5

Coll i ns resp onde d, “ I al

way s thoug ht of doi ng i t, but I gue ss I just procra sti na ted.” A Board
mem ber as ked Col l i ns i f s he i nvesti gated an

y thi ng. Sh e respon ded: “W el l, wh en we recei

ved a cal l, we di d the in vestigation be cause we would, y ou know , ask

the c al l er, i f i t was s ay a pers on sh

ot, where is the victim, w her e is t he o ffender , w hat kind o f weap on, was t he per so n on d ru gs, wher e is t he o ffender , w hat kind o f clot hing t he per so n was wea ring, t he dir ect ion — if the o ffender had fled t he scene, wh at direction h

e had f le d. Yes, I thin

k I did.” However, Coll

in s adm itted that she di d not go out and i nve stigate some

thin g from her offi ce. Colli ns did not present any addi tional wi tnesses. On Ma y 28, 200 9, at t he next Bo ar d meet ing, t he t ru st ees unanimou sly vot ed t o d eny Col l i ns ’ req ue st f or pe ns i on c red i t f or pr i or s erv i ce . A wri tten de ci si on wassent to C ol l i

ns on May 29, 2009. In its deci si on, the Board held that Col li ns’ testim ony “ cl early dem onstrate[d] that her f unction a t t he [Ch ic ago polic e departmen

t] was to assi st or ini

tial ly obtain i nf ormation over the phone f

rom ci tizen s and then

to giv e that inform

ation to a dispatcher wh

o would then ass ign
an off i cer to i nv esti gate th e cal l

i f she dee med n ece ssa ry .” Th e Board

noted the app el

l ate court dec ision in Diedrich v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund , 38 1 I ll. App. 3d 305 (2008), but found i t distin guis hab le from Coll in s’ case
. “The Coll ins’s [ sic ] re cord , un

l i keDied rich , doe s n

ot i nv olv e a c i vi l i an em pl oye e wh

o, a) wen t on the s treet wi th of f i cers t o a ssist in their invest igat ion; b) enga ged in citizens in [ sic ] a serie s of que sti ons of he r own cre ati on, or on he r own ac cord ; c ) di

d n ot1-10-0994

6 ev alu at e w he t he r

ind ividua ls w er e u nsu r e o rev as ive in t he ir answers; d) was not asked to eval uate cr edib il

ity an d forthrightness; e) di d not com m uni cate h er ev al uati on to the a

ppropri ate of f i cer; and f) did no t pr epa re re po rt s as p ar t of t he o n-g oing i nv esti gati on.” The deci si on concl

uded that Collin

s “took a repo rt which

ma y h ave prompted an invest igat ion bu t she d id no t par t icipat e in the invest igat ion. ” She “was no t a pe rso n who pe rfo rme d ‘ inves t iga t ive’ wo rk .” Th e B o ar d a lso held t hat t he d o ct rine o f laches bar re d Co lli ns from attempting to assert her clai m b ecause sh

e was el igi ble to seek t hi s prior credi t in 1996, b

ut wai ted un til 2009 to petiti

on the Board. I n Ju ne 20 09 , Co llins file d a pe t it io n fo rad minist r at ive r ev iew o f t he Bo ar d’ s d ec isio n in t he cir cu it co ur t . I n Ma r ch 20 10 , fo llo win g b r iefin g a nd ar gu men t s by t he pa r t ies , t he cir cu it
co ur t affirmed t he Bo ar d’s d ecisio n and d enied C ollins’ pet itio n. Thi s appeal

followed. On appe al , Coll i

ns argue s the

Board e rred i n c oncl udi ng th at sh e di d not perf orm “i nve stigati ve work” as requi

red by section 5-214(c) i

n he r duties as a c iv

il ia n poli ce di spatcher aide f or the C hi cago pol i ce de partm en t. Wh en a party appeal s the ci

rcuit court's deci sion on a compl ai nt for adm

in is trat iv e review, t he ap pellat e co ur t 's ro le is to re view t he ad mini st ra t ive dec ision r at her t han t he circ uit co ur t 's deci sion. Siw ek v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund , 324 Ill . App. 3d 820, 824 (2001). T he A

dmi ni strative Rev

ie w Law provides that judi

ci al review of an adm i nistrati ve agen cy deci sion sh al l ex tend to all question s of

l aw an d f act pre sen ted b y the e nti re1-10-0994

7

re co rd befo re t he co ur t . 7 35 I LCS 5/ 3- 110 (Wes t 200 8) . Fu rt her , “[ t ]he findings and concl usi ons of the adm

in is trat iv e agency on questions of

fact sh al l b e hel d to be pri

ma faci e true and c or re ct .” 735 ILC S 5 /3 -1 10 ( West 200 8) . “T he st anda rd of r eview, ‘which d et er mines the degree o f def

erence giv

en to t he agency

's deci sion,’ turns on whether t he i ssue presented is a question of

fact, a questi on of law, or a mi xed question of law and f act.” Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205 , 216 Ill . 2d 455, 471 (2005) (quot in g AFM Mess enger

Service, Inc. v. Depar

tment of Employm ent Secu rity , 198 Ill . 2d 380, 390 (2 001)). “A mi xed question of law and f act asks the l egal

eff ect of a giv

en set of f acts.” Compr ehens ive Com munity , 21 6 I ll. 2 d a t 47 2. St at ed an o t he rwa y, a mixed qu es t io n is o ne in wh ich t he hist o r ica l fac t s a r e a dmit t ed o res t ab lishe d, t he rule o f law is u nd isp ut ed , an d t he iss ue is whet her t he fact s sat isfy the st at ut or y sta ndar d, or whet her t he r ule o f law as a pplied t o t he estab l i shed f

acts is or i s n

ot vi ola ted. AFM Messenger , 19 8 Il l . 2d at 3 91. He re, the

que sti on of whether C ol l i

ns ’ d utiesasa p ol i cedi sp atc he r ai decon sti tuted “ i nv es ti ga ti ve work ” u nd er s ec ti on 5-2 14( c) to rec ei

ve pe ns i on c

red i t pre sents a m i xe d qu es ti on of l aw an d f ac t. A m i xe d qu es ti on of l aw an d f act i s rev i ewed und er the clearl y errone ous stan

dard. Compr

ehens ive Com munity , 216 Ill . 2d at 472. The clearly

erroneous standard of review lie s between the ma nifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce standard and the de novo stan dard, a nd a s su ch , i t gran ts som e def eren ce to the a

gen cy ’sdeci sion. AFM Messenger , 198 I ll . 2d at 392. “[W]hen the decisi on of an admi

ni strat iv e agency presents a
m i xe d que sti on of

l aw an d f act, the agen cy deci sion wi l l be deem ed ‘ clearl y errone ous’ onl

y wh ere th e r ev i ew i n g c our t, on th e en ti rere cord, i

s ‘ l ef t wi th th e def i n i te a n d f i rm con v i cti on th at a1-10-0994

8

mi stake has b een com

mi tt ed.’ ” AFM Messenger , 198 Ill . 2d at 395 (quo ting United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). No nethel ess, that the clea

rly erroneous standard i s l argely

deferen tial does not mean, h

owever, that a reviewi

ng court must bl

in dly defer to the age ncy ’sdeci

si on. AFM Messenger , 198 Ill . 2d at 395. Se cti on 5- 21 4( c) pr ov i de s, i

n re l ev an t pa rt: “A ny partici pan t in thi s f und (other than

a m em ber of th e f i re depa rtm en t of the ci ty ) wh o ha s r en de red servi ceasa m

em be r of t he po lice de pa r t men t o f t he cit y fo ra p er io d o f 3 ye ar s o rmo r e is entitled to credit for the vari ous purposes of this Articl e for servi ce re nder ed p rio r t o be co ming a member o r su bseq uent t her et o fo r t he foll owing periods: * * *

(c) W hi l e perf ormi ng s af ety or in ve sti gati ve work f or th e c oun

ty i n w hi ch such ci ty i s p ri nc i pa l l y l oca ted or f or t he St at e o f Illinois or for t he fede ra l go ver nment, on lea ve o f ab se nc e fr o m t he de pa r t men t o f po lice , o rwh ile performin g in vestigative work for t he department as a ci vi li an em ploy ee of the departme

nt.” 40 ILCS 5/5-214(c) (We st 2008 ). T he ca r din al r ule in c o nst ruin g a st at ut e, t o wh ich all o t he r s a r e s ub o r din at e, is t o as ce r t ain
and gi ve ef f ect to the i

nten t of the l egi slature. Alvarez v. Pappas , 229 Il l . 2d 217 , 228 (2 008). To determ

i ne l eg i sl ati ve i nte nt, weturn

to the l an gua geof the sta tute, wh i ch i s th e b es t i nd i ca tor1-10-0994

9

of i ts i nten t. Alvarez , 22 9 I ll. 2d at 22 8. We mu st gi ve t he st at ut o ry lan gu ag e it s “ pl ain , o r di na r y, and p op ular ly under st oo d meaning, ” and “[w] her e t he langu age is clear and u nambiguo us, t he statut e m ust be gi ven eff ect as written wi

thout resort to further ai

ds of statuto ry cons

truct ion.” Alvarez , 2 29 I ll. 2d a t 228 . “[ A]ll wo rd s and phr ase s must be inte rp re t ed in light of o t her re levant provisi ons of the statute and mus t not be construed i

n i solation.” Brucke

r v. Mercola , 227 Ill . 2d 502, 514 (2007). “Each word, clause an d sentence

of the statute, if

possib le , must be gi

ven reasonabl e m eani ng an d not rendered superfl

uous.” Brucker , 227 Il

l . 2d at 51 4. We poi nt out that t he term “

in vestigative

work” as used i

n section 5-214(c) has not been defi ned b y the le gis la ture. “It is appropriate to employ a di ctionary

to ascertain

the me ani

ng of an ot herwi se undef

in ed word or phrase.” Landis v. Marc Realt y, L.L .C. , 235 Il

l . 2d 1, 8 ( 2009)
.

“ In v es ti ga te” i s def i n ed as “ to ob se rv e or stu dy b y cl ose ex am i n ati on an d sy ste mati c i n qui ry,” “ to
ma ke a sy stemati c exam

in ation,” and “

to conduct an off

ic ia l i nqui ry.” W ebster’s Ni

nth New Coll egi ate Dicti onary 636 (1985). Addi tional ly , Blac k’s Law Di

ctionary defi nes “in vestigate” as “t o inq ui r e in t o ( a ma t t er ) sys t ema t ica lly; t o mak e ( a s us pe ct ) t he su bje ct o f acr imina l inq ui ry”
and “ [t]o ma

ke an off i ci al i nqu i ry .” Bl ack’ s La w Di cti onary 830 (7 th ed . 1999)
. Col l i ns con ten dstha t he r du ti esasa p ol i cedi sp atc he

r ai dewe re i nv es ti ga ti ve an d re l i eson t he de cision in Diedrich v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund , 38 1 I ll. App. 3d 3 05 ( 200 8) , fo r su ppo rt . I n Diedrich , the plai ntif f s ought pensi on credit under s ection 5- 214(c ) f or the y ears she worke d asa ci

vi l i an Span i sh trans l ator for th

e Ch i cago pol i ce de partm en t. As a tran slator and

l ater as a pol i ce of f i cer, the pl

ai ntif f wasass i gne d to the 20th pol i ce di stri ct. A t th e h ea ri n g b ef oreth e B oard, t

h e p l ai n ti f f testi f i ed th at h er du ti es were : (1 ) to i

n ter pr et at the p ol i cesta

ti on b oth i

n p ers on a

nd on th e te l ep hon

e, ( 2) to i ni ti atepa rti cul ar l i ne s of1-10-0994

10

que st ioning o n oc cas ion whe n t he po lice officer see king t ra nslat ion d id no t ask que st ions g er mane to th e s i tua ti on , (3 ) to i

n i ti ate f ol l ow- up qu esti on s w

h en th ey se em ed to b e r eq ui re d, a n d ( 4) to
asse ss t he cr edibility of t he civilians for w hom she t ra nslat ed a nd r elay her impr essio ns t o t he po lice officer s involved . T he plaint iff also wo uld su bst itu t e fo r p olice o ffi cer s o n vaca t ion in t he
revi ew of f i ce a nd woul d then “ ex am

i ne conf i den tia l cas e reports to determ

i ne wh ethe r there were patter ns i ndicatin g that one offen

der mi ght be i nvol ved i n m ore t han one crim e” and sub

mi t her f i ndi ngs to the dep artm

en t. She e sti

mated th at she sp en

t two mon

ths of the y ear on thi s task
. Diedrich , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 306-07. The pl ai nti f f al so pres en

ted the testi mony of f our pol i ce of

f i cers . Each

of the of f i cers testifi ed that the plai

ntif f’ s duties we

re in vestigative

in nature because

the in vestigations n

eeded th e p l ai n ti f f ’s ac cu ra te transl ati on s, h er ab i l i ty to i n i ti ate qu esti on s a

n d h er opi n i on ab out a pers on’ s cre di

bi l i ty. Diedrich , 3 81 I ll. App. 3d a t 307 -0 8. The Bo ar d vo t ed 4 t o 3 t o d eny the plaint iff ’s pe nsion c re dit , c onc luding t hat t he plaint iff ’s wo rk did no t co nst itu t e invest igat ive work. Th e ci

rcui t court af f i rmed th e Board ’srul

i ng. Diedrich , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 309. On appe al , the r ev

i ew i n g c our t f oun d th at th e p l ai n ti f f di d “ wor k m uc h moreel ab ora te than m ere transl ation. She parti ci pated in le gal in quiri es and the taki

ng of ev ide nce.” Diedrich , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 310. The Diedrich court reverse d the Board’ s deni

al
. “In t he inst ance cas e, as a for mer civilian employee o f the De pa rtm en t, [th e p l ai n ti f f ] i s c l ea rl y on e w h om th i s p ensi on sta tute
was intend ed t o be nefit. The que st ion is whe t her her wo rk met t he
cr iter ia of t he st at ut e. We find t hat t he plain and or dinar y meaning of ‘inves t igat ive wo rk ’ include s t he ac t ivities de scr ibed by [t he1-10-0994

11 plaint iff ] a nd fo ur po lice officer s in unre but t ed t est imony at t he heari ng be fore the Board.” Diedrich , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 311-12. In the presen

t case, Coll

in s hi ghl igh ts the Diedrich court ’s em phasis on the unreb

utt ed testi m ony and as sertsthat the

sam e i s true i n th i s ca se a s her testi

mony wasunr ebutted. However, the substance

of Coll in s’ testim ony a nd ev ide nce, speci fi cally , her duties as

a poli ce di spa tche r aide, are the determ

i ni ng f actor he re, not the un

reb utted na ture of her evi den

ce. W e f i nd the Boa rd’ s c onc l us i on th at C ol l i ns ’ p osi ti on a s a pol i cedi sp atc he

r ai dedi d n ot
co nst itu t e “invest igat ive wo rk ” wa s no t clear ly erro neo us. Unlike t he plaint iff in Diedrich , C ollins here was not asked to translate po li ce questions, t o ini

tiate li nes of questioni

ng, or to assess cre di bi l i ty . In ste ad , Col

l i ns wrote dow n i nf orm ati on f rom a 9 11 c al l an d pa ss ed tha t i nf orm ati on on to the dis

patcher. As the b id a

nnounc em

ent for a poli

ce di spatcher aide state, Co ll in s soli ci ted “descri ptive i nf ormation suc

h as n ature of complai

nt and l ocation of the i

nci dent” and prepared “r ad io dis pa t ch ca r ds
. ” S he did no t fo llo w u p w it h p o lice o ffice r s in t he inve st iga t io n. While Co lli ns did a sk t he ca llers sp ecific que st ions, t hos e qu est ions invo lved pr elimi nar y inf or matio n: What happ ened ? What loca t ion? Wher e is t he vict im? W her e is t he o ffender ? Once Co lli ns pr epa re d her car d and pas sed it t o t he disp at cher , he r r ole w as c omp lete . S he t est ifi ed t hat she did n ot go out on em

ergenci es; h er job was

in si de. Coll in s’ role as a poli ce di spatcher aide was not t o mak e a s yste matic inqu iry or examinat ion t o g at her evidenc e o f a cr ime; rat her , she prepared an i

ni tial response card for police and on occasion f ulf il led requests for name and l icense pl ate i n f orm ati on or p repa re d r eq ue sts f or e v i den ce

tech n i ci ans or pol i ce cri me l ab ora tory un i ts to be sen t to t he sce ne of a n emergen

cy . The plaint iff

in Diedrich partici

pated in le gal in quiri es and h el ped to gat her evi

dence1-10-0994

12

wher eas Co lli

ns as a po lice dispa t cher aide d id neit her . I n Diedrich , the p l ai n ti f f h ad th e a uth ori ty to form ula te her own li

nes of questioni ng f or t he pol ic e off

ic ers and the polic e reli

ed on her opini on of a person’s

credibil ity . Further, the plai

ntif f s pent approxim

ately two months a y

ear substi tut in g for a poli

ce off ic er to exam

in e case f il es to det ect a patt ern to help determ in e whether an off ender com

mi tt ed another crim

e. See Diedrich , 38 1 I l l . A pp . 3d at 3 06 -0 7. I

n con tra st, Coll in s testif ie d that she did not substitute when the di spatcher was on v

acation or si ck. Instead, Co lli ns’ po sitio n was t o t ra nsfer t he infor matio n re ceived fro m a 911 caller t o t he disp at cher who
wo uld r elay tha t informat ion t o t he invest igat ing po lice officer s. B ase d o n ou r r eview o f the
re co rd , in clu ding Co llins’ t es t imon y and do cu ment ar y evid enc e, we ca nno t sa y t hat we ar e le ft wi th th e def i n i te a n d f i rm con v i cti on th at a m i sta ke h as b een com m i tted i n th e B oard’ s dec i si

on to den y Coll i ns ’ req ues t for pe

ns i on cre di

t. As a pol i ce di spa tche r ai de, Col l i ns di d not perf

orm “i nv esti gati ve work” a s req

ui red f or the pe ns i on cre di

t unde r section 5-214 (c). Si nc e w e h ave c onc l ude d that C ol l i

ns doe s n ot qua l i f y f or th e p en si

on c red i t, we ne ed not address t he remai

ni ng cl aim that Co ll ins’ request was barr ed by lach es. Ba se d on the f oreg oi ng rea sons, we a f

f i rm both the f i nd i ng s of the Boa rd a nd the de ci si on o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Af f i rmed.