Docket No . 108184.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

GEOR GE H. RYAN, SR., Appel le e, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GENERAL A SSEMBLY RETIREMENT

SYSTE M et al. , Appell

ants.
Opinion filed February 19, 2010.

JUSTICE TH OM

A S d el i v ered th e j udgm

en t of th e c our t, w i th op inion. Chi ef Ju st ice Fit zg er ald and Jus t ices Fr eeman, Kilbride, G ar man, and Ka rmeier co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. Jus t ice Bu rk e disse nt ed, wit h op inion.

OPINI ON

The issue i

n this cas e is wh

ether, a s a r es ult of his m

ulti ple federal felony convi ctions, f ormer Ill in ois Govern

or Geor ge H. Ry

an, Sr., has f orf ei ted all of the pens ion b enef its h e earned f

rom the Gene

ral Ass emb ly Reti rem en t System . F or th e re as ons tha t f ol l ow, w e h

ol d that he has.

BACK GROUND The f acts of thi s ca se a

re not in di spute. In 196 6, Ryan was ap pointed to the Kan

kakee County b oard o f s

upervi sors. Ryan

was-2- su bse qu en t ly

el ected to and serv

ed on the Kan

kakee Cou

nty boa rd of supe rvisors f rom 196 6 to 19 72, i

nc l udi ng a tw o-y ea r pe riod a s ch air m an. W

hi l e s erv i ng on th e K an ka ke e C oun

ty boa rd of supervisors, Ry

an co ntri but ed t o t he I lli

nois M unicipal Re t irement Fun d (IMR F). I n No vember 1 972 , R yan was e lect ed a s a r epr ese nt at ive to t he General Asse mbly . He was reelected and serve d until 1982. While in the General

Asse mbly , Ryan was select ed a s t he minor ity leade r a nd Speaker o f t he H ouse. In Novemb er 1982, Ryan was elected Lieut enant Governor. Ryan won reele ction to t hat off ic e i n 1986. In 1990, R yan waselected S ecretary

of State, an d h e s er ve d t wo t er ms in t his po sitio n. In Novem

ber 1998, Ry

an was elect ed G ove rno r, and he serv ed i n that off ic e from January 1999 until

January 2003. Wh en Ryan wa s first elect ed t o t he Ge ne r al As se mbly in 197 2, he be ca me a m

em ber of the G en era l Assembly Retir ement Syst em (t he System ). At t hat t ime, Ryan t ra ns fe rr ed t he cr ed it s he ha d e ar ne d in t he IMRF i

nto t he Sy stem . Ryan co nt inued t o p ar t icipat e in the System wh i l e s er v i n g a s Li eu

ten an t Gov er n or, S ecre tar

y of Sta te and Gove rnor. In Decem

ber 2002, Ry

an appl i ed f orhis r et ir eme nt an nu it y, to begi n i n Jan uary 2003. In Dece m ber 2003 , a feder al gr and jur y indicted Ryan o n felony chargesfor rac keteer in

g, co nspi racy, mai

l f raud, making f

alse sta tem en ts to the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, and i ncom e tax violations. These ch

arges were prem

is ed on conduct that arose out of and was i n conn ection wi th Ry an’s servi ce as Secre

tary of S t at e and Gove rnor. I n Ap r il

2006, a jur y found Ryan gu ilty on a ll count s. T he dis trictcour t dismi

ssed two of the count s a f t er finding insuffici

ent evi dence t o s upp or t t he claims and e nt er ed jud gment on t he r emaining
co unt s. R yan was s ent ence d t o 7 8 mo nt hs in priso n. Fo llo wing Ryan’s felo ny convict ions, t he ac t ing exec ut ive
secretary o f t he I llino is Stat e Retirem ent Sys tems n ot if ie d Ry an that all of hi s p ensi on b en ef i ts w ere be i ng su sp en de d pu rs ua nt to s ec ti on 2–1 56 of the Il

l i noi s Pension Code (the C ode) (40 ILCS 5 /2–15 6 (West 2006) ). Thatse ct io n p r o vid es t ha t “[ n] o ne o f t he be ne fit s he r ein provided f or s hall be paid t o a ny per so n who is co nvicte d o f any felony re l ati n g to or ari si n g ou t o f or in connection with h

is or her servi ce as a mem

ber.” 40 ILCS 5 /2–156 ( West 2006). Ryan

was also in form ed tha t the su sp ensi on i nc l ude d al l of the i ns ura nc e c ove rag e f or-3- him an d h i s wi f e. The su sp ensi on wa s m ade re troacti ve to the da te of Ry an’s sentenci ng. Ry an sought revi ew of the suspensi on of h i s p ensi on b en ef i ts be f ore the Sys

tem’s Board of Trustees (the Board). Ryan argued that t he bene fits he e ar ned a s co unt y boar d su per visor , member of t he General A ss em b l y , a n d L i eu ten an t Gov er n or w ere n

ot s ub j ect to forfe iture. The Board dis agreed an d ra t ifi ed t he ac t ing exec ut ive secret ary’s de cisi

on to ter m i n ate co mp lete ly Ry

an’s r et irement
an nu it y. Ryan

so ugh t ad

m i ni stra ti ve rev i ew , an d the c i rcu i t cou rt of Cook Co unt y affi

rmed t he co mplet e t er minatio n of Ryan’ s re t irement benef its. Ry an appeal ed , an d th e a pp ella t e c o ur t r ev er se d. 38 8 I ll. App. 3d 1 61. Acco rd ingto th e a pp el l ate cou rt, alt ho ug h Ryan c lea r ly had for feite d t he pensi

on ben efi ts he earned

wh i l e s erv i ng asGovern

or and Secretary of State, h e is e n ti tl ed to re ce i v e th e b en ef i ts he earn ed wh ile ser ving

asLi eu ten an t Govern or an d a s a mem be r of the General Asse mbly . 388 Ill . App. 3d at 168-69. We al l owe d the B oard ’s

pe ti ti on f orleav e to appeal. 177 Ill . 2d R. 315(a ).

DISCUSSION As no t ed ea rlie r, t he fa ct s o f thiscase are not in disput e. The
ma tt er t o be re so lved r elat es so lely to t he pr op er inter pr et at ion o f the pe ns i on forfei tur e pro vi sion that disquali fi es a me mb er of the System f rom rec ei vi ng pens i on be ne fit s if

con vi cte d of a f el ony “rel ati ng to or
ar ising out of or in

connection with h

is or her service as a

mem ber.” 40 ILCS 5/ 2– 15 6 ( Wes t 20 06 ). Alt ho ug h t he int er pr et at io n o f a sta tute by the ag en cy ch arg ed wi th i ts adm i ni stra ti on is g en er ally

giv en deferen ce, t he inte rp re t at ion o f a st at ut e r emains a q ue sti on of la w that
we review de novo . See Taddeo v. Bo a rd of Trust ees of the Illi

nois Municipal

Retirement Fund

, 216 Ill . 2d 590, 595 (2005). Our pri mary g o al when int er pr et ing t he langu age of a st at ut e is t o a sce rt ain and give eff ect to the in

tent of the leg i slature. Devoney v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund , 199 I ll. 2d 414, 424-25 (2 00 2) . Th

e p l ai n l an gu ag e of a statu te i s th e b es t i nd i ca ti on of th e l eg i sl atu re ’s i n ten t. In re Christopher K. , 217 Ill . 2d348, 364 (2005 ). Wh

ere the statut ory language is clear and unam

bi guous, we willen fo r ce it a s written and wil l n ot read into it exceptions,-4- conditions, or li

m i tations tha

t the legi slatured id n

ot express. In re Christopher K. , 217 Ill . 2d at 364. Here, t he st at ut or y languag e is clear and u nambi guous. Sec ti on 2–156 of th e C ode

prov i de s th

at “ [n]one of th e ben efits he r ein provide d f or s ha l l be pai d to a

ny pers on w

ho i s c onv i cte d of any felony relati

ng to or a

risi ng out o f or i

n conn ection wi th hi s or her
servic e as a member. ” ( Empha ses a dde d. ) 4 0 I LCS 5/ 2–1 56 ( We s t 2006)

. Section 2–105 of the C ode, inturn, defi nes “ me mb er” as “M em bers o f t he Ge ne r al As se mbly of th i s S tate *** an d a ny pers on ser vingas Go ve rno r , Lie ut en an t Go ve rno r , S ec r et ar y o f State, Treas urer, Comptroller, or Att orney Ge neral for the peri od of service in such off ice.” Thus, under the Co de’s p lai n l an gua ge , an y pers on who is c o nvi ct ed o f a ny felony rel ating to hi s or her servi ce as Govern oror Secret ary of

Stat e shal

l rece iv e none of the be

nefits provided f or under t h e S y ste m. Here, there i s no di spute that Ryan
wa s convicted of mul

tiple f ederal fel onies relating to his se rvi ce a s b oth Go ve rnor and Secretary of State. Accordin gly , section 2–156 pla inly man da tes th at no ne

of t he ben efits pr ovid ed fo r u nder t he System shal l b e pai d to Ry

an. The f orfei ture, in other

word s, is t o t al. Ry an gets nothi

ng. T his re sult is co nsist ent n ot only wit h t he plain langu age of t he go ver ning st at ut es , bu t als o wit h t his c o ur t ’s mo st r ec en t pe ns i on forfe i ture de cision. In Taddeo v. Boar d of Trustee

s of the Illinois Municipal

Retirement Fund

, 216 Il l . 2 d 590 ( 2005), Taddeo was
co nc ur r en t ly

em ploye d f or several years both by Proviso Townshi

p as a t ow nship su per visor and by the C i ty of Mel rose Pa rk as may or. In 1999, Taddeo wa s c onv

i cte d of several fel onie s rel ating to hi s servi

ce as may or o f Mel rose Park. Foll

owing his convictions, the IM RFboard concl uded that Taddeo had forfei

ted all of the pens ion b enef

its h e had earned as a pa r t icip an t in

the IMRF–b ot h those rel ating to hi s servi ce as may or of M el

rose Pa rk an d those relati ng to h i s se rv ic e as a Proviso Town sh

i p sup ervi sor. Taddeo , 216 Ill . 2d at 593-95. T his courtdis agreed, holdi ng that Taddeo had forfei

ted o nl y those ben efi ts relati

ng to his em ploy me nt by Mel rose Park. In so holdi

ng , t he co ur t ex pla ine d t ha t “p en sio n be ne fit s a r e fo r feit ed o nly if t he r e is
a clear and spe cific conne ct ion bet wee n t he felonyco mmi t t ed a nd t he part ici pant’s emp lo yme nt.” T

addeo , 216 Ill. 2d at 5 97. I n Taddeo ’s case, Ta dde o’ s felony co nvictio ns related solel y to hi s em

ploy me nt as-5- m ay or of Me lro se P ar k and “wer e no t re late d in any way t o hi s employment as town sh

i p supe rvi sor f orProviso Townshi

p.” Taddeo , 216 Ill . 2d at 598. An

d without such a n

exus, there was

no b as i s f

or disqu alify ingTaddeo from recei

vi ng hi s townshi

p super vi so r’s pens ion. Moreover, under

the pla in la nguage of the

Code, Taddeo had effe ct ive ly

e a rne d t wo co mple t ely s ep ar at e p en sio ns– o ne fo rhis servi ce as townshi

p super vis or, and one f or hi s se rvi ce a s m ay or. In rel ati on to mun ic ipa l employee s su ch as Ta dde o, sec t ion 7 –20 3 o f the Code pr ovides:

“ Sepa ra te reserves shal

l b e m ai ntain ed for each par t icipat inge mp l oy

ee i n such detai l as i s n ec es sa ry to adm in is ter all benefits p ro vided he re in, an d to s eg re ga te
ac cu r at ely

the separate li

abi li ties of eac h part icipat ing
m un i ci pal i ty and it s in st ru menta lities, or of a ny par t icipat ing ins t rum en t alit y, wi

th resp ect to each

partici pati ng e m ploye e.” 40 IL CS 5/7

–203 (We st 2004 ). Li kewi se, sec t ion 7 –20 4 o f the Co de p ro vides t hat “eac h par t icipat ing
m un i ci pal i ty and it s inst ru menta lities, and e ach p ar t icipat ing ins t rum en t alit y, sha ll be t r ea t ed as an in dep ende nt unit wit hin the f und .” 40 ILCS 5/7–204 (West 200 4). In other words, although Pro vi so To wnship a nd Me lro se P ar k bo t h paid int o t he I MRF, t he
co nt ro lli ng Cod e p rov i si on s s pe ci f i ca l l y sta te th at th ey are t o be treat ed as ind ep en de nt un it s– t ha t is, as se pa r at e e mp lo ye rs . And
no tab ly, the relev

ant forfe iture provi si on in that case stated t hat “[n] one o f t he be ne fit s p r o vid ed fo rin t his Art icle shall be paid t o a ny per so n who i s c on

v i cte d of an y f el on y re l ati n g to or ar

i si ng out of or in connecti on with h

is servi ce as an employee .” (Emphas is added.) 40 ILCS 5/7–219 (W est 2004 ). Thus, the cou rt co ncl uded, if Proviso T o wn ship and Me l

rose Pa rk are separate employers for purposes of t he Act, then Taddeo’s status as an “em ploy ee” m us t be trea ted
se pa r at ely, as w el

l

. Taddeo , 21 6 I ll. 2d at 59 8. In eff ect, Taddeo had two dif f eren t “ em pl oy er s” f or p ur pos es of th e A ct, an d on

l y one of th ose em pl oy er s s uf f ered a b re ach of th e pub l i c tr

us t. Thus, Taddeo st ands for t he pr inciple tha t t he co nvictio n of a jobrelated felo ny r es ult s in t he fo r feit ur e o f all p en sio n be ne fit s e ar ne d in servi ce of th e pub l i c em

pl oy er wh ose tru st w as betraye d. Here, al thoughRy

an h el d mul tiple publ ic off ic es over t he course o f his t ime-6- in the Sys tem, al l of those offi

ces were i

n ser vice to a sing le p ub lic
em pl oy er –th e S tate of I lli nois. And it was t he Stat e of Ill in ois whose tru st Ry an betraye d when

he com mi tt ed 16 j ob-related f

el onie s. Under Taddeo , th en, R

yan sh oul d e x pe ct to f orf ei t al l of th e p ensi on b en ef i ts he earn ed i n serv ic e t o t he St at e o f I llino is, wh ich , in fact , is just t he out come that sect ion 2–156 compels. Fina lly, w e n o t e t ha t t his o ut co me a dv an ce s t he impo r t an t pu blic policy ai ms th at u nd erl i e p ensi on f orf ei ture sta tutes such asse cti on 2–156. As

thi s court

has e xpl ai ne d prev i ousl y , pension f

orfe i ture statut es wereen

acted to “ ‘d ete r f el oni ous con duct i n pu blic employment by

aff ectin g th e pensi

on righ ts of publ

ic em ploy ees convi cted of a work-relat ed fel ony.’ ” Devoney , 199 Ill . 2d at 418, quo t ing Stillo v. State Retirement Systems , 305 Ill . App. 3d 1003, 1007 (1 999 ). The ir pu rp os e is t o “d isco ur age official malfeasance by denying the publ

ic servan t convic ted of un f ai th f ul n es s to his tr ust t he
re t irement benefit s t o w hich he o t he rwis e w o uld ha ve be en en titl ed.” Kerner v. State Employees’ Retirement Syst em , 72 Ill . 2d 507, 513 (1978). Here, t he trust to whi ch Ry an was un fai thful was that which he owed to the P eople of

the State of Il l i noi s, wh o for 30years

pla ced t he ir co nfidence in him and who se c ont inuing co nfidence he re paid by transform in g two o f this state’s hi

ghest constitutional

off ic es i nto an
o n- go ing an d w ho lly

self-serv in g crim in al enterprise . Allowi

ng Ry an to now co llec t an y po r t io n o f his p en sio n w o uld not on l y run af oul of t he pla in lan gu ag e o f se ct io n 2 –1 56 , bu t als o wo uld un de rmin e t he pu blic policy

un der lyi ng t hat st at ut e, which is t o e nsur e t hat t he
r et ire me nt of a corrupt publi c servan t is n ever f in anced b y the ver y constituency

whose trust was betrayed.

CONCLUSION Under sec t ion 2 –15 6, unde r t his co ur t ’s es t ablished p re ced ent , a nd under the basic n

ot ions of j ustice that inform provis i o ns suc h as
se cti on 2– 15 6, Ge o r ge H. Rya n, S r

. , ha s c lea r ly f o rfeit ed a ll of the pe ns i on be nefits he ear ned fr om t he Ge ner al Assembly Ret irement Sys t em. As the victims of Ry an’s cr imes, t he tax

pa yers of the State of Il l i n oi s a reun der no ob l i ga

ti on to now f un d h i s reti re men t.-7- The j udg men t of t he ap pe llat e c o ur t t he r efo r e is re ver sed , a nd t he judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court is af

fi rmed.
Appellate court judgment revers ed; circuit court judgment affirmed.

JUSTICE BURKE, di ssen ting: Today a m aj ority of this court reverses the a

p pe l l ate court judg ment and r einst at es t he dec ision o f the Bo ar d o f Tr ust ees of t he General A ss em b l y Reti re men t Sy ste m (B oard) to deny form er Govern orGe orge

H. R yan , Sr. , al

l of the pens i on be ne fit s he wo uld have r ec eiv ed as a r es ult o f his c o nt r ibu t io ns t o t he Sys t em a s a me mb er of the Gene

ral Assem

bl y, as Li eutenant Governor, as Secre tary of S t at e, and a s Go ver nor . I believe, how ever , t hat t he
maj ori ty i n cor re ctl y con str ue s th e forfe iture provi si on at issue here, section 2–156 o f the Ill

in ois Pensi on Code ( 40 ILCS 5/2– 156 (West 2006) ). In so doing, the m aj ority i gnores princi

ple s o f stare

decisi s and impli citly o ver t ur ns o ur dec ision in Taddeo v. Board of Trustees of the Illinois

Municipal Retirement Fund, 21 6 I ll. 2d 5 90 ( 200 5). For t hese re aso ns, I re spe ct fully must dissent fro m the majo rit y opinio n. Secti on 2–156 of

the Pension Code provi

des: “No ne o f t he be ne fit s he r ein prov i de d f or sh al l b e p ai d to any per so n wh

o i s c onv i cte d of an y f el ony rel ati ng to or
ar ising out of or in

connection with h

is or her service as a me mb er.” 40 ILCS 5/2–156 (West 2006) The Code also defin

es the ter m “

mem ber” as: “M em bers o f t he Ge ne r al As se mbly of th i s S tate including per so ns wh o en t er milit ar y se rvic e w hile a me m be r of t he Gen eral As sem bl y and an y pers on se

rvi ng as Governor, Lieut enant Gove

rnor, Se cretary

of State , Treas

urer, Com ptroll er, orAtto rney

Ge ne r al fo rt he pe r io d o f se rvic e in
such of f i ce.” 40 IL CS 5/2

–105 (We st 2006 ). Int er pr et ingthi s f

orfe i ture provisi

on, the maj ority concl

udes that section 2–156 is “cl

ear and un

am bi guous” (sli

p op. at 4) and “un der the Code’s plai

n l anguag e, any p er so n w ho is convi cted of any

fel ony rel ating t o his or her service as-8- Govern oror Sec r et ar y o f State shal l rece iv e none of the bene fits provided f

or under the System . Here, there is no dispute that Ryan

was convi

cted of mul

tiple f ed eral f el onie s relat ingt o his se rvic e a s b o t h G o ve rno ran d S ec r et ar y o f Stat e. Ac co r di ng ly, section 2–156 pl ai nl y m andates that none of the bene fits provided

f or u n der the S y ste

m sh al l b e p ai d to Ryan. The f

orf ei ture, i n oth er words , i s to tal . R

yan gets nothin g. ” (Emphas es i

n origi nal .) Sli p op. at 4. The maj ority also f

in ds that “[t ]his r

es ult is c o nsis t en t no t o nly wi th the p l ai n l anguag e of

the g overn

i ng s tatutes, b ut also wit h t his
cou rt ’s most re cent pensi

on forfe iture deci si on, ” Taddeo v. Board of Trustees of the I llinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 216 Ill . 2d 590 (2 00 5) . Sl i p op . a t 4. The m

aj ori ty i s i n cor re ct. In the majority’s view, it i s i rrelev ant that the fel

onie s f or which Ry anw as convi

cted were related to, arose out of or were in con ne cti on wi th h i s s erv i ceasSec reta ry of State an d G ove rnor , but that he wa s gu ilty of no wr o ng do ing wh ile he se rve d in the of f i ceof Lieut enant Governor or as a mem ber of the Ge

n era l A ss em bl y . F or t he majo r it y, a ll

t ha t is re qu ire d t o es t ablish co mplet e fo rfe it ur e o f all of t he benef

its is that a fel ony b e comm

itted by a person whi

le t ha t pe rs on was ser ving in any onepo sit io n w hic h fa ll s wit hin the de f i ni ti on of “member ” und er t he st at ut e. In Taddeo, ho w ever, we rejected t he identical

stat uto ry anal

ysi s. In Taddeo , we addre sse d the f orfe i ture of pens ion b enef

its un der
se cti on 7– 21 9 o f t he I llino is M un icip al R et ire men t Fu nd

. T his f orfe i ture pr o visio n, wh ich pa r alle ls exac tl y the f orf ei ture prov i si on at issue h ere, st ates:

“ None of t he benef

its pr o vid ed fo rin t his Ar t icle sha ll be pa id to an y pe rs on who is co nvict ed o f any felony re l ati n g to
orar ising ou t of o r in co nnect ion wit h h is servi ce as an em ploye e.”(Em

ph ases added.) 4 0 ILCS 5/7–2 19 (West 2002)

. In Taddeo , the

Pen si on Boa rd a rgued the pl ai n l an gua geof se cti on 7– 21 9 r eq ui re d u s to f

i n d th at “ noneof t he be ne fit s p r o vid ed fo r ” in t he r ele va nt ar t icle of

the Pen si on Co de may be p aid if the par t icipant
com m i ts “ anyf el on y re l ati n g to or ar

i si ng out of or i n c onn ec ti on wi th his ser vice as an employee ” and t hat “as an e mployee” sho uld be-9- in terpret ed t o mea n “a s a n emp lo yee o f anyI MR F e mplo y er. ” (Emphasesi

n ori gi na l .) Taddeo , 216 Ill . 2dat 59 6. S t at ed di ffe r en t ly, t he Board argued that if a p ar t icip an t co mmit s a felo ny r ela t ed t o o nly
onepo sitio n of e mployment , he sho uld r ece ive “none of the b enef i ts.” T his is t he sa me s t at ut o ry ar gu men t t ha t t he majo r it y ad o pt s t o da y. In Taddeo , however, we rejected this argum ent, concludi

ng that t he plain l anguage of

the statut e si

mpl y “ does not speak” ( Taddeo , 216 Ill . 2d at 598 ) t o t hos e sit uat ions w her e a p er so n is a pa rt icipant in a pension fund as a r esu lt o f more t han o ne po sitio n. H aving rejected the B oard’s

“p l ai n l anguag e” i

nterpretati on, w e c on cl

uded that the statutory

la n gua ge w as su sce pt ible to mor e t han o ne inter pr et at ion, so t hat legislat ive intent had t o be asc er t ained by
co nsider ing“ ‘t he ent ire ac t , it s nat ur e, its o bject , a nd t he consequenc es resul

ting f rom di ff erent constructions.’ ” Taddeo , 216 I ll. 2d at 595 -9 6, quo t ing Shields v. Judges’ Retirement System , 204 I ll. 2d 488 , 494 (200 3) , c iting Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Educ ation , 142Ill . 2d

54, 96 ( 199 0). W e al so n oted tha t pens i on statut es are to be “lib erall y c onstrued in favo r o f the right s o f the pensioner.” Shields , 20 4 I ll. 2d at 494, citin g Matsuda v. Cook C

ounty Employees’ &

Off icers’ A nn uity &

Benefit Fund , 178 Ill . 2d 360, 365-6 6 (199 7). The major ity in the case at bar fai ls to acknowledge that we rejected t he Bo ar d’s p lain languag e ar gument in Taddeo and f ai l s to off er an y ra t io na le fo rwh y t ha t ar gu men t is now co nt ro lli ng. Ig nor ing t he st at ut or y analysis offere d in Taddeo , t he majo r it y i nstea d emphas izes t he fact t hat , in Taddeo , the pla in tif f h ad two empl

oyers. Fro m this, t he major ity re aso ns th at “ Taddeo st ands for t he pr inc iple that the con vi cti on of a j ob- rel ate d f el ony res ul ts i n th e f orf ei ture of all pension b enef

i ts earn ed inserv

i ce of the publ i c em ploye r w hose trust w as betrayed

. ” ( E mph as is a dd ed

. ) Slip o p. at 6. I n t his wa y, t he
maj ori ty reas ons, Taddeo may be rec onc iled wit h its ho lding. T he pr o ble m, how ever , is t hat t his rea so ning is not co nsist ent wit h t he maj ority’s own stat uto ry anal ysi s. As noted a bove, ac cordi

ng to the maj ority ’sstatutory

anal y si s, a felony convicti on plus one po sitio n wh ic h perm its a person to be a “m em ber” of the pens ion f

und eq ua l s to t al fo r feit ur e. By t ha t sa me logic, t he r esu lt in Taddeo should have been diffe re nt –a felo ny con vi cti on whi le Taddeo was an e mplo yee o f onemun ic ipa li ty whi ch-10- permi tt ed hi m to part ici

pate in the pension fund sho uld have meant to talf orfe i ture. Th i s wa s n ot the resul

t reach ed. The maj or ity’s
reaso ning in this ca se, and t he r esu lt r eac hed in Taddeo , ar e i rrecon cil ab l e. Because we

co nc lud ed in Taddeo t ha t t he st at ut o ry pr o visio n d id not co ve rt he sit ua t io n a t ha nd , we lo oked t o prev i ous pr ec eden t, sp ec ific ally, Devoney v. Retirement Board of the Poli ceme n’sAnnuity & Benefit Fund , 199 Il

l . 2d 414 (2002 ). In Devoney , we hel d “[w]hen
a pplyingthe pensi

on dis qualif

ic ation statutes, incl

udin g section 5–

227 , t he pi votal i nqu i ry is whet her a nexu s exist s bet wee n t he employee’s crim in al wron gdoi ng an d the p erf

orma nc e of

his of f i cial duti es.” Devoney , 199 Ill. 2d at 419 . T hus, in Devoney , we concl uded that withouta co nnect ion bet wee n t he wr ong do ing and t he performa nce of offi cial duties, t here could be no loss of ben efi ts. In Taddeo , we applied this rationale and co ncluded that Tadd eo’s pe ns i on benef its could be f

orfeited only

if there was a clear and spec ific co nnect ion bet wee n t he felony he c ommitt ed a nd hi s em ploym en t. Taddeo , 2 16 I ll. 2d a t 597 . T hus, in Taddeo , w e fo und th at, be caus e the

re was a co nnect ion bet wee n t he felonyand Tadd eo’s pos i ti on as mayor , bu t no s uch c onne ct ion bet wee n t he felo ny an d h is pos i ti on as townshi

p supe rvi sor, t her e w as no bas is t o dis qu alify Tadde o’s s

uperv i sor pen sion. Taddeo , 216 Ill . 2d at 598. The nexus analysis was at t he co re of o ur dec ision i n Taddeo

. Applyingtha

t an al y sis to th e f ac ts of the c ase at ba r, I would concl

ude there is a co nne c tion between

the fel onie s and Ry

an’s positi on as Govern orand Sec

reta ry of St at e. But , a s in Taddeo , there is n o such
con ne cti on between the f

el o nies and R

ya n’s positi on in

the General Ass emb ly or as L ieuten an

t Govern or. Thus , und

er Taddeo , without such nex us, there is n o basis to disquali

fy Ryan from recei

vi ng those benef its related to these positions. I note tha t, i n s upp ort of ou r c onc lusion in Taddeo , we found that Taddeo ea

rned two c om

plete l y se pa rate pens i on s , one from e ach indepe ndent em

ploy er, whi ch were sev

erabl e. Thus, the Board was ab le to gi ve Tad de o the pens i on he ea rne d a s a su pe rviso ryet “st ill adh ereto the mandates of

se cti on 7– 21 9 b y prov i di n g Ta ddeo wi th ‘no ne of t he ben

efi ts’ deriv ed from hi s em ploy me nt which was

related to or co nne cted with his f elony conv i cti ons.” (Em phasi s om

i tted.) Taddeo , 216 Ill . 2d at 599. The sam e i s true he r e. A “me mbe r ” is o nly-11- a mem be r “ f or th e p eri

od of serv i ce i n s uch off i ce.” 40 ILCS 5/2–105 (West 200 6) . T his langua ge indica t es t hat ea ch “memb er ship ” is disti n ct. Thu s, a s in Tadde o , R yan c an re tai n h i s p ensi on b en ef i ts de r ive d fr o m his p o sit io n in the General

Assembly and as Lieut enant Gove rnor, ye t we ca n stil l adh eret o t he manda t es o f sect ion 2 –15 6 by pr ovid ingRya n w it h “[ n] o ne o f t he be ne fit s” de r iv ed fr o m his membe r ship in t he fun d a s a r es ult o f his pos i ti on as Se creta ry of Sta te and asGovern

or–th ose pos i ti ons wh i ch were c on

ne ct ed wit h his fel ony convi ctions. By my anal ys is , as se t fo r t h a bo ve , I do no t int en d t o diminis h in any way the serious ne ss

of the crim in al acts comm

itted by the form er Gove rnor. Also, I u nd er sta

n d th e v er y h um an i m pul se to wa n t to punis h Ry an f or his w rongdoings

by depr iving

hi m of al l of hi s p ensi on benef its. However, while I sy mpathi ze with su ch i

mpu ls es, our constitutional

o blig ation i s to foll

ow the law, not our perso nal preferences. Taddeo cl

ea rl y man da testha t Ry an rec ei ve the pens i on b en ef i ts associ ated with h

is tim e i n the Gen

eral A ssem bl y a nd as Li eut enant Governor. Despite thi s, the ma jori ty reaches a contrar y con cl us i on and i mpl ici tly overrules Tadd

eo
. T his ne cessari

ly im pli cates stare decisi

s and t he ma

jori ty has not explai

ned what g ood c au se

or com pe l l i n g r ea son s d i cta te that we disregard our

analysis in Taddeo

. Because t he majo r it y opini on is the resul

t o f an unj ustif ie d depa rture f rom pre ce de nt, I ca

nn ot jo in it

. Ac co r din gly, I r es pe ct fully diss en t.