## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

Esqui vel v

. Retirem ent Board of th e Policem en’s Ann uity and B enefit Fund , 2011 IL App (1st) 111010

Appellate Court Caption FRANK J

. ESQUIVEL
, P l aintiff-A ppellee, v. THE RETI REMENT BO ARD OF THE P OL I CEMEN’S ANNUI TY AND BEN EFI T FU ND OF T HE CI TY OF CHI CAGO, De fenda nt-Appellant.

District & N o. First District, F ifth Division Docke t No. 1-11-1010

Filed Dec ember 9, 2011

Held (Note : This syl lab us

con st it ute s no par t o

f the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed by the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) The retire ment b o ard of the policemen’ s annuity and benef it fund’s denial of plaintiff’s application for pension service cre dits for his wo rk as a civilian employee of the Chicag o police depar tment prior to becoming an office r was reve rsed on the g round that the decision was clea rly err oneous wher e the evidenc e was sufficie nt to satisfy the plain and ordinary meaning of “investi gat i ve work” under the require ments of section 5- 214(c) of the I llinois Pension Code, espec ially the evidenc e that plaintiff,

as an Spanish-languag e int erpr eter , helped conduct official inquiries by assisting in the questioning of victims and arr estee s, his translation work helped office rs s et up sting operations, and plaintiff was “cle arly one whom this pension statute was intended to bene fit.”

Dec ision Under
Review Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County
, No. 10-CH-23318; the Hon. Stuart Palmer, Judge, pr esiding

.

J udg ment Affir med and r emande d.Counsel on

Appea l David R. Kug ler, of Chica g o, for a ppellant.

Thomas P. Needha

m, of Chicag o, for a

ppellee.

Panel J USTI CE Mc BRI DE delivere d the judgme nt of the cour t, with opinion. Presiding Justice Epstein and J ustice Howse concur red in the judg ment and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 Def

endant, the Retirement Boa rd of the Policem en ’s An nuity and Be nefit Fund of the City of Chicag o (the Boa rd), appea ls from the circ uit court’s order reve rsing t h e Boa rd’s denial of plaintiff Fr ank J

. Esquivel’s application for pension service cre dits for his work as

a civilian employee for the Chicag o police depar tment. On appea l, the Boa rd argu es its decision finding that Esquivel’s position as a civilian senior public safe ty aide/bilingua l did
not qualify for cre dit as prior other service pursuant to secti o n 5-214(c ) of the I llinois Pens i o n C o de (40 I L CS 5/5-214(c) (West 2008)) was corr ect and the trial court err ed in

reve rsingthe B oard’ s decision. ¶ 2 On Fe b ru ary 6
, 2 009, Esquivel filed a letter with the Boa rd seeking pension cre dit for prior service with the Chicag o police depar tment under section 5-214(c ) of th e I llinois Pension Code (40 I L CS 5/ 5-214(c ) (West 2008)). Sec tion 5-214(c) allows members of the Policemen’s Annuity and Be nefit Fund to rec eive cre dit for prior service “while perf orming investigative work for the d ep ar t m en t as a civili an employ ee of the department.” 40 I L CS 5/5-214(c) (West 2008). Esquivel stated in his letter that he beg an his employ ment with the Chicag o police depar

tment as a civilian employee on J anuar y 2, 1974 and he continued his civilian employ

ment until Fe bruar

y 1989 when he enter ed the Chicag o Police Aca demy

. In this letter, he was assig ned initially to desk duties in the 5 t h P o l i ce District and his responsibilities included distributi o n of police radios, maintenanc e of attendanc e and

as s i gnment sheets and an aide to citizens reque sting police assistance

. Esquivel was later assig ned the position of “timekee per,” and he maintained the daily time and transfe r rec ords of all sworn and civilian p er s o n nel in the district, including furlough schedule s, leave s of absenc e and medical absenc es. Esquivel was also assig ned to the senior service s sections of the 5th and 4th Police Districts and he assisted a senior office r in the senior citizen’s brac elet
program. ¶ 3 In a Marc h 2009 letter, Esquivel clar ified that he soug ht cre dit for his year s of service as

a civilian employee from Fe bruar y 1980 to F ebrua

ry 1989. He attache d his employee work history from the City of Chicag o depar tment of human resour ces rec ords manag ement which indicated his title as senior public safe ty aide/bilingua l. Esquivel also included a copies of the job description from November 1987 and October 1 9 9 1

. The November 1987 job

-2-description stated the “cha rac teristics of the class” as “Unde r g ener al supervision, org anizes and supervises community functions; and perf orms related duties as require d.” Ex amples of the duties included, but wer e not limit ed to, “assis t s in the rec ruitment and training of volunteers for various depar tment programs; schedule s vol u n t ee r training and community meeting s; [and] identifies community crime problems and rec ommends crime pre v en t i on programs.” The duties also included “p re p ar es and ty pes a varie ty of repor

ts reg arding telephone inquiries and meeting s attended; maintains a detailed fil i n g sy stem; answe rs telephone inquiries and prepare s appropriate cor responde nce; [and] makes work decisions
reg arding methods of handling routine situations.” The October 1991 job description listed simil ar duties. ¶ 4 The Boa

rd conducte d a hearing on Esqu i v el ’s ap p l ication over two day s, August 27, 2009, and Marc h 25, 2010. Esquivel testified in support of his application and prese nted two addition al p o l i ce office rs as witnesses in support. He also submitt ed letters from police office rs familiar with his civili an employ ment. ¶ 5 Esquivel testified at the August hearingdate. He stated that the qua lifications wer e “to speak in fr ont of g roups for sa fety purposes.” He noted tha

t his ti tle of senior public sa fety aide/bilingua l was beca

use he was used as an interpr eter . Esquivel testified that he we nt to the pol ice acade my for a 10- or 12-we ek training course. He said he wor e a gree n uniform with a patch that stated “senior public safe ty ,” but he was not allowed to car ry a wea pon. At the time he wa s hired in 1974, there wer e ver y fewHispanic off

icer s. ¶ 6 Whil e Esquivel worke d in the 5t h District, he wor ked at the de sk and was in charg e of the radios and distribution of shotguns. He stated that he would assist with station inquiries and he would be called to interpre t for Spanish-speaking individuals. Esquivel testified that he interpre ted for police office rs afte r an initial ar rest. Esquivel assisted in g iving Miranda rights, questioning, informing the individual of the bond, and letting the individual know the
court date. Esquivel also s t at ed t h at he was subpoenae d to testify in court multipl e times involving testimony

about the g iving of Miranda rights. ¶ 7 Esquivel testified that while working in the senio r s er vices section, he would help an office r i n co n t acting victims of “con g ames” or “purse snatching s.” He would try to g et a description of the individuals and any other information for senior office rs to investigate. He stated th at th e information he provided helped the office rs to set up “sting s” at curr ency exchang es, but Esquivel did not g o with them during the investigati o n s

. I n one instance, Esqui v el also translated a couple of letters written in Spanish that indicated sever al drug houses by names, addre sses and descriptions of individuals. Following the translations, the police obtained a

sear ch wa

rra nt. ¶ 8 Captain Michae l Mag liano testified in s upport of Esquivel’s application at the August hearing. Captain Mag liano stated that he had kn o wn E s quivel since he came to the police depar tment in April 1 9 7 7

. Captain Mag liano said that there was a Hispanic community within the 5th District, but the office rs could not understand victims or arr estee s beca use the district had very few Spanish-speaking office rs. For that rea son, the offi c e r u s e d E s quivel “all of the time for interpre tations as far as any body that was victimiz ed.” He also used Esquivel “many times for helping [hi m] advise offe nders of their Miranda war nings, talking with the

-3-victim, pul l i n g out of the victim what happene d to them so we could write our paper up.”

After the offender was advised of hi s righ t s , h e would have Esquivel ask “some questions for us.” Captain Mag liano stated that Esquivel was “an asset to us all the time.” Captain Mag liano testified t hat i f Esqui vel was not available to assist in tr an s l at i o n s , it delayed an investigation “considera

bly .” ¶ 9 At the Marc h hearing d at e, Of fi ce r J o h n P al m er testified in support of Esquivel’s application. Offic er Palmer stated that he was retire d police office r and he worke d with Esquivel when Offic er Palmer was a speake r for the senior citize n s un it for community service s. They conducte d crime preve ntion pr og rams for the elder ly

. He worke d city -wide, but mostly

worke d with Esquivel in Ar ea 2, which included the 5th D istrict. When Offic er Palmer conducte d programs in that are a, half t h e p eo p l e d i d not understand what he was saying. He would reque st Esquivel to assist him as an interpre ter. The community meeting s

wer e to explain the “con g ames” happening to the elderly and how to preve nt t h e cr i m es

. Offic er Palmer testified that if one of the Hispanic people had a problem or neede d additional information, he or she would communicate to Esquivel what the problem was and he would bring the problem to Offic er Palmer to repor t to his superiors. This helped to build a good relationship in the community beca use the people did not want to speak dir ec t l y wi th the police office rs, but when the people felt they wer e there to help, they would g ive information to Office r Palmer a

nd Esquivel. ¶ 10 When asked by a Boa rd member if Esquivel did “any safe ty or investiga tive work at the
t ime when he was a civilian,” Officer Palmer responded, “Did he conduct any safe ty ? No, sir. Iconducte d it, but he backe d it up by saying it in Spanish to the people.” ¶ 11 No wi t n es s es t es tified in opposition to Esquivel’s application. The rec ord befor e the Boa rd included sever al documents: Esquivel’s City of Chicag o work history , the 1987 and 1991 job descriptions, and letters in support from Captain Mag liano, Offic er Palmer and Offic er D aniel Ga iner. In his letter, Captain Mag liano described Esquivel’s wor k.
“Of fice r Esquivel assisted me in sever al of my police investiga tions that require d his expertise as a bi-lingua l interpre ter. Offic er Esquivel would translate the Miranda Rights into Spanish and also translated any questions I had the response s into Eng lish. Of fice r Esquivel also i nitiated his own questioning that proved vital of the case

. Wit hout his assi s t an ce , my investiga

tions would have been drastica lly delayed and could not have
proce eded without tra

nslation a nd interpre tation by Offic er Esquivel. Criminal charg es resulted in sever al of these investigations in which Offic er Esquivel as s i s t ed

. It is my understanding that Offic er Esquivel was subpoenae d to appea r in court as a result of his role in these investigations. In addition, while perf orming these additional duties he was workingout of his titl e and pa y g rade .” ¶ 12 Offic er Palmer stated in his letter that Esquivel acc ompanied him to sever al community safe ty workshops as his bilingual interpre ter. Their “g oal was to addre ss the senior citizenry in the are a on the dang ers of con g ames and other crimes ag ainst the elder ly taking place in
t h ei r respe ctive communities. Severa l of the safe ty workshops wer e held in t h e predominantly Hispanic community
, thus nec essitating Offic er Esquivel’s service s.” Offic er Palmer further wrote that Esquivel was “i n strumental” in rela y ing police conce rns to the

-4-Hispanic community and that Esquivel “listened to the citizen conc ern s , rela yed those

conce rns to me, and a ssisted in the investigations that ensue d.” ¶ 13 Offic er Daniel Gainer also wrote a letter in support of Esquivel’s application and noted that he would be unavailable to attend Esquivel’s hearing, but “ would be happy to discuss his reque st further .” Offic er Gainer stated that Esquivel “wa s ins t rum ental in assisting members of the Hispanic co m m unity reque sting police assistance .” Offic er Gainer also worke d with Esquivel in the dis t ri ct l o ckup. “The re, Offic er Esquivel assisted in the
proce ssing of arr estee s of all nationalities. Be ing a civilian employee somehow allowed him
to g ain a detainee ’s confide nce to the point of their rela ying additional information as to their plight. Offic er Esquivel would pass this information on to me and I in turn would contac t the

arr estin g o ff

i ce r.” Offic er Gainer wrote that Esquivel’s bilingual translation skills wer e “imp e c c a b le” and that Esquivel “bec ame incre dibly knowledg eable in his investigative skills and the district off

icer s considere d him their peer .” ¶ 14 Followingthe sec ond hearing date in Marc h 2010, the Board voted to deny Esquivel’s pension reque st. The Boa rd issued its written decision in April 2010. The Boa rd found that Esquivel “did not conduct any investigations. His main function was to act as an interpre ter for Spanish speaking individuals.” The Boa rd conclude d that Esquivel’s “testimony and the testimony of others[ ] clea rly demons t ra t e[ d] that his function at the [C hicag o police depar tment] was to assist office rs, when neede d, as an interpre ter. Esquivel did not perf orm any investigat i v e wo rk

. ” The Boa rd acknow ledg ed the decision in Diedrich v. Retireme nt B oard of the Pol iceme n’s Annui ty & Bene fit Fund
, 381 I ll. App. 3d 305 (2008), but found the decision to be “informative but not controlling ” beca use the testimony from the hearings “cle arly ref

lect[ed] that Esquivel did not perf orm any investigative work. His job assig nment

was to act an intepret er an d t o h and out when neede d, radios and shotguns to office rs assig ned to var ious tasks.” ¶ 15 In J une 2010, Esquivel filed a petition for administrative revie w of the Boa rd’s decision in the circ uit court. Following a hearing in Marc h 2011, the circ uit court found the Boa rd’s decision to be “manife stly erroneous” and reve rsed the Boa rd’s decision to deny Esquivel’s application of pe nsion credits for extra service

. ¶ 16 This appea l followed. ¶ 17 On appea l, the Boa rd argues that E s qu i v el d id not perf orm “investig ative work” as require d by section 5-214(c ) in his duties as a civilian senior public safe ty aide/bilingua l for the Chicag o police depa

rtment. ¶ 18 When a party appea ls the circ uit court ’s d ec i s i o n o n a complaint for a dminist rative revie w, the appe l l ate court’s role is to revie w the administrative decision rathe r than the circ uit court’s decision. Siwek v. Retireme nt Board of the P o l i ce me n ’s Annuity & Bene fit Fund
, 32 4 I l l. App. 3d 820, 824 (2001). The Administrative Review L aw provides that judicial revie w of an administrative ag ency decision shall extend to all questions of law and fac t prese nted by the entire rec ord befor e the court. 735 I L CS 5/3-110 (West 2008). Fur ther, “[t] he finding s and conclusions of the ad m i n i s t rative ag ency on questions of fac t shall be held t o be prima fac ie true and co rr ect.” 735 I L CS 5/3-110 (West 2008). “The s tandar d of revie w, ‘which deter

mines the degree of defe renc e g iven to the ag ency ’s decision,’ turns on

-5-whether the i ssue presented is a question of f act, a question of law, or a mi x ed question of l aw and fac t.” Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rock ford School Distr i ct N

o

. 205
, 216 I ll. 2d 455, 471 (2 0 0 5 ) (q uoting AFM Messe nger Servic e, Inc. v. Departme nt of Employme nt Security , 198 I ll. 2d 380, 390 (2001)). ¶ 19 “A m i x ed qu est ion of law and fac t asks the leg al eff ect of a g iven s et o f fa ct s

. ” Comprehensive Community
, 216 I ll. 2d at 472. Stated another way , a mix ed question is one i n whi ch the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of l aw is undisputed, and the issue is whether the fac ts satisfy the statutory s tandard, or whether the rule of law as applied to the established fac ts is or is not violated. AFM Messe nger , 198 I ll. 2d at 391. Her e, the question of whether Esquivel’s duties as a senior public safe ty aide/bilingua l constituted “investig ative work” under section 5-214(c ) to rec eive pension cre dit prese nts a mix ed question of l aw and fac t. A mix ed question of law and fac t is revie wed under the clea rly

err oneous standar d. ComprehensiveCommunity , 216 I ll. 2d at 472. ¶ 20 The clea

rly err oneous standard of revie w l i es b et we en t h e m anife st weight of the evidenc e standard and the de novo stan d ar d
, an d as such, it g rants some defe renc e to the
ag ency ’s decision. AFM Messe nger , 198 I ll. 2d at 392

. “[W ]hen the decision of an administrative ag ency prese nts a mix ed question of law and fac t, the ag ency decision will be deeme d ‘cle arly err oneous’ only wher e the revie wing court, on the entire rec ord, is ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” AFM Messe nger , 198 I ll. 2d at 395 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
, 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948))

. Nonethele ss, that the clea rly err oneous standar d is larg ely defe rential does not mean, howeve r, that a revie wing c o u r t mu s t blindly defe r to the ag ency ’s decision. AFM Messe nger , 198 I ll. 2d at 395. ¶ 21 Section 5-214(c ) provides, in re levant par t: “Any participa

nt in this fund (other than a member of the fire depar tment of the city

) who has rendere d service as a member of the police depa rtment of the city for a period of 3
year s or more is entitled to cre dit for the various purposes of thi s Ar t i cl e fo r service rende red prior to becominga member or subseque nt thereto for the followingperiods:
* * * (c) Whil e per formingsafe ty or investig ative wor

k for the c ounty in which such city is principally located or for the State of I llinois or for the fede ral g overnme nt, on leave of absenc e from th e d epar tment of police, or while perf orming investigative work for the depar

tment as a civilian employee o f t h e depar tment.” 40 I L CS 5/5- 214(c) (West 2008). ¶ 22 The car dinal rule in construing a statute, to which al l o t h er s ar e s ub o rd inate, is to

asce rtain and g ive eff

ect to the intent of the leg islature. Alvarez v . Pappas , 229 I ll. 2d 217, 228 (2008). To deter

mine leg islative intent, w e turn to the languag e of the statute, which is the best indicator of its intent. Alvarez
, 229 I ll. 2d at 228. We must g i v e t h e s t atutory languag e its “plain, ordinary
, and popularly understood me a n ing ,” and “[w]here the languag e is clea r and unambiguous, the statute must be g iven eff ect as written without resor t to further aids of statutory construction.” Alvarez
, 229 I ll. 2d at 228. “[A]l l words and phrase s must be interpre ted i n light of other relevant provisions of t he st atute and must not be construed i n

-6-isolation.” Brucke r v. Merc ola
, 227 I ll. 2d 502, 514 (2007). “Ea ch word, clause and sentenc e

of the statute, if possible, must be g iven rea sonable meaning and not rende red superf luous.” Brucke r , 227 I ll. 2d at 514. ¶ 23 T h er e ar e t wo ca ses relied on by the parties involving the interpre tation of section 5- 21 4 (c): Colli ns v. Retireme nt Board of the Policeme n’s Annuity & Bene fit Fund
, 407 I ll. App. 3d 979 (2011), and Diedrich v. Retireme nt Board of the Policeme n’s Annuity & Bene fit Fund
, 381 I ll. App. 3d 305 (2008). The Boa rd asser ts that the instant case is more simil ar to Colli ns , wher e this court found that the office r did not perf orm investigative work to qualify for pension service cre dits under section 5-214(c ). Colli ns , 407 I ll. App. 3d at 986. Howeve r, Esquivel contends that the fac ts of this ca s e are “fa ctually identical” to those prese nt in Diedrich, wher e the revie wing court reve rsed the Boa rd and held that the office r’s activities satisfied the plain and ordinary meaning of investiga tive work. Diedrich
, 381 I ll. App. 3d at 312. ¶ 24 In Colli ns , we pointed out that the leg islature has not defi n ed t he term “inve stigative work” and conside red dic tionary definitions.
“ ‘Investig ate’ i s define d as ‘to observe or study by close examination and sy stematic inquiry ,’ ‘to make a sy stematic examination,’ and ‘t o conduct an officia l inquiry .’ Webster’s Ninth New Collegiat e Di ctionary 636 (1985). Additionally
, Bla ck’s L aw Dictionary define s ‘investig ate’ as ‘to inquire into (a matter) sy stematically ; to make (a suspect) t h e s ubject of a criminal inquiry ’ and ‘[t] o make an officia l inquiry .’ Bla ck’s L aw Dic tionary

830 (7th ed. 1999).” Colli ns , 407 I ll. App. 3d at 985. ¶ 25 In Diedrich
, Dolores Diedric h soug ht pension cre dit under section 5-214(c ) for the year s she worke d as a civilian Spanish translator for the Chicag o police depar tment. At the hearing befor e the Boa

rd, Diedric h testified that her main duty was to inter pret at the police station both in person and on the telephone. Whil e translating
, Diedric h was require d to initiate particula r lines of questioning on occa sion when the police office r seeking the translation did
not ask questions g erma

ne to the situation, to initiate follow-up questions when they seeme d
to be require d, and to assess the cre dibilit y of the civilians for whom she translated and rela y her i mp re s s ions to the police office rs involved. Diedrich
, 381 I ll. App. 3d at 306-07. Diedric h also would substitut e for police office rs on vacation in the revie w office and would then “examine confide ntial case repor ts to deter mine whether there wer e patterns indicating that one offe nder might be involved in more than one crime” and submit her finding s to the depar tment. She estimated that she spent two months of the year on this task. Diedrich
, 381 I ll. App. 3d at 307. ¶ 26 Diedric h also prese nted the testimony of four police office rs. Ea c h of the office rs testified that Diedric h’s duties wer e investigative in nature beca u se the investigations neede d the plaintiff’s acc urate translations, her ability to initiate questions and her opinion about a person’ s cre dibilit y

. Diedrich
, 381 I ll. App. 3d at 307-08. The Boa rd denied Di edric h’s
reque st fo r p en s i o n cre dit, concluding that her work di d not constitute investigative work. The c ircuit court a ffirme d the B oard’ s ruling. Diedrich , 381 I ll. App. 3d at 309. ¶ 27 On appea l, the revie wing court found that Diedric h did “wor k much more elabor ate than

mere translation. S he participated in leg al i nquiries and the taking of evidence.” Diedrich
,

-7-381 I ll. App. 3d at 310. The Diedrich court reve rsed the Boa rd’s denial, finding that Diedric h

was “cle arly one whom this pension statute was intended to benef it” and that “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘investig ative work’ includes the activities described by [Diedrich] and four police office rs in unrebutted te stimony .” Diedrich , 381 I ll. App. 3d at 311-12. ¶ 28 In co n t ra s t t o th e work perf ormed in Diedrich
, Esther Colli ns soug ht pension servic e

cre dits under section 5-214(c ) for her work as a police dispatcher aide. For this civilian position, Colli ns “wr ote down information from a 911 ca ll and passed that information on to the di spatche r” and while s he did ask t he callers preliminary questions, “[ o ] n ce C o l lins
prepa red her card and passed it to the di spatche r, her role was complete.” Col l i n s , 4 0 7 I l l

. App. 3d at 986. ¶ 29 In Colli ns , we distinguished the duties perf ormed by Col l i n s wi th those perf ormed by Diedric h. “Unlike the plaintiff in Diedrich
, Colli ns here was not asked to translate police questions, to initiate lines of questioning, or to assess cre dibility .” Colli ns , 407 I ll. App. 3d
at 986. We further noted t h at “Collins’ role as a police dispatcher aide was not to make a sy stematic inquiry or examination to gat h er evidenc e of a crime; rathe r, she prepa red an initial response car d for police and on occa sion fulfilled reque sts for name and license plate information or prepare d re qu ests for evidence technicia ns or pol ice crime l aboratory units
to be sent to the scene of an emer g ency ” wher eas Diedric h “par

ticipated in leg al inquiries and helped to g ather

evidenc e.” Colli ns , 407 I ll. App. 3d at 986. ¶ 30 We find the instant case to be closer to Diedrich than Colli ns

. Her e, the rec ord shows that Esquivel prese nted his own testimony to t h e Boa rd as well as testimony from Captain Mag liano and Offic er Palmer. In addition, Esquivel included let ters in support of his application from Captain Mag liano, Offic er Palm er and Offic er Gainer

. We note that the Boa rd’s decision does not mention the letters submitt ed in support of Esquivel’s application. The Boa rd’s decision minimi zed the unrebutted evidenc e prese nted reg arding Es quivel’s work a s a civilian employee. ¶ 31 Esquivel testified that he interpre ted for police office rs afte r an initial arr est, assisted in
g iving Miranda rights, questio n ing, informing the individual of the bond, and let the individual know the court date. He al s o stated that information he rec eived from safe ty workshops helpe d office rs to se t up “stings” at cur renc y exchang es and that his translation of a c ouple letters r esulted in war rants for drughouses. ¶ 32 Acc ording to the Boa rd, Captain Mag liano testified that “he was awa re from time to time police office rs used Esquivel when neede d, to assist by interpre ting from Spanish to Eng lish information g iven by Hispanic citizens.” Howeve r, Captain Mag liano’s testimony was much

more descriptive of Esquivel’s work. He testified that he used Esquiv el “m an y times for helping[hi m] advise off

ender s of their Miranda war nings, ta lking with the victim, pulling
out of t he victim what happened to them so we could write our pap er up ” an d t h e officer s would have Esquivel ask “some questions for us .” Further, in his letter, Captain Mag liano
wrote that “Of

fice r Esquivel also initiated his own questioning that proved vital of the case

. Wit hout his assistance
, my investigations would have been drastica lly delayed and could not have proce eded without translation and interpre tation by Offic er Esquivel.” These details from Captain Mag liano prese nt a differ ent view of Esquivel’s work than t h e Bo ar d ’s

-8-summary

.

¶ 33 The Boa

rd also emphasizes a response from Offic er Palmer that Esquivel did not e ng ag e in inve stigative work. Howeve r, the transcript of Offic e Palmer’s testimony shows that the
response was not as si g nificant as the Board sugg ests. A B o ar d m em b er asked if Esquivel did “any safe ty or investigative work at th e t i m e wh en h e was a civilian,” Offic er Palmer responde d, “Did he conduct any safe ty ? No, sir. I conducte d it, but he backe d it up by saying it in Spanish to the people.” Offic er Palmer’s respo n s e d i d not state that Esquivel did not perf orm any investiga

tive work. More over, O ffice r Palmer’ s letter to the Board stated that Esquivel “listened to the citizen conce rns, rela yed those conce rns to me, and assisted in the investigations that ensued.” ¶ 34 Ad d i t i o n al l y , t h e l et t er fr o m Of fi ce r Gainer described Esquivel as “inc re d i b l y knowledg eable in his inves ti g a ti v e s kills.” The office r also wrote, “B eing a civilian employee somehow allowed [Esqui vel] to g ai n a detainee ’s confide nce to the point of their rela ying additional information as to their plight. Offic er Esquivel would pass this information on to me and I in turn would contac t the arr estingoffice r.” ¶ 35 The evidence prese nted t o the Board demonstrates t hat Esqui vel di d more th an “ac t as

an interpre ter and to hand out when neede d, radios and shotguns to officers assig ned to various tasks.” L ike Diedrich
, Esquivel helped to conduct of ficial inquiries by assisting in the questioning of victims and arr estee s. Captain Mag liano wrote that Esquivel was able to i n itiate questions and his work went beyond his title and pay grade

. Esquivel’s t ransl at i o n work helped office rs to set up sting operations and, on at least one occa sion, to obtain a

sear ch war

rant. As the court found in Diedrich
, Esquivel “is clea rly one whom this pension
statute was intended to benef it” and his work satisfied the plain and ordinary m ea n i n g of investigative work. Diedrich
, 381 I ll. App. 3d at 311-12. We find that the Boa rd’s decision was clearly err oneous and afte r vi ewing the entire rec ord, we are left wit h the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. E squivel prese nted sufficie nt e vidence
to satisfy the require ments of section 5-214(c ) and should be awa rded the applicable pension service cre dits. ¶ 36 Ba sed on the fore g oing rea sons, we aff irm the decision of the circ uit cou rt o f C o ok County reve rsing the finding s of the Boa rd. We rema

nd this matter to th e Bo ard for a deter mination of the pension cr edit to which Esquivel is entitled.

¶ 37 Affir

med and r emande d.

-9-