No. 2—10—1088 Opin ion f il ed March 1, 2011

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ DE BO RA

H S EY LL

ER , a s K an e C oun ty ) Ap

peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court Cl er k of th e C i rc ui t Cou rt, ) o f Ka ne Co un t y.

) Pl ai n ti f f an d C oun terde f en da n t- ) A pp el l an t, ) ) v. ) No. 10—MR—443 ) THE COUNTY OF KA

NE; THE KANE ) COUNTY BOAR

D; K AREN ) McCONNA

UGHAY, as County

Board ) Chai rman ; DEBORA

H ALL AN, CRISTINA ) CAST RO, DON NE LL CO LLI NS , MAR K ) DAVOUST, JOHN P. FA HY, RON FORD, ) DREW FR ASZ , JOH

N J. H OSCHEIT, ) CATHERINE S. HURLBUT, GERALD ) A. JONES, MICHA

EL K ENYON , ) ROB ERT A . KU

DLIC KI, B ONNIE L

EE ) KUNKE L, J EN NI FER LAES CH, SY LVI A ) LEON BERG ER, PHIL

IP LEW IS, HOL LIE ) LINDGREN, JOHN B. MAYER, ROBERT ) J. Mc CONN

AU GHA Y, JEA NETTE ) MIHA LEC, J AMES C. M ITCHEL

L, JR ., ) JACKI E T RE DUP , T HOM AS VAN ) CLEAVE, JESS E VAZQUEZ, BARBARA ) WO JNIC KI, a

nd W ILL IAM A. W YA TT, ) as County Board Memb ers, ) ) Ho no r ab le Defendan ts and Cou nterplain

tiff s- ) St ephe n Su lli van, Appell ees. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUS TI CE ZEN OFF d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Mc Lar en and Hut chinso n co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.No. 2—10—1088

1 The Cl erk’s compl

ai nt refers to a “gen

eral f und” an d to “speci

al ” or “res tr icted funds” without naming t he m. The County’s counterclai

m ref ers to t he County ’s Gen

eral R even ue Fund, t he Co ur t Aut omat ion Fu nd, t he Co ur t Do cument St or age Fund , t he Ch ild Su ppo rt Fund , a nd t he Court“Operati

ve” an d Adm in is trat iv e Fund. The

trial court directed the Cl

erk to pay

personnel
cos ts fro m the C ou rt Aut omat ion Fu nd, t he Co ur t Do cument St or age Fund , a nd th e “Administra t iveServices” Fun d. The crux o f thi s appeal i nvolv es an anal

ysi s of the C ourt A utom ati on Fund an d the Court Do cum

ent Sto rage Fund, which fo r e ase of r efer ence we c all the “speci al fun ds.” We adopt the County’s nome ncl ature for general

fun ds as the “ General

Reven ue Fun d.” Dif feren t witnesse s refe

rred to the “Court Operation and A dmi ni strative Fun

d” (see 705 ILCS 105/27.3d (West 2008) ) sim ply as the Admi

ni st ra tiv e Fu nd. F or cons i sten

cy, we us e “ Court Operation an

d Adm in is trat iv e Fund” where appl

ic abl e. -2- OPINI ON Pla int iff, Deborah Sey

ll er, as the el ected Kane C ounty cl erk o f the c i rcui t court (Clerk), ap pe als from

an orde r of the ci rcu i t cou rt of Kan e C oun ty gra nti ng a p rel i m i na ry i njun cti on i n f av or of def endan ts the C ounty

of K an e, the coun ty b oard, an

d m em bers of th e c oun ty bo ar d ( co llec t ive ly t he Co un t y) a nd de nying he rmo t io n fo ra p r elimina ry injun ct io n. We affir m. BACK GROUND The i nstant con

troversy i s ab out whether the Cl

erk ma y use monies in “special f

unds” 1 to pay personnel cost s, or whet her per so nnel co st s ar e t o be funde d by monies a ppr op riat ed fr om t he Cou n ty ’s Gen er al Rev en ue Fu n d. Th e l eg i sl atu repr ov i de d f

or th e cre ati on of th e s pe ci al f un ds , to be retained b

y the county trea sure r an

d ge ne rate d f rom f ee s c ol l ec ted

by the ci rcu i t cl erk f orNo. 2—10—1088

-3-

auto ma ted reco rdke eping (705 I LCS 105 /27. 3a (West 2008) ) and do cument st or age (7 05 ILC S 105/2 7.3c (W

est 200 8)). The di spute

cen ter s on th e C l er k’ s req ue st th at th e C oun ty appr opri ate

mon i es f rom i ts General Reven ue Fun d, abo ve wha t it ap pr ove d fo r t he Cler k’s 2 010 budg et , in o rd er t o mee t t he
ma ndated obli gations of the off ic e of the Cl

erk. The Cl erk defi

nes h er man dated obli gations as those im posedby state stat utes, appli

cabl e state and fede

ral regul ations, rul es of t he Il

l i n oi s S up re me C our

t, ordersof th e ch i ef j udge of th e S i xtee n th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, and orders of other judges . Wi thout such addi tional fun din g, the Clerk ca

utioned, she

would be forced to cl ose her off

ic e and the courts, as she had exhausted before t he end of the fiscal y ear t he monies approp riated to her from the Co unty’s General Reven ue Fund. The Co unty passed a reso lution denyi ng the Clerk’s req

ue st. The res ol ution ci ted the Cl erk’s acti on in

hi rin g without the County’s

consent addi

tional em ploy ees whose sa

la ries
an d b en ef i ts w er e n ot i n cl ud ed i n h er b udge t. OnSep t embe r 1 4, 201 0, t he Cler k filed a ver ifi ed c omp laint fo r d eclar at or y judgment an d ot her reli ef aga in st the County. In that complai nt, the Clerk cl

ai m ed th at t he Co un t y di

d n ot appr opri ate

sufficient monies fr om t he Ge ner al Reve nue Fu nd f orher off ic e for the f

is cal ye ar 2010 and that, if s

he di d not rec eive ad dit ional mo nies fro m the G ener al Reve nue Fu nd, she w ou ld be
un ab le t o mak e her payr oll for t he r emainder of t he fiscal year and w ou ld have to cl ose her off ic e and the c ourts. S pe cif ica lly, the Cl erk al

l eg ed tha t, al thou gh sh e h ad su bm i tted a prop ose d b

udg et of $4,782,665 f

or th e f i sc al yea r 2 01 0, t h e C oun ty appropri

ated on l y $4,147 ,968. The Cl

erk requested (1) a d ec l ara

ti on th at t he Co un t y is req uire d t o fu nd t he r eas ona ble and ne ces sar y expens es o f the Clerk’s of f i ce ; ( 2) a wri t of mandamus r eq ui r ing t he Co un t y to fun d those expens es; (3) a d ec l ara ti onNo. 2—10—1088

-4-

that th e C l er

k i s n ot re qui re d to s ub m i t l i n e- i tem b udge ts f

or re v i ew b y th e C oun

ty ; (4) an order st at ingt hat t he C ler k’ s o ffi ce is t o r ema in o pe n a nd st af fe d a nd di r ec t ing t he Co un t y t o fu nd t he
re qui si te expenses; a

nd (5) an injunct ion r equ iring t he Co un t y t o ap pr o ve t he fun din g r eq ue st ed in her sup pl em en tal bud get requ est. Th e C l erk su bs eq ue ntl y f i l ed a m oti on f or a prel i m i na ry i n j un cti on to co m pe l th e C oun ty to add fun ds, bey ond those appropriated to her budget f rom the Gene

ral Reven ue Fund, f

or t he f is cal ye ar 2010, so t hat her off

ic e could conti

nue to operat e as usual . Attached to that motion was an af f i dav i t from the C l erk. In

that af f i dav i t, the Cl erk ex pl ai ne d the f oll owi ng. Al though case f

il in gs had dec lined bet wee n 200 6 and 20 09 , t he ch an ce ry ca se s, wh ich we r e “ va st ly m oreti me i n tensi v e to
manage,” in creased by

3,245 cases. In that sam e p er io d, the judi

ci ary adde d new j udges and n ew
cour tro oms, whi ch required at least one add itio nal clerk t o be assigne d while co ur t was in sessio n. Between 2007 and 2010, the ave

rage num ber of docum

ents processed

monthl y b y the Cl erk’s off

ic e in creased from 91,905 to 121,821. Furthermore, despite the i ncreased workload, t he staff had decreased ove r t ime, fro m 99 in 20 08 t o 9 6. 5 in 20 10 a nd 95 .5 when t he moti on f or a prel i m i na ry i njun cti on wa s file d. The County’s 2010 budget reduced app ro pr iatio ns for t he Cler k’s o ffi ce by $116,5 49 f

rom th e 200 9 f i sca l year a nd $ 474,48 3 f

rom th e 200 8 f i sca l y ear. On Se pt emb er 28, 201 0, t he County fi led a veri fi ed answer and a counter clai m. As a t hr es ho ld matter, the cou nterclaim expl ain ed how t he Clerk’s o ff

ic e wa s f un de d. Th e C oun

ty appropriatedfunds f

or t he Cler k’s a nnu al budg et fro m the C ou nt y’s Gene ra l Revenu e Fund . T he Cou n ty app ro pr iate d fur t her funds fo r t he Cler k’s o ffi ce fr om t he sp ecial funds as w ell as t he Ch ild Support Fu nd an d t he Co ur t Op er at io n a nd Ad minist r at iv e Fun d (other n

am ed f unds), wh

i ch are fun ded by t he lit iga t io n fe es t he Cle r k c ha r ge s. T he Co un t y alle ge d t ha t it determi ned that the Clerk’sNo. 2—10—1088

-5-

2010 budg et need s fro m the G ener al Reve nue fu nd should not exceed the 2009 level beca use of t he decrease in

court fi li ngs an d the im proved eff

ic ie ncy of runn in g the Cl erk’s off

ic e, butthat the Clerk’s al l oca ti on f rom the other name d fun

ds, in cl udin g the sp ec i al

f un ds , s h oul d b e i n cr ea se d. T

h e C oun ty alle ged that the Cl erk hi

red additional

personnel

and ch arged their com

pensation to the General Reven ue Fund app ro pr iatio ns for t he Cler k’s 2 010 bu dget , thus exha ustin g those moni

es wi thout usi ng the other n

am ed f unds av ail ab l e to her. The counter cl ai

m sou ght to : (1) pro hi

bi t t he Cl erk from s

pendi ng f unds i n excess of h

er budget; (2) compel

the Cl erk to use m

onie s appropriated from

the special

f un dsto mee t pa

y rol l f or t he remai nder of f is cal ye ar 2010; or (3) co mpe l the C le rk to seek her

re medy unde r se ct ions 1 5 and 22 of the Cl

erks of Courts Act (705 ILCS 105/15, 22 (West 2008)), by whi ch a m aj ority of the judge s of a court m

ay determ i ne and f i x the n um ber of d eputy clerks ne ces sary

to perf orm th e r eq ui si te funct ions and order those deputy cl erks to be em ploye d an d com pen sated
. Fina lly, t he co un t er cla im al le ged a constitutional

-to rt clai m, see kin g to hold the C le

rk personal ly l iable for intent ionally and knowi ngl y overs pen di ng th e budget appropri

ated f or her of f i ce. The Cou n ty al so f i l ed i ts ow n m oti on f ora preli mi nary in jun ction. The County

expl ai ned that there were monies fr om bo t h t he General Reven ue Fund and the spe cial funds a ppr op riat ed fo r t he Clerk’s off

ic e and that

her 201 0 bud get exce ede d her act ual exp endit ur es fo r t he previous fi scal ye ar by mor e t han $1 mil

lion. The County a

rgued that t he speci

al fun ds had ex cess m onie s available and that t hos e fund s co uld lawfu lly be used to pay personne l c osts. T he County requestedthat the

Clerk be ordered to use the speci al funds a s we ll as the Co ur t Ope ra t ion and Administr at iveFund to me et her pay roll ex pen ses f or the remai

nde r of f i sca l year 20 10.No. 2—10—1088

2 Al though the

re w ere two opp osi

ng moti ons f orprel i m i na ry i nj unc tion s b ef ore th e tr i al cou rt, the Cl erk did n

ot in tro duce any

evi dence (other than

he r af f i da vi ts) i n s upp ort of he r m oti on. Up on the p arti es’ agree

men t, the court consoli dated b oth m otion s f or the h eari ng. -6- On October 15 , 20 10 , a h ea r ing wa s he ld on t he pr elimi

nar y inj unct ion. 2 In ope

ni ng, th e Cl erk argued that t he County

had an obli gation to fund the reas onabl e and n ecess ar y expens es o f the Clerk’s off

ic e. She also ar gued t hat ever yone agreed that shutt ing down t he Clerk’s of f i ce m i d- mon th due to bu dge tary sh ortf al l s w asnot an o pt ion. The Cl

erk argued that t he i ssue was wh ether the status quo shoul d be m

ai ntain ed by the County conti

nui ng t o fu nd her off

ic e from the General

Reven ue Fund or wh

ether s he sh oul d b e re qui red to ex pe nd m oni esf rom the spe ci al

f unds. The Cl

erk argued that there are restrictions

on the use of the special

funds an d that she was al

ready expendi

ng those fun ds t o t he maximum exte nt po ssible. S he fur t her ar gue d t hat t her e wo uld be no har m from t he Cou n ty funding he r o ffi

ce w ith mo nies fro m the General Reven ue Fund because , if

the trial court la ter fou nd i n f av or of t he Co un t y, it would merel y b e an accounting fun

ction to transfer monies fro m the spe ci al f unds b ack to the

Gen eral Rev en ue Fund
. The Clerk ar gue d t hat she had p ro vided ve rified plea dings a nd two a f f i da vi ts e xp l ai ni ng how she had al located expen

ses to t he spe cial funds. Fur t her mor e, she ar gu ed , t he Co un t y st at ed in it s veri fi ed answ er t hat it had no knowledge of how t he Clerk’s off i ce f unc tion s. Accordi

ngl y , the C l erk argued that it was dis in

genuo us f

or t he County

to require h

er to expen

d the sp ec ial fu nd s w he n it
co uld not dispute her ev

ide nce. The Cl

erk argued that t he County wanted her

to charg e 3 0% of

her personnel budget agai

nst the special

funds, but she con

ten de d th at she was

al ready doi ng t hat . T he Clerk argued that there would be i rreparabl e harm

if the trial court required h

er to expen

d the special fun ds butla ter found, in

her f avor, that t he personn

el costs at i ss

uecoul d n

ot be l aw f ul l y pai d f romNo. 2—10—1088

-7-

those f unds. Sh e r ea so ne d t ha t she wo uld have been compel le d to violate the speci

al fun d statut es and enga ge in o ffi

cial miscond uct . T he Cler k r equ est ed a n injunct ion t o ba r t he Cou nty f rom re fusing to appr opri ate

f rom th e G en er al Rev en ue Fu n d addi ti on al mon i es th at w oul d al l ow h er to operate her
o ffice at it s p r es en t lev el. The Cou n ty argued that the appropr ia tions ordin

ance encom passi ng the Cl erk’s 2010 budge

t was enti tled to a presumpti on of val idi ty. The County

stated t hat when t he bud get was cr eat ed t he
num ber of ca se f i l i n gsappe ar ed

to be t re nding d ow n. E ven t hou gh t he Cler k did not get t he amou nt requestedf

rom the G en eral

Rev en ue Fund , he

r total bu dge t wa s $ 1 m

i l l i on mo r e t ha n sh e h ad ac t ua lly spe nt t he ye ar bef

ore. T he County

argued that the sp ec i al

f un dscou l d b e u se d to p ay

pers on n el costs and t hat t he Cou

nty wa s r es pon si bl e f or au thor izi ng the ex pe nd i ture s f rom th ose f un ds . Th e C oun ty argued that the Clerk n ev er pr ov i de d d eta

i l s a s to why her a ppr op riat ed bu dge t was insufficient. The Cou n ty requestedt hat t he Cler k be c omp elled t o u se t he special fun ds to meet the obli

gations that
co uld not be me

t by the m

onie s appropriated

f rom th e Gen eral Rev en ue Fund
. Th e C oun

ty stated that the Cl erk needed $520,000 to get t hrough Novem ber 30, 2010, t he en

d of the f is cal year. The Co un t y ar gu ed t ha t t he Cle r k c o uld no t be he ld lia ble fo run law fully spendi ng m onie s i n the special funds, because

the statut es perm

ittin g t he cr eat ion o f tho se fund s sp ecifically pro vided t hat t he County sh

al l di rect how those funds are s pent, and the County

was doin g that. A t th e h ea ri n g, t h e C oun ty ca l l ed th e C l er k a s a n ad v er se wi tn es s. Th e C l er

k te sti f i ed th at, when sh e subm i tted h er propos e d budget to t he County , she i ncl uded m aterial s showi

ng that her off ic e was bar ely perfo rming its mandat es. She stated t hat when the budget

was presen

ted, fi li ngs in t he Cler k’s o ffi

ce w er e up by 17% , no t do wn. S he sho wed t he ad dit ional fund s t hat wo uld be
ne eded to hi re m ore depu ty c l erks
.No. 2—10—1088

-8-

The Cl erk acknowl edged that her deputy cl erks access co mput er s t o a ssist litigant s and t he court s, and that they

enter orders and fi

li ngs i nto computers every

day . They

also sc an docum en ts
an d e nte r oth er i nf orm ati on in to the documen

t sto rage system

ever y day. S he t est ifi

ed t hat she had repl ace d “the ty

pewri ter wi th a k ey board ,” m

ean i ng th at the e nti re re co rd kee ping ent er pr ise o f the Clerk’s office w as e lect ro nic. I t co nsist ed o f the documen t sto rage system an

d the automated (recordkeeping) sy

stem . Sh e s poke of both collectivel

y a s o ne “sys t em. ” T he Cle r k t es t ified t ha t it
was her understandin

g that she was l ega lly

re st rict ed t o u sing t he sp ecial funds t o “e st ablish and
mai ntai n” the “ sy stem ,” not to com

pen sate p erson

ne l f or data en try i nto the “ sy

stem .” The Cl erk further testif

ie d th at h er de pu ty cl erks perform

ot her tasks bes ide s data entry, such
as r ec eiv ing pa pe r , pla cin g it in prongs, fi le -stampi ng, and s hel vi ng. She testifi

ed that she perf

ormed t ime studies to determi

ne h ow much of th e p er son

n el costs to attr

i b ute to ei ther the General

Reven ue Fund orth e s

pe ci al f un ds . Sh e e ss en ti al l y ti med wh at t he de pu t y cl erks were doin g and al located
c ost s ac cor di

ng to how l ong i t took to com

pleteva rioustas ks . In

de term i ni ng wh i ch ca teg ory of app ro pr iatio ns shoul d f

und particul ar tasks, she r elied o n t he st at ut es a nd spoke with the S tat e’s Attorne y . Acco rd ingto the C l erk, followi ng the b udget pro cess, sh

e sub mit t e d t o t he Co un t y a
res ol ution requestin g addi tional moni es to fund h

er off ic e and i ts personnel . The Cl erk testifi ed that she did n ot reall y rece iv e a $1 million inc r ea se in

he rbu dg et , be ca us e t he r e w er e mo nie s le ft o ve rin t he special

fun ds f rom the 2009 f

i sc al yea r that ca rri ed ov er to her 201 0 bud get . Fo r t hat re aso n, she testifi ed, the moni

es appropriated to t he spe ci al f unds f or the 20 10 f

i sca l year w ere about t he sa me as f or the pre vi ous y ear.No. 2—10—1088

-9-

The Cl erk acknowl edged that she ha d not re ceived fro m any agenc ies any no t ices t hat she was not f ul f i l l i ng h er m andates
. She explain

ed that this was bec ause sh e had h ired ad dit io nal s t aff
ne ces sary t o p er for m the mandates . The Clerk n oted that, b ef

ore she h ired addi tional staff , her off ic e
was seve n wee ks be hind

in pro ces sing “SD U” p ayments ; her office w as no t t imely re funding bond, restitution, or chil

d support money

that had b een un

cl ai me d (she h

ad recei ved compl ai nts); an d her off ic e was not re po rt ingDUI di sposi tion s i n a tim el y f ash i on. Ac co r din g t o t he Cle r k, she sha r ed t his informat ion wi

th the Coun ty a s pa rt of h er res olu tion
. She t est ifi

ed t hat , in re spo nse t o he r r equ est s for add itio nal funding, t he Cou n ty tol d h er to cut her b udge t. Th

e C oun ty di d n ot tel l h er to rely on moni es i n the spe cial funds. In fac t , a cco rd ing to the C l erk, th e Coun

ty h ad di rected the State ’sAttorne

y ’soff i ce to i nv esti gate wh ethe r s he was
ove rsp ending from

the appropriat i onsto t he special funds. She sai

d that her all

ocat ions we r e in accordance wi

th g ui da nc e s he rec ei ve d f rom t he St at e’s At t or ney. T he Cler k ac kno wledg ed t hat t he St ate ’s Att or ney’s invest igat ion wa s in res po nse t o a co mmentshe h ad m ade be f ore the c ounty

board that she was

mi sspen din g the moni

es i n the special

fun ds. She sai

d that she essen

tial ly al located 32% of her personn

el costs t o t he special

fun ds and 68% to the

Gen eral Rev en ue Fund
. At t he t ime of t he heari ng, sh e h ad al most com pl ete l y ex h au ste d th

e m on ie s appropriated from

the General

Reven ue Fund f or the y ear. Fi n al l y , the C l er

k te sti f i ed th at, if she did no t re ceive a ddit ional mo nies fro m the Gen eral Rev en ue Fund , she would have to close the off ic e. Ken Shepro testifi

ed that he wa s a

pp oin te d as a spe cial assist ant St at e's At t or ney for t he purpo se of r epr ese nt ing t he co unt y boar d and t he co unt y boar d cha irman. He attended man y b udget and com m i ttee meeti n gsre l ate d to the f

i sca l year 20 10 b

udget. He testif

i ed th at the C l erk

presented her sup plement al budg et re que st at a Ma y 2010 Jud icial and Publ ic S afety Com

mi tt ee (JPSC)No. 2—10—1088

-10-

me eting. At tha

t mee ti ng , sh e sub m i tted a one -pa geres ol ution t hat re flect ed t he bud get adjus t ment she wa s r eq

ue sti ng . Sh ep ro t estif

ie d t hat dur ing t he fiscal year t hat bega n Dec ember 1 , 2 009 , t he Clerk did n ot attend any

JPSC m eetin gs until May 2010. At that May

2010 me eting, the com

mi tt ee
mem bers requested detail s, and the Cl erk stated t hat she woul

d provide addi

tional in form ation at t he next meet ing. S he pr ovid ed no informat ion at the June m eetin g, but at t he Jul

y m eetin g she prese

nted
a revi sed r es olu t ion r equ est ing abo ut $20 ,0 00 les s. I n t he abs ence of a ddit ional infor matio n, t he
co mmi tt ee voted to deny the Cl erk’s request and i t forwarded the recomm

endati on to the financ e
comm ittee. The f

in ance an d executi ve com mi tt ees b oth den i ed th e r eq ue st. The county b oard t hen
cons i dered

the re quest at itsSeptem ber 13, 20 10, m

eeti ng, a nd i t al so den i ed th e requ

est. Ch er yl Pa t t elli testifi

ed that she was the f

in ance director for the County. She ackn owledged that the County h

ad a contin

gency f und f or em ergen cy ex pen di tures that ari se d

uri ng a gi ven y ear. Acco rd ingto Patt el li, the contingen cy fun d was a l in e i tem i n the Gen eral R even ue Fund. The

moni es in the contin

gency fun d were set asi de to be

us ed i n c as e a ny of the Cou nty ’s rev en ue s f el l sh ort of pr o jec t io ns. At the tim

e of the he arin

g, there were pendi

ng requests f

or $635,000 in contin

gen c y funds, in excess of t he $4 93 , 00 0 t ha t r ema ine d i n t he co nt ing en cy fun d. Pat t elli estimat ed t hat , by t he end of fiscal year 201 0, t he Court Automation F und would h

ave an unused b al ance of

$202,000; t he Cou rt D ocu men t St or age Fund wou l d have a n e xc es s of $56 1, 000 ; and t he Co ur t Ope ra t ion and Administr at ive Fund woul d have an exce ss o f $11 5, 000 . Ad dit ionally, she t est ifi ed t hat t he special fun ds had sub stantial

bal ances of c ash on hand. A cc ordi

ng to Patte l l i , th e a

moun ts al l oca ted to those fun ds for the Clerk’s 2010 budg et wer e wha t t he Cler k had re que st ed. Pat t elli test ifi ed t hat t he Clerk’s to talexpen

ditures f or 2009 were $6.7 mi

ll ion a nd that her 2010 budget

was$7.8 m

i l l i on. Patsy Clark t est ifi

ed t hat she wasthe C ounty pay roll manager. Cl ark iden

tif ie d and ex pla in edNo. 2—10—1088

-11-

various exh

ibits adm itted in to evi dence b y the County. Cl

ark testifi ed that the exhi

bi ts showed that
no deputy cl

erks were paid out of the Court Auto ma tion Fun d, seven we r e pai d out of the Court Documen t St orage Fund, two out of the Ch il d Support Fund, an

d two o ut of

the Cou rt Op era ti on and Administr at ive Fun

d. The rem ai nde r of th e dep uty clerks were pai d out of the Gene

ral R even ue Fun d. Cl ark tes ti f i ed tha t the Cl erk i s th e on e w ho d es i gnate s w

hi ch em pl oyee s w i l l be pai d out of ei ther the appr op riat ion fro m the Ge neral Revenu e Fu nd o r the oth er f unds. The employee s in the Clerk’s of

f i ce ea rn sa l ari es an d b en ef i ts. The e x

h i b i ts s h owe d th at a n av er ag e s al ar y f or a de pu ty clerk was $34,306, and an ann ual b enefi ts co st was $9,860
. Af ter co nsider ing t he pl eadi

ngs , af f i dav i ts, argu men ts of c ouns el , exhibits, and t est imony, t he trial court ruled i

n f av or of th e Coun

ty. Th e tri al court noted that allowin

g the Clerk’s off

ice to close f orl ac k of f un di ng wa s n ot an opt ion. After enum

erating t he fact or s t hat it must co nsider in gra nt ing injunct ivere lief, the trial

court stated that it had given ext ra co nsider at ion t o ba lancing t he har m. The trial co ur t fo un d t ha t t he Co un t y went through a t ho ug ht ful a nd de liber at e p r o ce ss in establ is hi ng a budget for t he Cl erk’s off

ic e, and i t said that t he County

hasthe “ power of the purse .” Th e tri al

court also remarked that t he Cl

erk’s 2010 budge

t was more than $1 m

i l l i on gr eat er t han her expe

ndi tures f or the pre vi ous y ear. Al though the Cl erk all

eged that she coul d not meet her m andates, the trial

court found that t he record did not support that concl usi on because

there was no evi

dence that the Cl

erk had recei ved any n oti ce s o f fail

ur e t o mee t mandat es. The t rial co ur t fou nd t hat t he st at ut es a ut hor izing t he est ablishment of the sp ec i al f un dspe rm i tted th ose f un dsto be us ed f orpers onnel

costs. Ac co r di ng ly, t he trial court ordered t he Cl

erk to charge at l east $520,000 to the special fun ds and to the Co urt Op era ti on an d Adm i ni stra ti ve Fu nd , an d “ to pa y the com pe ns ati on of deputi esf rom those fun ds and,No. 2—10—1088

-12-

in compl ia nce wi th the statut e, seek the approval of the Ch ie f J udge if the sam e i s requi red under t he relev an t statute.” Th

i s v erb al f i ndi ng was m em oria l ized i n a wri tten order on

Octobe r 18, 20 10. The Clerk th ereaf

ter f i l ed a ti mel y noti ce of i nterl ocutory appe al
. AN AL YSIS “The d ecisio n t o g ra nt or denya pr elimi nar y inj unct ion r est s wit hin the sou nd di screti on of t he trial court , and a r evi ewing court wil l n ot dis turb the decis ion a

bsen t a clear ab

use of that di scre tion .” Desnick v. Department of Professional Regulation , 17 1 Ill . 2d 510 , 516 (1 996). To
o bt ain a preli

mi nary i nj unction, a plai

ntif f m ust es t ab lish t ha t : “ ( 1) he po ss es se s a ce r t ain an d c lea r ly
asc er t ained r ight whi

ch n eeds protect ion [ci

tations]; (2) he wi

ll suf fer i rreparabl e i

nj ury wi thout t he prote cti on of t he i njun cti on [ ci tation] ; ( 3) th

ere i s n o ad eq ua te re med y at l aw f orthe i nj ury [ci tation ]; and (4) plai

ntif f is like ly to be succe ssf

ul on the meri ts.” S& F Corp. v. American Express Co. , 60 I ll. Ap p. 3d 82 4, 828 ( 1978)
. On in terlocuto ry appea

l, the onl y que stion b efore a

reviewi ng court is wh

ether there was a sufficient sh

owi n g to s us tai n th e or der of th e tr i al cou rt gra n ti n g or den y i n g th e r el i ef sou gh t. Id. The pur po se o f a pr elimi

nar y inj unct ion is no t t o d ecide t he me rits of the cas e but to pr eserve the status quo. Madi

gan Br others v. Melrose Shopping Cente r Co. , 130 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 14 9, 151 ( 1984) . A pla int iff is not re quir ed t o p re sent a c as e th at wi l l en ti tl e h i m to the relief

he seeks but need only

raise a f ai r ques tion as to the ex i sten ce of the ri ghts clai med. Id. In the present case, we can not say that the trial

court abused

it s discr et ion in gr ant ing prel i m i na ry in jun ctive reli ef i n f avor of the County. The County est ablished t ha t it ha d a cle ar ly ascertained right in

need of prot ection. Sect ion 6—1005 of the Cou nties Code pro vides:No. 2—10—1088

-13-

“Exce pt as herein

pro vided, neither the co unty board nor any one on its be ha lf sha ll h ave power, ei the r di rectl y orin directl y, to *** do any act whi

ch adds to the county ex

pendi tures
orliabilit ies in

any ye ar any thin g above the am

ount pro vi

ded for i n the an nual budget for that f i sca l year.” 55 IL CS 5/6

—1005 (We st 2008 ). While it is t rue t ha t t he Co un t y h ad th e r es ponsi b i l i ty to ap pr opri atef

or, and fu nd, t he nec essa ry and
r ea so na ble ex

pen ses of the Cl

erk’ s of f i ce, the Cl erk, as the statut ory language quoted ab ov e dem onstra tes, had the

resp onsi bi l i ty to opera

te he r off i ce wi thi n the Coun

ty’ s b udget constra

i nts. The Coun

ty f urthe r es tab l i sh

ed tha t i t ha d n o ad eq ua te re med y at l aw an d w ou l d suf

fer irr ep ar ab le harm

in the absen

ce of the in

jun ction. The Cl

erk stated th at, wi

th out addi

tional moni es appropriatedf

rom t he General

Reven ue Fund to cover personnel costs for the remai

nder of the f

is cal year, she would be f

orced t o c lose her office fo r t he r emainder of t he ye ar. Bot h parties agreed that clos ingthe cl erk’s off

ic e would resul

t in i rreparabl e harm

for whi ch there was n

o adequate remedy

at la w. Fin ally, t he Co un t y es tab l i sh ed a l i ke l i hood of suc ces s o n t he meri

ts. T o es tab l i sh

a l i ke l i hood of success, the County “

need only ra ise a fair q ues t ion r ega rd ing t he exist ence of a claimed rig ht and
a fa ir qu esti

on tha t [it] wi l l be en titl ed to the re l i ef

pray ed f or if the p roof sustai

ns the a l l egati ons.” Kalbfleisch v. Columbia Community Unit School Di str ict U nit N o. 4 , 396 Ill . App. 3d 1105, 1114 (2009 ). Her e, t he Co unt y has ra ised a fair qu est ion r ega rd ingthe Cl erk ’s obl i ga ti on to operate her off ic e withi n budgetary approp riations (55 ILCS 5/6—1005 (West 200 8) ) a nd a fair que st ion t hat she i s n ot pay i ng e nough of h er of f i ce e xpe ns es out of

the s peci al f unds. The Cl erk argues that the special fun ds m ay not be used to co ver

t he costs o f

ev er y da y da ta
en try into t he do cument st or age syst em and t he aut omat ed r eco rd kee ping syst em. S he as ser t s t hat t heNo. 2—10—1088

-14-

statut es aut hor izing the special funds l im it their use to maintai

ni ng the systems covered by those special fun ds an d that they

excl ude the cos ts of pe rs onn el us i ng thos e s y stem s on

a day-to- day b asis. We m ust, the ref ore, cons true the statutes a

t is sue . The fun da men t al r ule o f st at ut o ry co nst ruc t io n is t o a sce rt ain and g ive effect t o t he legisl atu re’s i n ten t. Kalb fleisc h, 396 Ill . App. 3d at 1115. The lan guage of the sta

tute i s th e b es t i nd i ca tor of legislat ivein

tent, and we should not read into t he statu te except ions, li mi tations, or co ndi

tions that do not ex i st. Id. We pr esu me tha t t he l egi slature did not intend absurd, in convenient, o r unjust results. Landis v. Marc Realt

y, L.L .C. , 235 Il

l . 2d 1, 12(2009 ). T h e i nstant con

troversy cen ters on the l anguag e i n two statutes , that rel

ati ng to the Court A utom ati on f und and tha t rel ati ng to the Court Docum

en t Storage Fu

nd. The legi sl ature pro vi

ded that t he expense

of “es t ablishing andma

in taini ng” automated recor d keeping sy stems i n the circui

t clerks’ offi ces shal l b e borne by the counties. 705 IL CS 10 5/27.3 a(1) (W est 200 8). To defray

the expense of an au t omat ed r eco rd kee ping syst em, t he co unt y boar d may req uire t he circ uit clerk t o c har ge a nd coll ect a fee. The fees a re re mitt ed mo nt hly to t he co unt y tr eas ur er , t o be re t ained by t he treasurer in a sp eci al f und . Under s ection 27.3 a(3), t he c o un t y bo ar d ma ke s e xp en dit ur es fr o m t he fun d in payment o f “ anycost re la ted to the automation of court records, incl udin g hardware, software, research an d de ve l op m en t cos ts and personnel relate d there to , ” p r o vid ed t ha t t he ex pe nd it ur e is approved by the circuit clerk and the chi ef j udge. ( Emphases added). 705 ILCS 105/27.3a(3) (West 2008)
. The legislat ur e also pr ovid ed fo r a spe cial fund r elat ed t o “e st ablishing and maint aini n g” a documen t sto rage sys

tem. 705 ILCS 1 05/27. 3c(a) ( West 200 8). Th e c i

rcu i t cl erk col l ec ts a f eef or this fun d and rem its the f ees to t he county

treasurer. Sect ion 27.3c(c) provides in relev ant part t hatNo. 2—10—1088

-15-

t he county b oard shall m ake ex pe n di tu re s fr o m t he fu nd in pa yment o f “ anyco st s re lative t o t he storage of c ou rt re co rd s, includ ing har dwa re , so ftw ar e, re sea rc h and d evelo pment cost s, and related personnel ,” pr ovid ed t hat t he circ uit clerk app ro ves t he ex pen di ture. (Emphases added.) 705 I LCS 105/2 7.3c(c ) (We st 2008 ). The Clerk re ads t he wo rd s “est ablishing and m ai ntain in g” i n both statutes to me an that they limit her expe

ndi tures to the li

teral phy si cal upkeep of the syste m s. She, th er ef ore , has de cl i n ed to app ro ve exp end it ur es fo r any ot her pur po se. Ind eed , a cco rd ing t o t he Co unt y’s evidenc e, she al located $0 fr o m t he Co ur t Au t o mat io n Fu nd t o pa y t he sa lar ies o f t he de pu t y cle rks wh o use t he automated re cordkee

pi ng s y stem . Co nt r ar y t o t he Cle r k’ s a ss er t io n, t he pla in langua ge o f the statut es i ndicates that personnel
costs re late d t o t he day-to -day ope rati on of the automated recordkeeping an d the documen

t sto rage sys t ems are properly

pai d from the special

fun ds. Both stat utes provideth at anyco st , bu t sp ec ifica lly including pers on

n el , i s a pr oper e x

pen di tur e i f i t relate s to the au tomati on of cou rt re cord s or do cument st or age . T he langu age “est ablishing and maint aining” has t o be read mor e br oa dly than t he Clerk r ea ds it , in

ligh t o f t his sub seq

uen t la ngu age. Ev ery day data en try i nto the s y stem s i s nece ssa

ry to the day-to -day

ope rati on of th ose

sy ste m s. Th us , the en try of da ta i nto th e s y stem s “

rel ate s to” t he sy stem s. To say t hat t he syst ems can be est ablished a nd maint ained bu t not funct ion on a da y -today ba sis t o t he be ne fit o f t he pu blic and the cour ts wo uld be to reach an absurd and unj ust resul t. Our
con cl us i on regarding the meani

ng of this la

nguag e is bo lste re d by a 19 92 o pinion let t er fro m the I llino is A ttorn ey Gen er al th at s pe ci f i ca l l y sta ted th at th e s pe ci al f un ds“ may b e u se d to c om

pen sa te da ta en t r y pe r so nne l wh o ar e e ng ag ed in e nt er ing da t a in to t he speci fi c systems to which the f

eesNo. 2—10—1088

-16-

relate.” 19 92 I ll. A t t ’y G en . Op
. 2. Ac co r din gly, t he r e is a fa ir q ue st io n t ha t t he Cle rk s hou ld be al locati ng m ore o f h er personnel

costs t o t he spe ci al

f unds. The Cl erk argues that enterin g t he pr elim i

n ar y i n j un cti on i n f av or of th e C oun

ty f ai l ed to pr ese rve the

sta tus quo. The Clerk asserts t hat t he status quo would ha ve b een properly

ma in taine d by h av i n g th e C oun ty con ti nu e to f un d her of f i cevi a m oni esappropri ate d f

rom the General

Reven ue Fund, as i t had throughout the year. Nonetheles s, preservi ng the status quo i

s n ot al wa y s a con di ti on of rest; i t is som eti mes a cond i tion of a cti on tha t is ne ces sary t o p re vent i

rrepa rab l e h arm . Kalbfleisch , 396 Ill. App . 3 d at 111 8. In t he pr ese nt cas e, t he trial court ’s determi

nation pres erved the status quo by pr event in

g the Cl er k’s offi

ce from cl

osing and b

y providi ng that t he Clerk may

use pr ev io us ly appropriatedand avai

la ble m onie s i n the special

funds. As

st ate d, t h e C ler k h as no t sho wn , at t his stage o f t he lit iga t io n, t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de t er minat io n w ill re su lt in an i m prop er u se

of the special funds. Th e s tatu

tes i n di ca te tha t the Cou nty sh al l di rect how the funds are to be used (see 705 ILCS 105/2 7.3a(3 ), 27.3c (c) (W est 200 8)), a

nd i t has aut horized the us e of the special fun ds. The trial
cou rt ’s preli

mi nary in jun ction pres erves the Cl

er k’ s d i scre ti on as to h ow to a

l l oca te th ose f un dsto various tasks. The Clerk al so argues that the tria l court’s determ i na tion f ail ed to ba

l ance the h arm . “In balancing the equities, the cour t must we i gh the be ne f i ts of gr an t ing t he inju nc t io n a ga inst t he po ss ible i nj ury to th e op pos i n g p ar ty from the in jun ction.” Schweickart v. Power s , 245 Ill . App. 3d 281, 291 (1993 ). The Clerk ack now ledge s t ha t bot h parti esagree d that the f un di ng ha d to c ome f

rom
som ewh ere and that clos ing t he Cler k’s o ffi ce w as no t an o pt ion. The questi on bef ore t he court was wh ethe r m ore ha r m wo uld accrue to t he parties through the expendi

ture o f m onie s f rom the special fun ds or from addi

tional appropriations f

rom the Gene

ral R even ue Fund. The Clerk ar gue s t hat , if sheNo. 2—10—1088

-17-

is req ui red to pa y the rem ai ni ng 201 0 f i sc al yea r pe rs onn el cos ts f rom the spe cial funds a nd

it i s l ater determi ned that thi s v i ola tes the statutes, t

he n she w ou ld have c ommitt ed o ffi cial miscond uct by
m is appropr iating an d mis sp en din g p ub lic fu nd s. We find t his a r gu men t un pe r su as ive
. I f it is determi ned t hat t he r emaining per so nnel co st s we re er ro neo usly paid o ut of t he s p ecial funds , t he Clerk will no t be gu ilt y o f o fficia l misc o nd uc t , be ca us e s he wo uld ha ve pa id those expenses in

response to a court order. Moreov er, t he Cler k has not demo nst ra t ed t hat she ha d no adequate remedy at law. Sh e c o uld have so ught a de clara t ion fro m the t rial co ur t t hat she w as e nt itled t o p ay per so nnel co st s fro m the special f un ds , or s h e c oul d h av e a pp l i ed to the court for reli

ef un der s ec ti on

15 of th e C l er ksof Cou rts Act (7 05 I LCS 105 /1 5 ( West 200 8) ), which pr ovid es t hat a major ity o f the judg es c an de t er mine and fix the nu m be r of deputy cl erks they f i nd n ece ssa ry to properl

y mai ntai n the rec ords wh

en i t appea rs to t hem tha t t her e is an insufficient number of p er so ns emplo yed in the Clerk’ s of f i ce. The Cl

erk cites
casesf orthe propo si

tion that the rules

relati ng to pleadi

ng an d proo f f or equitable reme die s are relax ed in cases that present nove l i

ssues of crucia l i mportance to t he adm

in is trat ion of jus tice, but her rel

ia nce is misplaced. Those cases i nvol ved our supreme

court ’s exercis e of origi

nal jurisd ictio n in mandamus pro ceedings. For the foregoing reas ons, the judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court o f K

ane County

is aff irm ed. Af fi rmed.