Case Name: MARIAN KURATA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIAN SILVERMAN et al., Defendants-Appellees; MARIAN KURATA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1981-04-09
Citations: 95 Ill. App. 3d 89
Docket Number: Nos. 16653, 16654 cons.
Parties: MARIAN KURATA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIAN SILVERMAN et al., Defendants-Appellees. — MARIAN KURATA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports, Third Series
Volume: 95
Pages: 89–92

Head Matter:
MARIAN KURATA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIAN SILVERMAN et al., Defendants-Appellees. — MARIAN KURATA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Fourth District
Nos. 16653, 16654 cons.
Opinion filed April 9, 1981.
TRAPP, P. J., dissenting.
Arthur M. Lerner, of Greaves, Lerner & Gadau, of Champaign, for appellant.
Thomas J. Difanis, State’s Attorney, of Urbana (Kurt McKenzie, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN
delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff was terminated from her position as assistant public defender by the public defender of Champaign County, Brian Silverman. She filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment, injunction and mandamus, alleging her firing was illegal because Silverman failed to comply with the termination policy of the county. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the appeal from this order is cause No. 16653. Plaintiff also brought suit in the circuit court for administrative review of the decision of the county personnel committee that it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from plaintiff's termination. The trial court dismissed the complaint for administrative review, and the appeal from this order is cause No. 16654. These two actions are consolidated.
The Champaign County personnel policy provides the procedures to be followed when an employee is discharged. Discharge of an employee is within the discretion of the supervisor, but provision is made that no discharge shall offend the constitutional rights of the employee. An employee is entitled to written warning before discharge and a written notice stating the reason for any termination. A discharged employee is entitled to an informal appeal hearing before the personnel committee of the county board. Public defender Silverman did not comply with these procedures when he terminated plaintiff's employment as assistant public defender.
The preliminary issue to be decided is whether the public defender is a county official, subject to the legislative enactments of the county board. The office of public defender is created by statute in "An Act in relation to the office of Public Defender" (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 34, par. 5601 et seq.). The public defender's salary and expenses are paid from the county treasury. (Pars. 5605,5607.) These provisions, plus the fact that the public defender is represented here by the State's Attorney, persuades us that the public defender is an official of the county. (See dissenting opinion in People v. South (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 245, 387 N.E.2d 1294.) As such, an assistant public defender, such as plaintiff, has the status of "county employee" within the purview of the county personnel policy.
The county's position is that the county ordinance cannot lawfully be applied to a termination made by the public defender because the ordinance, which provides procedural due process protections to an employee, conflicts with the State statute, which provides that assistant public defenders shall serve "at the pleasure of" the public defender (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 34, par. 5606). The ordinance, it is argued, cannot be reconciled with the statute that allows termination without affording the assistant public defender procedural due process. State law provides that when a county ordinance conflicts with a State statute, the statute controls. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 34, par. 429.18.
We agree with plaintiff that the ordinance and statute are not in conflict. It is well settled that an ordinance may differ from, so long as it is not inconsistent with, State law. (City of Chicago v. Union Ice Cream Manufacturing Co. (1911), 252 Ill. 311, 96 N.E. 872.) Neither the ordinance nor the statute requires cause for the dismissal of an assistant public defender. The ordinance merely imposes procedural duties upon the public defender to protect the assistants from an unconstitutional discharge. Both the ordinance and the statute may be consistently complied with by the public defender. Since the public defender did not afford plaintiff the protections provided to her in the county ordinance, her termination was illegal, and the trial court order granting judgment in favor of the county is reversed. She can only be terminated in accordance with the personnel policy of the county.
The trial court dismissed the complaint for administrative review because it had no jurisdiction to review a decision of the personnel committee of the county board. The county confesses error in this ruling. A complaint for administrative review of a decision under an ordinance is to be treated as a common law writ of certiorari. (Nowicki v. Evanston Fair Housing Review Board (1975), 62 Ill. 2d 11, 338 N.E.2d 186.) This action for review was brought by plaintiff to protect herself from the possibility of a ruling that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Due to our disposition in cause No. 16653, review of the personnel board's decision that plaintiff is not entitled to the protections of the ordinance is unnecessary.
Cause No. 16653 is reversed with directions that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff; cause No. 16654 is dismissed as moot.
WEBBER, J., concurs.