Opinion ID: 3134224
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d 380, 385 (1983) (indemnity ordinance served public purpose

Text: primarily because it limited reimbursement to only those public officials who had successfully defended themselves against criminal charges); Bowens v. City of Pontiac, 165 Mich. App. 416, 420, 419 N.W.2d 24, 26 (1988) (Shepherd, J., concurring); Sonnenberg v. Farmington Township, 39 Mich. App. 446, 449, 197 N.W.2d 853, 854 (1972); Kroschel v. City of Afton, 512 N.W.2d 351, 355 (Minn. App. 1994); Valerius v. City of Newark, 84 N.J. 591, 596, 423 A.2d 988, 991-92 (1980); Beckett v. Board of Supervisors, 234 Va. 614, 619 n.7, 363 S.E.2d 918, 921 n.7 (1988). Still, other states have held that the costs of defending a public official from criminal or official misconduct charges is never a proper public purpose. See Hall v. Thompson, 283 Ark. 26, 28-29, 669 S.W.2d 905, 906-07 (1984); Bowling v. Brown, 57 Md. App. 248, 260, 469 A.2d 896, 902 (1984); Corning v. Village of Laurel Hollow, 48 N.Y.2d 348, 353-54, 398 N.E.2d 537, 540-41, 422 N.Y.S.2d 932, 935-36 (1979); Township of Manalapan v. Loeb, 126 N.J. Super. 277, 278-79, 314 A.2d 81, 81- 82 (1974) (no authority for indemnification of municipal officer for costs of defending criminal charges which amount to official misconduct); Silver v. Downs, 493 Pa. 50, 55-57, 425 A.2d 359, 362- 64 (1981); see also 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations §208 (1971) (municipality has no power to reimburse an official for expenses incurred in defense of official misconduct charges); 63A Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees §406 (1984) (members of governing body may not expend public funds to shield themselves from consequences of own unlawful and corrupt acts); 3 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations §12.137.10 (3d rev. ed. 1990) (municipality cannot expend money to reimburse its officer for expenses incurred in defending official misconduct charges). Under the principles of all these cases, plaintiffs would not be able to recover the expenses of the unsuccessful criminal defense of the commissioners and corporation counsel from the city. Further, the purpose of indemnification, so as not to inhibit capable individuals from seeking public office, has no relevance in the context of the criminal conduct involved in this case. No official of public government should be encouraged to engage in criminal acts by the assurance that he will be able to pass defense costs on to the taxpayers of the community he was elected to serve. See Powers v. Union City Board of Education, 124 N.J. Super. 590, 596, 308 A.2d 71, 75 (1973). To the contrary, holding public officials personally liable for the expenses incurred in unsuccessfully defending charges of their criminal misconduct in office tends to protect the public and to secure honest and faithful service by such servants. Indeed, allowing expenditure of public funds for such use would encourage a disregard of duty and place a premium upon neglect or refusal of public officials to perform the duties imposed upon them by law. Bowling v. Brown, 57 Md. App. 248, 258, 469 A.2d 896, 901 (1984) ([T]o reimburse [convicted public officials] for their legal expenses would not encourage the `faithful and courageous discharge of duty on the part of public officials.' [Citation.] On the contrary, it would encourage the reverse). The types of individuals who are drawn to these corrupt practices should not be given any incentive to seek public office. Our holding is also compatible with the articulated purpose of the official misconduct and conflict of interest statutes, which is to keep the loyalties of public officials to their public trust undivided and to compel them to act in a lawful manner while acting in their official capacities. Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill. 2d 495, 506 (1991); Scharlau, 141 Ill. 2d at 198; People v. Samel, 115 Ill. App. 3d 905, 910-11 (1983). To allow the use of public funds to reimburse a convicted official for his legal expenses would shield that official from the entire consequences of his illegal conduct, thus frustrating the purpose of those statutes. In conclusion, the city has neither the duty nor the authority to reimburse plaintiffs for legal fees incurred in the unsuccessful defense of criminal official misconduct and conflict of interest charges. Therefore, to the extent it attempts to indemnify officials convicted of crimes for their attorney fees and costs incurred in their unsuccessful criminal defense, we hold the Danville ordinance invalid. In so holding, we expressly make no determination regarding the authority of any municipality or home rule unit to indemnify their officers and employees who are found not guilty of criminal conduct.