Court Opinion

ID: 9860833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:33:39.007709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:44.967381
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BUCKLEY, dissenting: I concur in the majority’s reversal of the cause but write separately to dissent from its remanding for further proceedings. The record shows that the specific charge that triggered the appellant’s discharge was deficient work product on the Warren Mortuary assignment. As to that charge the hearing officer concluded that “there is no reasonable evidence in the record relating to the Warren Mortuary assignment” and that “the Controller has failed to meet its burden of proving charge #1 by a preponderance of the evidence.” A second charge was a failure to open a letter containing a subpoena requiring appellant to appear in a pending proceeding in Feoria, Illinois. It was undisputed at the hearing that he had not only opened the subpoena but actually testified in Peoria on behalf of the government pursuant to the subpoena. What can be described as a third charge was the alleged finding of documents, including uncashed checks, in the office he was required to vacate. As to this charge, the hearing officer found substantial and credible evidence that (1) many of the documents were moved into the appellant’s office when two credenzas were placed there; (2) other employees of the Comptroller, including the Department’s director and his secretary, were not only aware of the location of the documents but were, in fact, responsible for placing many of the documents into the files located in his office; and (3) the evidence of the uncashed checks showed that most of them were found in 1996 or 1997 when another employee left the office and that only two of them might be imputed to the appellant and that the problem was widespread. The Commissioners’ final order rejected the hearing officer’s interpretation of the statute (which we today have upheld) and found that the discharge based upon “the totality of discipline imposed” was appropriate. I submit that when the hearing officer found that the evidence of the three major grievances was insufficient, the only remaining evidence was that which we have found to have been improperly considered and the findings of the hearing officer were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the decision to discharge was therefore arbitrary and unreasonable. What is there for the Comptroller to come up with upon remand?