Court Opinion

ID: 9717636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:07:34.812832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:54.414523
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SIMON, dissenting: Section 3 — 11—17 of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 24, par. 3—11—17) requires “the concurrence of a majority of all members then holding office” before an ordinance may be passed by a village board of trustees. The two ordinances in issue received only three “aye” votes — not a majority of the six-member board. One member voted against the measures; one, Richard Hamm, did not vote because the measures concerned his salary; and one member was absent. Unlike the majority, I am forced to conclude that the ordinances did not pass. The majority contends that trustee Hamm’s failure to vote can be counted with the “aye” votes so that the ordinances did have the concurrence of four members necessary for passage. In arriving at this peculiar rule, it relies on what it calls the common law rule of Rex v. Foxcroft (1760), 2 Burr. 1017, 1021, 97 Eng. Rep. 683, 685 (also known as Oldknow v. Wainwright), in which Lord Mansfield stated in a one-line opinion that “[wjhenever electors are present, and do not vote at all (as they have done here,) ‘they virtually acquiesce in the election made by those who do.’ ” The majority states that this is the appropriate rule to apply when a statute requires “the concurrence” of a majority of all members as opposed to the “affirmative vote” of such a majority, and that under that rule, Hamm’s abstention would be counted with the “aye” votes. The majority’s reliance on Rex v. Foxcroft is misplaced. That case had little to do with the issues presented here. First, I believe the majority’s interpretation of what Lord Mansfield said is incorrect. Second, even if the majority is correct in its interpretation of his statement, to take such a hoary case out of its common law context and apply it to this case in which a special rule for the passage of ordinances is given in the Illinois Municipal Code is error. Admittedly, there are a few cases that seem to support the majority’s interpretation of the rule in Rex v. Foxcroft and its application to cases like the one presented here. (See, e.g., State ex rel. Young v. Yates (1897), 19 Mont. 239, 47 P. 1004 (dictum); Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners (N.D. 1973), 211 N.W.2d 399 (relying on Babyak and Yates, not Rex v. Foxcroft); Babyak v. Alten (1958), 106 Ohio App. 191, 154 N.E.2d 14 (dictum and probably overruled sub silentio in Davis v. City of Willoughby (1962), 173 Ohio St. 338, 182 N.E.2d 552).) The weight of authority appears, however, to be against the application of any such rule to cases involving statutes which require the agreement of the majority of the total membership (see, e.g., Mann v. Key (Ala. 1977), 345 So.2d 293; State ex rel. Deal v. Alexander (1899), 107 Iowa 177, 77 N.W. 841; Ram Development Co. v. Shaw (Minn. 1976), 244 N.W.2d 110; Caffey v. Veale (1944), 193 Okla. 444, 145 P.2d 961; State ex rel. Rea v. Etheridge (Tex. Com. App. 1930), 32 S.W.2d 828), even when the statute requires a “concurrence.” See, e.g., Reese v. State ex rel. Carswell (1913), 184 Ala. 36, 62 So. 847; Van Hovenberg v. Holeman (1940), 201 Ark. 370, 144 S.W.2d 718; Steers Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Village Board (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1954), 129 N.Y.S.2d 403; Davis v. City of Willoughby (1962), 173 Ohio St. 338, 182 N.E.2d 552; State ex rel. Roberts v. Gruber (1962), 231 Or. 494, 500, 373 P.2d 657, 660 (condemning Babyak and State ex rel. Young v. Yates as an unwarranted extension of Rex v. Foxcroft). Rex v. Foxcroft involved the appointment of the town clerk of Nottingham by the mayor, aldermen, and common council. Of the 25 electors 21 were present at the meeting. Of those present, nine voted for Thomas Sea-grave, and 12 refused to vote entirely on the ground that the position was already occupied. In my view, the case stands for several propositions. First, the common law requirement for action by such a body is the agreement of a majority of those present and voting, and not a majority of those present. Next, the failure of abstainers to speak will not be construed as a “no” vote, even if their views on the election were clear. Finally, nonvoting members of the body may be counted in establishing the presence of a quorum without otherwise affecting the vote. In his characteristic style, Lord Mansfield rationalized his rule by saying that such members “virtually acquiesce” in the election made by those who do vote. Rex v. Foxcroft (1760), 2 Burr. 1017,1021, 97 Eng. Rep. 683, 685. My colleagues apparently interpret Lord Mansfield’s statement to mean that while a majority of those present is necessary for a parliamentary body to take action, those who are present but do not vote are deemed to acquiesce, so that the requisite majority is achieved. This is a distortion, though not an original one, of what Lord Mansfield said. He did not say abstainers support the position of the majority so as to add to the majority; he said they accept the action taken by the entire body. They had a vote and they did not use it. The election was complete without their participation because only a majority of those present and voting is required. In most situations the majority’s misinterpretation of the Foxcrofi rule would cause no mischief. If the common law requirement of a majority of those present and voting is what should be applied and instead a court applies a rule that a majority of those present is necessary but abstainers will be counted with the majority, the result reached would still be the same. But even assuming the majority’s loose definition of the Foxcrofi rule is correct, it has no place in a case in which a strict statutory requirement for the passage of legislation, namely a concurrence by a majority of those currently holding office, must be followed instead of the usual common law rule. The rule the majority applies is not so obvious or commonly known that one would expect the legislature to have been aware of it. In fact, as noted above, most cases do not apply such a rule to statutes like the one we have before us. As such, it is unlikely the legislature intended it to cover the situation. To apply it here, where the requirements for passage were purposely made stricter than the common law, would emasculate the special rule for ordinances that the legislature saw fit to impose. The statute would be avoided by the use of a legal fiction. The majority does not recognize the distinction between cases involving the common law requirement for the passage of legislation and those involving a statutory requirement like that of the Illinois Municipal Code. Indeed, in marshaling support for its judgment, it cites an A.L.R. annotation on the subject (Annot., 63 A.L.R.3d 1072 (1975)), but rather than citing to the section of the annotation dealing with cases in which the requirement for passage was a majority of the total membership, it cites to the page of the section that discusses cases in which the common law requirement applied. The former section of the annotation cites many more cases against the majority’s position than for it. The majority also cites Rhyne, Law of Local Government Operations sec. 5.6, at 77 (1980), as authority to apply the rule it advocates to the present case. Yet, taken in its proper context, Rhyne’s statement is no such authority. None of the cases cited by Rhyne deal with a statutory imposition that a majority of the legislative body’s membership agree. All concern a lesser requirement for passage. One such case, Mann v. Housing Authority (1952), 20 N.J. Super. 276, 279, 89 A.2d 725, 727, holds that the rule my colleagues advocate applies only where “no specified number of votes is required, but the majority of a board regularly convened is entitled to act.” Since the statute the court in Mann was construing required at least three votes for passage of any legislation, the rule the majority here advances was not applied. The majority also supports its judgment with Launtz v. People ex rel. Sullivan (1885), 113 Ill. 137. That case too concerns only a common law requirement for the passage of the legislation and not a strict statutory requirement that a majority of the legislative body’s membership agree. The majority apparently recognizes, however, that applying its peculiar interpretation of the rule of Rex v. Foxcroft to all cases in which a statute requires the agreement of a majority of the body’s membership to pass legislation could do serious harm to the legislative intent. Such a rule greatly lessens the effect of such rules. The majority therefore makes a distinction between statutes that require the “concurrence” of such a majority and those that require the “affirmative vote.” The latter, it states, is the stricter requirement and does not allow for the fiction contained in Lord Mansfield’s dictum,-, the former, it contends, is a looser standard for which an abstention may be treated as a vote with the majority. This distinction is made despite the fact that Rex v. Foxcroft itself suggests no such distinction. I do not agree that the word “concurrence” in the context of the Illinois Municipal Code is subject to such an interpretation. In Blakemore v. Brown (1920), 142 Ark. 293, 297, 219 S.W. 311, 312, the Supreme Court of Arkansas stated that “[t]he use of the word ‘concurring’ necessarily implied consent, evidenced in some overt way, and not a mere silent acquiescence or submission.” (Accord, Dillon v. Scofield (1881), 11 Neb. 419, 9 N.W. 554; State v. Vermont Emergency Board (1978), 136 Vt. 506, 394 A.2d 1360.) In Eubanks v. State (1911), 5 Okla. Crim. 325, 333, 114 P. 748, 752, the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma held that the words “concurrence” and “concurring” within the context of the State constitution and grand jury statute “mean ‘assent,’ or ‘consent,’ indicated by affirmative action on the part of the grand juror, by vote or ballot, showing direct approval.” Perhaps most important, however, is Davis v. City of Willoughby (1962), 173 Ohio St. 338, 182 N.E.2d 552, a case not unlike the one at bar, involving the treatment of an abstention in a city council vote. Citing Dillon and Blackmore, the court found the word “concur,” in the context of the Ohio statute requiring three-quarters of the members of the council to concur before certain public improvements could be made, to mean an actual vote for the proposition and not mere silent submission. (173 Ohio St. 338, 344, 182 N.E.2d 552, 556.) These cases solidly reject the majority’s contention, and I think they are supported by logic and good sense. Rules of parliamentary procedure tend to be rigid and formalistic. There is an excellent reason for this: Little room exists for judgment calls when it comes to determining whether or not a particular item of legislation has been passed or not; the law must be clear. I find it incredible to believe that our legislature would deliberately throw a wrench into the workings of our local legislative bodies by drafting a rule for the passage of ordinances that would inevitably lead to conflicts over whether a concurrence of the requisite majority had been achieved. If an abstention can be construed as a concurrence, think what other actions could also be so construed — like not showing up for the meeting at all. Perhaps no formal vote need even be taken. As soon as a majority of the members clearly appear to be like-minded, should the bill pass? Such rules would obviously lead to legislative chaos. Interestingly, the Illinois Constitution of 1970 uses the word “concurrence” often in describing requirements for various bodies in reaching decision. For example, the “concurrence” of four justices of the supreme court is necessary for a decision. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, sec. 3.) During my tenure here, however, no one has ever suggested that an abstention should be counted with the majority, although there have been cases in which such a rule would have been decisive in preliminary vote taking. Four “yes” votes have always been thought to be required. Similar provisions appear in other parts of the Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, sec. 8(c) (the legislature), arts. VI, sec. 15(f) (the Courts Commission). I think that the application of the rule the majority has derived from Rex v. Foxcroft to the situation at bar cannot be justified by interpreting the words “concurrence of a majority” to mean something less than the affirmative votes of a majority. The two cannot be treated differently. The issue must therefore be whether their rule can be applied to any case in which a statute requires a majority of the legislature’s total membership either to agree, concur or affirmatively vote in order to pass legislation. As stated above, the weight of authority is clearly against its application. (See, e.g., Van Hovenberg v. Holeman (1940), 201 Ark. 370, 144 S.W.2d 718; Van Cleve v. Wallace (1944), 216 Minn. 500, 13 N.W.2d 467; Ezell v. City of Pascagoula (Miss. 1970), 240 So.2d 700; Rockland Woods, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Suffern (1973), 40 App. Div. 2d 385, 340 N.Y.S.2d 513; Steers Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Village Board (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1954), 129 N.Y.S.2d 403; Davis v. City of Willoughby (1962), 173 Ohio St. 338, 182 N.E.2d 552; Caffey v. Veale (1944), 193 Okla. 444, 145 P.2d 961; State ex rel. Roberts v. Gruber (1962), 231 Or. 494, 373 P.2d 657.) To follow these cases and reject the use of a legal fiction to achieve the necessary consensus would, I believe, be in harmony with the purpose of the statute — to ensure that before ordinances are passed by a village board of trustees there is clear and express approval of the measure. (See Rockland Woods, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Suffern (1973), 40 App. Div. 2d 385, 340 N.Y.S.2d 513.) The statute is designed to prevent passage of ordinances on a whim or when a majority of the whole number is unwilling to stand up and be counted as supporters of the measure. The only argument the majority can muster against such precedent is one of practicality. If abstentions are not counted as concurrences, they may prevent any action by the legislative body. (See Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners (N.D. 1973), 211 N.W.2d 399, 404.) The power of an abstainer to prevent action, however, would not be any greater in this case than that of a member who votes “no.” Furthermore, to such an argument, the Supreme Court of Oregon has said: “We are fully aware of the reasons of policy emphasized in some of the decisions which underlie the rule of Rex v. Foxcroft, that is to say, that it is the duty of members of a city council to vote and that they ought not ‘by inaction, prevent action by the board.’ [Citation.] It is quite as important, however, that a court does not close its eyes to the plain meaning of a statute or a charter provision in order to achieve a desired end.” (State ex rel. Roberts v. Gruber (1962), 231 Or. 494, 500-01, 373 P.2d 657, 660.) That is exactly what the majority has done here. I would affirm the appellate court’s judgment. JUSTICE CLARK joins in this dissent.