Court Opinion

ID: 9704121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:23:08.126764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:57.289114
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCOTT, dissenting: I disagree with the reasoning and the result in the majority opinion. The majority selects one provision of the Election Code (111. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 46, par. 10 — 8) which in substance provides that certificates of nomination and nomination papers filed as required by the Code shall be deemed valid unless objections thereto are filed within five days from the last day for filing said documents. The Election Code provides that: “Such certificate of nomination or nomination papers in addition shall include as a part thereof, the oath required by Section 7 — 10.1 of this Act and a statement of candidacy for each of the candidates named ***. Each such statement shall set out the address of such candidate, the office for which he is a candidate, shall state that the candidate is qualified for the office specified and has filed a statement of economic interests as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act ***.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 46, par. 10—5(3). The foregoing statutory provisions recognize that the filing of statements of economic interests is required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 127, par. 601—101 et seq.), and in my opinion the sanctions for failure to comply are those provided in the Governmental Ethics Act and not the Election Code. It should be noted with interest that attached to the defendants’ brief filed in this appeal is correspondence dated July 21, 1981, from the General Counsel for the State Board of Elections directed to a party to this appeal which expresses the same opinion. The subject matter of the letter is the failure to file statements of economic interests and the correspondence contains the following statement: “Please note, however, that the State Board of Election has no authority nor responsibility concerning the Governmental Ethics Act.” The Ethics Act contains the following pertinent provisions: “The following persons shall file verified written statements of economic interests *** * * * (g) persons who are elected to an office *** in a unit of local government as defined by the Illinois Constitution ***.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 127, par. 604A—101(g). Section 4A — 105 of the Ethics Act provides for the filing of statements of economic interests. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 127, par. 604A-105.) The penalty provisions for failure to file such statement provides as follows: “Any person required to file a statement of economic interests under this Article who willfully files a false or incomplete statement shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Failure to file a statement within the time prescribed shall result in ineligibility for, or forfeiture of, office or position of employment, as the case may be.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 127, par. 604A-107. The parties to this appeal are in agreement that the defendants are required to file statements of economic interests. Such statements should have been filed on January 26, 1981. They did not file until after they were elected and after they had taken their oath of office. Their statements were filed on May 6, 1981, or approximately 100 days after they should have been filed. The record fails to support a finding that the failure to file was wilful and the statements after being filed fail to show that the defendants have any conflict of interest between their economic interests and the duty they would perform as officials of the city of Nauvoo. The defendants are nevertheless in violation, albeit a technical violation, of the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act for failure to file. The trial judge correctly pinpointed the issue as being whether the failure to file on time is a mandatory forfeiture of office or directory only and thereby the imposition of sanctions is within the discretion of the court. In determining this question the majority opinion ignores article XIII, section 2, of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, which provides: “All candidates for or holders of state offices and all members of a Commission or Board created by this Constitution shall file a verified statement of their economic interests, as provided by law. The General Assembly by law may impose a similar requirement upon candidates for, or holders of, offices in units of local government and school districts. Statements shall be filed annually with the Secretary of State and shall be available for inspection by the public. The General Assembly by law shall prescribe a reasonable time for filing the statement. Failure to file a statement within the time prescribed shall result in ineligibility for, or forfeiture of, office. This Section shall not be construed as limiting the authority of any branch of government to establish and enforce ethical standards for that branch.” The sanction of forfeiture of office imposed by the Ethics Act is the same as that prescribed by our State Constitution. The record of the proceedings of the Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention (3 Record of Proceedings, Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention 1791— 93), makes it abundantly clear that it is mandatory upon the courts to declare a forfeiture of office in a situation such as is presented in the instant case. Declaring that the defendants should forfeit the office to which they have been elected may appear to be a harsh sanction, however, be that as it may, that is the sanction set forth in the constitution of our State and in the provisions enacted pursuant thereto and which are set forth in the Governmental Ethics Act.