Court Opinion

ID: 9885147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:33:02.956305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:44.629135
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaefer dissenting: The statutory authority of the hearing officer was limited. At the conclusion of the hearing he was to “certify the evidence to the Director.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 16½, par. 40.1.) He exceeded his statutory authority, and made findings of fact, recommendations and conclusions. The Director, in his order granting the license, adopted the findings of fact, recommendations and conclusions of the hearing officer. It may be arguable that authority to make findings of fact should be implied from authority to conduct a hearing and certify the evidence. (See, Crowe v. Industrial Com. 104 Utah 333, 140 P.2d 321; cf. United States ex rel. Ohm v. Perkins, (2d cir. 1935) 79 F.2d 533.) But I do not see how it can be argued that authority to conduct a hearing and certify the evidence implies authority to make recommendations and conclusions. In Harvey Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Becker, 25 Ill.2d 464, we held that the Director could not consider recommendations that were not authorized by statute. (See also, North Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Becker, 24 Ill.2d 514, 520.) The opinion of the court distinguishes the Harvey case on the grounds that the statute now before us does not require independent findings of fact, and that the Director is not shown to have ignored the evidence. But those circumstances were not relevant to our decision in the Harvey case. The Director there had made appropriate findings and the question was whether his decision to issue a license was invalidated by the consideration that he gave to unauthorized recommendations. If in the present case the majority correctly assumes that, the evidence has been properly considered, the precise issue is, just as it was in Harvey, whether the Director may consider recommendations that have no legislative sanction. Moreover, the assumed satutory difference is nonexistent. The statute before us in the Harvey case provided: "The Director shall not approve the application and issue a permit to organize unless he shall find: * * (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 32, par. 724.) The statute before us in the present case provides: “If the application is denied, the Director shall * * * prepare * * * a written order of denial thereof, which shall contain his findings with respect thereto * * *.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 16½, par. 40.) Both statutes place upon the Director the same duty to make findings. The second question in this case is whether the report submitted to the Director should have been made available to the parties. The court’s opinion does not reach this issue because it finds that there is no proof that the hearing officer’s report was unavailable, or that the plaintiff ever requested a copy of it. But the record does not suggest that the plaintiff knew or could have known of the existence of the report. And in view of the limited authority given to the hearing officer by the statute, the plaintiff had no reason to anticipate the existence of such a report. If the statute is to be construed as authorizing the hearing officer to make “findings, recommendations and conclusion,” it should also be construed to require that those findings, recommendations and conclusions be disclosed to the parties. Such a construction of the statute would comply with traditional requirements of procedural fairness and would make it unnecessary to decide the constitutional issues that otherwise remain unresolved.