Court Opinion

ID: 9718986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:39:31.377522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:03.855039
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. JUSTICE LINN delivered the opinion of the court: In its petition for rehearing defendant, Police Board of the City of Chicago, objects to our reversal and remandment of the case to determine whether a complete record of the administrative proceedings can be obtained. Because we reached this issue on our own, the parties not having had an opportunity to brief or argue the issue, we make the following comments in response to the arguments raised in the Board’s petition for rehearing. In remanding this case to the trial court for the purpose of completing the record of the administrative proceedings, we did not reach the merits of the case. We merely held that to enable a court to determine whether the findings and decision of an administrative agency are against the manifest weight of the evidence, the findings and decision reached by the agency must be presented to the court for its consideration. In this case the documents which have been included in the record, including the transcript of the hearings at the agency level, are of little meaning without the findings or a final decision based on the charges brought against the plaintiff by the Board. This court should not be expected to speculate as to the result of an agency proceeding or the reasons for that result. It is the duty of the appellant to present a complete record of the trial court proceedings to the reviewing court on appeal (Nelson v. Nelson (1974), 17 Ill. App. 3d 651, 308 N.E.2d 132); however, it is the duty of the administrative agency to provide the trial court on administrative review with a complete record of the administrative proceedings as its answer to the complaint (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110, par. 272). In this case the parties share the responsibility for insuring that a complete record is presented. We do not wish to single out for blame or to punish a particular party for the inadequacies of the record. It is not the parties, but the court, which has been prejudiced by an incomplete record. Indeed, from all the pleadings it appears that both sides have copies of the findings and decision. Not only is this court unable to complete its reviewing function, but the trial court, which from all indications in the record had neither the findings nor decision before it, could not have properly performed its function. Although the final order recites that the trial court was “fully advised in the premises,” the lack of findings or a decision is an obvious omission. (See Johnson v. Lynch (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 242, 362 N.E.2d 345.) Logic prevents this court from assuming that the missing documents were presented to or considered by the trial court. Where a party seeks to amend or correct the record made in the trial court, “[a]ny controversy as to whether the record accurately discloses what occurred in the trial court shall be submitted to and settled by that court * ” *.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110A, par. 329.) We believe that the trial court should have the opportunity to correct or amend the defects in the record, to review the findings and decision of the Board and to render a decision based upon them. After that has taken place this court will be available to review the decision of the trial court. To clarify our opinion we point out that other documents which may have aided in reconstructing what happened before the Board and the trial court are not provided in the record before us. We do not mean by this statement that a transcript of the arguments before the trial court, a recommendation by the hearing officer, or detailed findings by the Board are essential components of a reviewable record, only that they may have provided some assistance in our understanding of the proceedings below. For these reasons the petition for rehearing is denied. JOHNSON, P. J., and ROMITI, J., concur.