Blanchard v. Berrios

by
The Cook County Inspector General’s (IG) Office is to “detect, deter and prevent corruption, fraud, waste, mismanagement, unlawful political discrimination or misconduct in the operation of County government,” including by “separately elected County officials.” It may request information from and conduct interviews under oath with county officials and may issue subpoenas. If an investigation results in information indicating wrongful conduct, the IG is to “prepare confidential reports and make recommendations for corrective action,” but the ordinance does not authorize the IG to implement any such recommendations or otherwise interfere with the operations of county departments, nor does it confer prosecutorial power. The IG is “[t]o notify the State’s Attorney or other appropriate law enforcement authority.” In 2015, the IG investigated the grant of homeowner’s exemptions to an Assessor’s office employee (35 ILCS 200/15-175) and sent a request for information and documents. The Assessor refused to comply, stating that the documents could be obtained by submission of a request under Illinois’s Freedom of Information Act. The IG served a subpoena on the Assessor’s office, seeking the documents and the employee's personnel file. The Assessor objected, claiming that the IG lacked authority to subpoena information from elected county officers. The circuit court ordered the Assessor to produce the materials. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board validly exercised its home rule authority when it enacted the IG Ordinance and rejecting the Assessor’s arguments that the ordinance infringed on the authority of the State’s Attorney to convene grand juries and prosecute crimes. View "Blanchard v. Berrios" on Justia Law