Third Division
Filed: February 16, 2005
No. 1-04-0388
| FRED GAWRYK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, | ) | Appeal from the |
| ) | Circuit Court of | |
| Plaintiff-Appellant, | ) | Cook County. |
| ) | ||
| v. | ) | No. 01 CH 17375 |
| ) | ||
| FIREMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, JOSEPH F. | ) | |
| QUINN, President, The Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit | ) | |
| Fund of Chicago, NORMAN S. HOLLAND, Secretary, The Retirement Board | ) | |
| of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, WILLIAM J. | ) | |
| WILKINSON, Vice-President, The Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity | ) | |
| and Benefit Fund of Chicago, GEORGE M. KORDA, The Retirement Board | ) | |
| of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, DERICK JACKSON, | ) | |
| Election-Committee-Chairman, The Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity | ) | |
| and Benefit Fund of Chicago, WILLIAM WILKINSON, Election-Committee, | ) | |
| The Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, | ) | |
| GEORGE KORDA, Election-Committee, The Retirement Board of the Firemen's | ) | |
| Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, PHOEBE SELDEN, Election-Committee, | ) | |
| The Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, | ) | Honorable |
| ) | Richard A. Siebel, | |
| Defendants-Appellees. | ) | Judge Presiding. |
JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff, Fred Gawryk, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought thisaction against the defendants, the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago (Fund) and the members ofthe Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago (Retirement Board), seekingdeclaratory and injunctive relief after he was found ineligible to vote in an election for the office of theannuitant or pensioner member of the Retirement Board. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuitcourt granted judgment for the defendants on the basis that the plaintiff was not an "annuitant" eligible to votefor purposes of section 6-175 of the Illinois Pension Code (the Pension Code)(40 ILCS 5/6-175 (West 2000)). The plaintiff now appeals and, for the reasons which follow, we affirm.
The facts giving rise to this litigation are substantially undisputed. The plaintiff worked as a firefighterfor the Chicago Fire Department for 20 years. During his employment, the plaintiff participated in the Fund,which operates under Article 6 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/6-101 et seq. (West 2000)). Pursuant to thestatute, the Retirement Board administers the provisions of Article 6 and is comprised of eight members,including an "annuitant of the fund or a fireman pensioner of any prior firemen's pension fund in operation". See 40 ILCS 5/6-174 (West 2000).
On September 7, 1999, the plaintiff, at age 41, retired from his service as a firefighter. He is not,however, eligible to begin receiving retirement annuity payments until June 26, 2008, upon turning 50 yearsof age. See 40 ILCS 5/6-126 (West 2000). In July 2001, the Retirement Board announced that it would beholding an election to fill a vacancy in the office of the annuitant or pensioner member of the board. In a letterdated October 4, 2001, directed to the members of the Retirement Board, the plaintiff requested a ballot to votein the upcoming election. He stated that, although he was not currently an active member or eligible to receiveannuity payments until June 2008, he had a "vested interest" in the election by virtue of his participation in theFund. The Election Commission Chairman informed the plaintiff, by letter dated October 8, 2001, that he wasineligible to vote in the election because he was not currently a "pensioner or annuitant member", as requiredby section 6-175 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/6-175 (West 2000)).
The day after the election, the plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all other retired Chicagofirefighters similarly situated, filed a three-count class action complaint against the Fund and the members ofthe Retirement Board (defendants) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In count I of his complaint, theplaintiff alleged that, by denying his right to vote in the election, the defendants deprived him of his due processrights in violation of 42 U.S.C.