The Illinois Second District Appellate Court has upheld a lower court’s decision, siding with the Board of Trustees of the Sycamore Police Pension Fund (Board) in a case involving former Deputy Chief Shawn Kooistra. The court affirmed the Board’s denial of Kooistra’s application for membership in the Sycamore Police Pension Fund, concluding that he was ineligible based on state law.
Background of the Case
Kooistra retired from the Roselle Police Department in January 2024, after serving as deputy chief. He began receiving a retirement pension from Roselle on January 3, 2024. The very next day, he was hired as a patrol officer by the Sycamore Police Department. He then applied for membership in the Sycamore Police Pension Fund.
The Board reviewed Kooistra’s application on January 18, 2024. The Board was informed that Kooistra was not eligible to participate in the pension fund. The Board ultimately denied Kooistra’s application, stating that he could only participate in a defined contribution plan offered by Sycamore. The Board’s decision was based on their interpretation of Section 3-124.1(b) of the Illinois Pension Code. This section states that if a police officer who starts their membership *after* January 1, 2019, is already receiving pension payments and rejoins the force in a new municipality, they can continue receiving those payments but are limited to a defined contribution plan, not the regular pension fund.
Kooistra filed a lawsuit challenging the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board misinterpreted the law, that the decision violated the Illinois Constitution’s pension protection clause, and that he was denied due process.
Arguments Presented
Kooistra’s primary argument was that Section 3-124.1(b) didn’t apply to him because he first became a member of a pension fund in 1997 with the Roselle Police Department, not after the January 1, 2019 cutoff date. He also argued that if the law were applied as the Board interpreted it, it would violate the pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution. This clause protects the benefits of public employees in pension systems. Lastly, he contended that the Board denied him due process by not holding a hearing or allowing him to present evidence before rejecting his application.
The Board countered that they correctly interpreted the law and that Kooistra’s situation fell squarely within the parameters of Section 3-124.1(b). They also argued that Section 3-111(c) of the Pension Code, which Kooistra cited, didn’t apply because it concerns officers with service in two distinct defined benefit plans at the time of retirement, which wasn’t Kooistra’s situation. The Board also asserted that Kooistra wasn’t entitled to due process because he didn’t have a legitimate claim to a second pension. They further argued that even if due process was required, Kooistra had the opportunity to speak at Board meetings but chose not to.
The Trial Court’s Decision
The trial court sided with the Board. The court found that because Kooistra joined the Sycamore Police Department after January 1, 2019, while already receiving a pension from Roselle, he was only eligible for the defined contribution plan. The court declined to address Kooistra’s constitutional arguments, stating that they were not properly raised in his initial complaint.
Appellate Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Appellate Court reviewed the case *de novo*, meaning they reviewed the legal questions without deference to the lower court’s findings. The court focused on the interpretation of Section 3-124.1(b) of the Illinois Pension Code.
The court found the phrase “a police officer who first becomes a member” in Section 3-124.1(b) was ambiguous, as it could be interpreted in multiple ways. The court ultimately agreed with the Board’s interpretation, which meant that the law applied to Kooistra. The court reasoned that the statute’s intent was to prevent “double dipping” – where officers could collect a pension while also accruing benefits in a second defined benefit plan. The court stated that the more logical interpretation of the law was that it applied to an officer who retired from one municipality, started collecting a pension, and then reentered active service with a different municipality after January 1, 2019.
The court also addressed Kooistra’s constitutional arguments. It found that applying Section 3-124.1(b) did not violate the pension protection clause. The court explained that this clause protects existing pension benefits, but since Kooistra was never eligible to join the Sycamore Police Pension Fund in the first place, his rights were not diminished or impaired.
Finally, the court rejected Kooistra’s due process claim, citing the precedent set in *Holmes v. Aurora Police Pension Fund Board of Trustees*. The court held that as an applicant, Kooistra only had an expectation of membership, not a property interest that would trigger due process rights like a hearing.