Clarendon Hills Confusion: Was Retirement Age Required?

CLARENDON HILLS, IL – A top Clarendon Hills official emphasized this week that the state does not legally require a mandatory retirement age for a town with a paid-on-call fire department.

Village Manager Zach Creer said that if it came across as a legal requirement last month, "I apologize because that is not the case."

It came across that way because Creer stated at least twice that the village should enact the requirement to meet state law.

At the Nov. 13 Village Board meeting, Creer proposed trustees enact a mandatory retirement age of 65 for firefighters, which would affect four department members, including Chief Brian Leahy.

"This is a recommendation from the attorney (Jason Guisinger)," Creer told the board. "We're going to get in compliance with state law."

In an email to firefighters three days earlier, Creer wrote, "The reason for the 65 retirement age is safety and state law compliance."

By contrast, his memo for the Nov. 13 board meeting appeared to leave the opening that the village did not have to enact a mandatory retirement age.

"Full-time departments are subject to state requirements," he said in the memo. Paid-on-call and part-time departments "can adopt a retirement age by ordinance and/or enforce the state mandate."

After hearing opposition to Creer's proposal Monday, the Village Board unanimously approved the measure.

In response to a Patch inquiry Thursday, Creer said full-time firefighters are explicitly required to retire at 65, even in predominantly part-time departments.

He pointed to a provision in state law, "The age for retirement of policemen or firemen in the service of any municipality which adopts this Division 2.1 is 65 years, unless the Council or Board of Trustees shall by ordinance provide for an earlier retirement age of not less than 60 years."

The provision, Creer said, applies to Leahy, who was the fire department's only full-time member.

"We have been out of compliance with state law in this case for a few years now," he said.

Creer said the law did not address part-time firefighters in departments with full-time members.

"A straight reading of the law seems to indicate that it should still apply to part-timers," he said. "But, we know many, many departments do not enforce it. The ordinance clarifies that we will also be following state law for part-timers, hence my comments. We do not know the legislative intent, and to our knowledge, the courts have not opined on this issue ever, but it would be somewhat odd to exclude part-timers as they have the same physical requirements as full-timers."

He said his comments at this week's meeting were trying to address concerns raised earlier in the day that he was misleading the board about its obligations to vote on his proposal.

"I wanted to be sure the Board was voting their conscience, and that it could be legally defended either way," Creer said. "When there is an ambiguous case like this, it can go either way, the Village can choose to get into compliance with state law, or it can choose to ignore it. Hence, the comments the Board can choose what to pass and they are not under any requirement."