On appeal, the State first argues that the defendants lack standing to challenge the Act based upon the single subject clause given the nine-year delay between the passage of Public Act 88-669 (the Act) on November 29, 1994, and defendants' challenge to the Act in October 2003. In support of its argument, the State cites this court's decision in Meister v. Carbaugh, 310 Ill. 486 (1923), and the appellate court's decision in Durjak v. Thompson, 144 Ill. App. 3d 594 (1986). In Meister, the plaintiff sought a declaration that "`An act relating to civil service in park systems'" be declared unconstitutional and void and sought an injunction restraining the Civil Service Board of the South Park Commissioners from proceeding thereunder.
It is well recognized that courts are precluded from considering the propriety of a legislative enactment, including inquiry into whether a legislative body observed its own procedural rules when adopting legislation, unless the legislation was enacted in violation of a State or Federal statute or constitution. Landmarks Preservation Council v. City of Chicago (1988), 125 Ill.2d 164, 179, 531 N.E.2d 9, 15-16; Illinois Gasoline Dealers Association v. City of Chicago (1988), 119 Ill.2d 391, 404, 519 N.E.2d 447, 452-53; Central Transport, Inc. v. Village of Hillside (1991), 210 Ill. App.3d 499, 512, 568 N.E.2d 1359, 1366; American National Bank Trust Co. v. City of Chicago (1990), 209 Ill. App.3d 96, 110, 568 N.E.2d 25, 34; Durjak v. Thompson (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 594, 596, 494 N.E.2d 589, 590-91; Chirikos v. Yellow Cab Co. (1980), 87 Ill. App.3d 569, 574, 410 N.E.2d 61, 65. Count I alleges that plaintiffs' Federal and State due process rights were violated because they were denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in public siting approval hearings of the Zoning Board.
" A similar issue was rejected in Durjak v. Thompson (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 594, 494 N.E.2d 589. Contrary to defendant's arguments on this issue, we believe that Durjak was correctly decided and controls the issue at bar. In his fourth argument, defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because of improper and prejudicial remarks by the prosecutor.
It is not this court's function to impose parliamentary requirements that are not demanded by the city council's rules. ( Durjak v. Thompson (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 594, 494 N.E.2d 589; Roti v. Washington (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 958, 450 N.E.2d 465.) Whether those rules are wise or unwise is not within the province of this court to decide, in the same manner that courts are not authorized to strike down legislation they deem unwise.