735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 1992). Thus, all well-pleaded facts in a complaint are taken as true. Grassini v. Du Page Township, 279 Ill. App.3d 614, 618, 665 N.E.2d 860 (1996). The purpose of a section 2-619 motion to dismiss is to provide a mechanism to dispose of issues of law and easily proved issues of fact, and the cause of action should not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved which would entitle a plaintiff to recover.
" Milliken, 142 Ill. at 532-33, 32 N.E. at 494.Milliken has been invoked in the more recent cases of Grassini v. Du Page Township, 279 Ill. App. 3d 614, 665 N.E.2d 860 (1996), and Cannizzo v. Berwyn Township 708 Community Mental Health Board, 318 Ill. App. 3d 478, 741 N.E.2d 1067 (2000), and Oak Lawn additionally looks to these decisions to support its position that Faber's employment agreements are void. In Grassini, plaintiff entered into an employment contract with Du Page Township to serve in the capacity of township administrator for a four-year period.
As to Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims, the Court notes that the Illinois Township Code does not permit township boards to execute employment contracts which extend beyond the board members' terms of office. Grassini v. DuPage Twp., 665 N.E.2d 860, 865-66 (1996). Under Grassini, there must be read "an implied term into the manual by which a succeeding board could terminate [the plaintiff's] employment in the exercise of its authority under section 100-5 (60 ILCS 1/100-5(a) (West Supp.1996)). 665 N.E.2d at 866.
1930 WL 2992, at *3. In Grassini v. DuPage Township, 279 Ill. App.3d 614, 665 N.E.2d 860 (1996), the court considered a township administrator's four year employment contract that had been approved by the township board of trustees entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff to serve as the township administrator for a four-year period. When a new board of trustees was appointed, it voted to terminate the plaintiff's contract, and the plaintiff filed suit.
R. 145 at 9β10. See Grassini v. DuPage Twp. , 279 Ill.App.3d 614, 216 Ill.Dec. 602, 665 N.E.2d 860, 864β65 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (deeming four-year contract for employment of township administrator void ab initio because the term of the contract extended beyond term of township board and supervisor who approved it). The court added that although Barwin pointed to Village President Pope's oral assurances at the time of his hiring that the Village had allowed Barwin's predecessor to purchase out-of-state pension credits and that Barwin would be permitted to do the same if the need arose, the agreement's integration clause prevented the court from considering any such promise or representation.
Ever since Millikan v. County of Edgar, 32 N.E. 493 (Ill. 1892), Illinois courts have consistently held that "it is contrary to the effective administration of a political subdivision to allow elected officials to tie the hands of their successors with respect to decisions regarding the welfare of the subdivision." Cannizzo v. Berwyn Twp. 708 Cmty. Mental Health Bd., 741 N.E.2d 1067, 1071 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (explaining Millikan); see also Grassini v. DuPage Twp., 665 N.E.2d 860, 864 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (same). In Millikan, an elected county board of supervisors, who served one-year terms, hired a keeper of a poor house for an ostensible three-year term.
For example, where a municipality exceeds its statutory authority in entering into a contract, the municipality's act is ultra vires , and the resulting contract is void ab initio . See, e.g. , Grassini v. DuPage Township , 279 Ill. App. 3d 614, 620, 216 Ill.Dec. 602, 665 N.E.2d 860 (1996) ; Nielsen-Massey Vanillas, Inc. v. City of Waukegan , 276 Ill. App. 3d 146, 152-53, 212 Ill.Dec. 856, 657 N.E.2d 1201 (1995). "[A] contract that is void ab initio is treated as though it never existed; neither party can choose to ratify the contract by simply waiving its right to assert the defect."
AmAudit cites various cases that comment on the rationale behind section 8-1-7(b), which was to prevent elected officials from tying the hands of their successors regarding certain employment decisions. See Cannizzo v. Berywn Township 708 Community Health Board, 318 Ill. App. 3d 478, 483-84 (2000); Grassini v. Du Page Township, 279 Ill. App. 3d 614, 619-20 (2000). Second, AmAudit argues that the contract does not violate section 8-1-7(b) because it does not require the Village to continue to employ AmAudit or continue to utilize its auditing services.
A township may exercise only those powers conferred upon it by statute. Grassini v. Du Page Township, 279 Ill. App. 3d 614, 618, 665 N.E.2d 860, 863 (1996). Any employment agreement between plaintiff and the Township, similar to other types of unauthorized agreements, would have been void ab initio.
Applying the rule to municipalities, the court in Cannizzo held that an elected board did not have authority to employ persons in positions that were important to the effective administration of the board beyond its term. See id.; see also Grassini v. DuPage Township, 279 Ill.App.3d 614, 216 Ill.Dec. 602, 665 N.E.2d 860 (1996). Because the board in Cannizzo used staggered appointments, the length of time used to measure or limit the board's power was the term of the elected official appointing the board.