Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Lindsey v. Board of Education

Lindsey v. Board of Education

Case Date: 11/19/2004
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-03-1596 Rel

SIXTH DIVISION
November 19, 2004


 

No. 1-03-1596

RACHELLE LINDSEY and GERALD ROSS,

                                      Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF
CHICAGO, a body politic and corporate, ARNE
DUNCAN, in His Official Capacity as Chief Executive
Officer, FREDERICK H. BATES, in His Official
Capacity as Hearing Officer, and CARLOS AZCOITIA,
in His Official Capacity as Deputy Chief of Education,

                                      Defendants-Appellees.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County.

No. 02 CH 13494

Honorable
Patrick E. McGann,
Judge Presiding.




 


PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal involves the review of an administrative decision. In May 2002, after plaintiffsRachelle Lindsey and Gerald Ross lost an election for positions on the Local School Council of aChicago public school, they challenged the election results. A public hearing on the challenge washeld by the defendant Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Board), but the election resultswere upheld and plaintiffs' bid for a new election was denied. Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writof certiorari in the circuit court of Cook County, seeking review of the Board's decision whichwas based on the recommendation rendered by the hearing officer, defendant Frederick Bates.(1) InMay 2003, the court entered an order denying plaintiffs' petition. Plaintiffs now appeal from thedenial of their election challenge, contending that an improper standard was applied in reachingthe decision. We disagree, and affirm the circuit court's decision upholding the Board's denial ofplaintiffs' election challenge.

BACKGROUND

Both plaintiffs were members of the Local School Council (LSC) at Dulles ElementarySchool (Dulles) on South Calumet, who sought to retain their positions in the election that washeld on May 1, 2002. The rules and procedures for the election were set forth in the Board'spublication, "A Guide to Local School Council Elections" (Guide). Among the rules pertinent tothis appeal are those prohibiting electioneering within 100 feet of any entrance to the building inwhich the polling place is located (i.e., the Dulles school building) and providing for the filing of apostelection challenge.

Lindsey had been a parent representative on the LSC prior to the 2002 election, whileRoss had been a community representative. Certain other candidates for LSC positions ran aspart of a slate entitled "Look for the Stars" (Stars slate). All members of the Stars slate wonelection to positions on the LSC. Of 12 candidates for 6 parent representative positions on theLSC, Lindsey received the seventh highest number of votes. Although she came within four votesof the sixth-place candidate, Lindsey was not reelected. Ross received the fewest votes of thethree candidates for two community representative positions, losing reelection to his position by19 votes. Only Lindsey and Ross challenged the election.

Plaintiffs filed a postelection challenge petition on May 9, 2002, alleging that an unfair andillegal advantage was given to the Stars slate. They complained of the use of school resourcesand electioneering by school personnel in support of the Stars slate candidates. Quoting aremedies provision in the Guide, plaintiff-challengers sought a new election due to alleged"'unrepaired gross irregularities which substantially affected the integrity of the election process.'"

In the petition, plaintiffs claimed that the alleged irregularities that occurred on electionday stemmed from an ongoing dispute between some of the LSC members and the schooladministration which had been taking place over the course of several months before the election. Briefly, the key event in this dispute was a January 2002 vote taken by the Dulles LSC, in whichthe LSC decided not to renew the contract of the Dulles principal, Donna Clayton (the Claytonvote). In March 2002, that vote was nullified according to a letter from the Board's generalcounsel, Marilyn Johnson. Johnson informed the Dulles LSC that any action taken by it after onemember's November 2001 resignation was void due to the lack of a quorum.

A hearing on plaintiffs' postelection challenge was held before hearing officer Bates onMay 28, 2002. Notice of the hearing date and time, which had been provided to plaintiffs,informed them also that the "[f]ailure of any challengers to appear at the hearing may result indismissal of the challenge." Ross did not appear at the hearing. Lindsey arrived late and testified,as did the following four individuals: another parent member of the Dulles LSC, Sherry Ealy; twoassociates of an education reform organization, Matthew Hanson and Valencia Rias; and LakishaGladney, one of the Stars slate candidates who was elected to the LSC.

At the hearing, Lindsey testified that one employee of Dulles, Chuck Carter, who had beenassigned to monitor the election, was hostile to her. Carter did not permit Lindsey to accompanya voter to the school office for verification of her eligibility to vote, despite an election judge'srequest that she do so. One teacher, Lee Brown, spent about 3