Update - Popejoy dismisses suit

[MustangSix]

I just received this from a reputable source!


Today, Judge Popejoy entered an opinion and appealable order finding in favor of defendants’ motion to dismiss on all aspects; thus, the case has been dismissed in its entirety.

[Arch]

Thank you for the info. Any word on when it becomes 'official'? Noon tomorrow or sooner?

[rural]

If this information is factual. It's official now. It becomes an order as soon as the judge signs it.

[momind204]

www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=199942

DuPage County Circuit Judge Kenneth Popejoy has thrown out the lawsuit filed by the parents' group Neighborhood Schools for Our Children against Indian Prairie Unit District 204.

Ruling that the group did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place, Popejoy stated in his written decision that the court "cannot order the district to act a certain way on an issue that is within the district's discretion."

The grass-roots group sued the district in March in an attempt to prevent it from spending any more money to build the 3,000-student Metea Valley High School along Eola Road, south of Diehl Road in Aurora.

Members want the district to use the $127.4 million voters approved in 2006 to purchase the Brach-Brodie property off 75th Street and Commons Drive and build the school there.

Work already has begun on the Eola Road site and the district has said it plans to open most of the campus in August 2009 to house freshmen and sophomores. District leaders said the school, which eventually will serve all four grade levels, is needed to ease crowding at Neuqua Valley and Waubonsie Valley high schools.

[momind204]

I wonder what it means that the "group did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit." Is that because of the group itself somehow or is that because they didn't have any grounds for the suit? I'm assuming the latter given the district's motion?

[Arch]

"cannot order the district to act a certain way on an issue that is within the district's discretion."

Remedy can not contain a specific course of action for the district.

Is that the 'legal standing' he refers to?

This is the second time he's mentioned this specifically... he can not order them to buy the property and the group can seek a remedy containing a specific course of action (same thing as order to purchase the property).

It does beg the question if they can amend and still nullify the bonds without a specific 'action' being requested of the district like "build here", etc.

it's appealable, so another "wait and see"

[concerned2]

Well, if the SB has that much power and can lie and treat taxpayers they way the did, I will always be a no voter.

[momind204]

From the opinion:


At oral arguments (on 5/23/08), plaintiffs argued that they did not expect a site-specific
referendum, but only that if the site were to change, a new referendum should be presented to voters. This argument is circular. The language of the referendum would not change, and
attaching an "understood" specified site to such a referendum would, in effect, be a site-specific referendum. Plaintiffs do not have this right, as mentioned above. Therefore, they have not suffered any injury and do not have standing in this suit.

[Arch]

May 29, 2008 15:41:26 GMT -6 concerned2 said:

Well, if the SB has that much power and can lie and treat taxpayers they way the did, I will always be a no voter.

That will be the legacy of this.

[sashimi]

In the end, the Judge found that the referendum language was unambiguous and thus, was not willing to look beyond the language itself to look towards the intent/representations of the SB/District (other than what was contained in the referendum language).

From the legal side, this was always the biggest challenge.

I think it is a sad commentary on the trustworthiness and ethics of the SB and District (the ends justifying the means), however, I do not believe that this was a huge conspiracy from the start....just a series of unfortunate events that resulted in the SB/District choosing to move forward in a way that I think was not respectful to the entire District.

Perhaps a second chance to see how the District and SB treat their victory....do they rub it in the face of those who challenged them or do they attempt to bring the District back together.

[Arch]

May 29, 2008 15:43:48 GMT -6 sashimi said:

In the end, the Judge found that the referendum language was unambiguous and thus, was not willing to look beyond the language itself to look towards the intent/representations of the SB/District (other than what was contained in the referendum language).

From the legal side, this was always the biggest challenge.

I think it is a sad commentary on the trustworthiness and ethics of the SB and District (the ends justifying the means), however, I do not believe that this was a huge conspiracy from the start....just a series of unfortunate events that resulted in the SB/District choosing to move forward in a way that I think was not respectful to the entire District.

Perhaps a second chance to see how the District and SB treat their victory....do they rub it in the face of those who challenged them or do they attempt to bring the District back together.

Some have already chimed in on the sun blogs:


By Hey Dr Y on May 29, 2008 4:41 PM

Hey Dr. Y: I think the English language version of Judge Popejoy's ruling was directed at you: Suck on it.

----

At least people are living up to expectations.

[SouthernWolf]

May 29, 2008 15:14:24 GMT -6 Arch said:

"cannot order the district to act a certain way on an issue that is within the district's discretion."

Remedy can not contain a specific course of action for the district.

Is that the 'legal standing' he refers to?

This is the second time he's mentioned this specifically... he can not order them to buy the property and the group can seek a remedy containing a specific course of action (same thing as order to purchase the property).

It does beg the question if they can amend and still nullify the bonds without a specific 'action' being requested of the district like "build here", etc.

it's appealable, so another "wait and see"

Hindsight is 20/20, but I never liked the "BB or nothing potential relief option" Maybe that could be removed as well as a few other modifications and then re-file.

[momind204]

The opinion is an interesting read. Here's the conclusion which I think differs from Sashimi's interpretation (as do several other points including the validity of the bait and switch argument):

CONCLUSION:
Though plaintiffs deny it, each of their arguments is a back door method to obtain
discretion over where the site of the new school wil be built, or at least where it wil not be built. Ths is not their right, but the right granted to the school district by Illinois law. See i 05 ILCS 5/19:'3; 1O-22.35A; 10-22.13. .

[SouthernWolf]

If not, then it was (is?) a valiant effort and worthy of support.

[slp]

May 29, 2008 15:43:48 GMT -6 sashimi said:

In the end, the Judge found that the referendum language was unambiguous and thus, was not willing to look beyond the language itself to look towards the intent/representations of the SB/District (other than what was ontained in the referendum language).

From the legal side, this was always the biggest challenge.

I think it is a sad commentary on the trustworthiness and ethics of the SB and District (the ends justifying the means), however, I do not believe that this was a huge conspiracy from the start....just a series of unfortunate events that resulted in the SB/District choosing to move forward in a way that I think was not respectful to the entire District.

Perhaps a second chance to see how the District and SB treat their victory....do they rub it in the face of those who challenged them or do they attempt to bring the District back together.

indeed, will we see people moving forward or rubbing salt further into wounds? I hope to see the nasty name calling come to an end.

I am proudly sending my kids to WVHS and ask that the WVHS Gold Campus REMAIN IN PLACE since it was not written on the ballot that I was agreeing for it to be removed; it only stated monies for a 3rd high school.

The first few years my kids are at WVHS it will be more crowded in the main building than it is NOW; tell me how that is supposed to make me feel good about all that has transpired?

The end doesn't justify the means. The way the school board went about this entire process has unfortunately created alot of additional NO voters which cannot be good for our district in the long run. This whole debacle has brought out the worst in many and unfortunately it may be hard for taxpayers to forget each and every time they go to the polls.

This entire scenario can be described as classic MISMANAGEMENT!

I am sure the next school board elections will be a house cleaning!