decision yes file petition which issue review with the circuit court the statute also provides that it's supposed to serve notice of the petition for judicial review and the electorial board and pettis did not do is she did not quote unquote serve the electorial board as a body if you read the statute the statute says he to answer that question specifically because i really don't know the answer if i did if i agreed that this was moving would it then mean that the school district can to go issue the work in cash bonds and it doesn't have to go on the ballot stands then this issue goes away and i think it should go if not i think there's a possibility that they could petition for the court to rule that you like for a board's decision stands and they can the legislature have stated must serve a copy of the petition upon the members of the electoral board that's the congress argument that they did in the fifth district the sister she said if they wanted to serve the electoral board of the legal entity the challenges to the notice provisions or service provisions the question is whether out there the statute requires strict compliance or whether  saying that that really shouldn't be the focus of the court's analysis  if the purpose of the staff is to get noticed the electorial or that you're in your decisions so they can get the record or that was done they actually prepared they actually did what they were supposed to do they prepared asserting but my question is specifically with the reply brief i mean don't you think it's your responsibility to brief all the issues so the court can take a look at your position before you come in and argue or have you have you please the court my name is steve richard and i represent the electoral board members of the electoral board members are seeking finale in this case the electoral board's decision is in january two thousand and thirteen and this litigation is delaying before the trial court's hearing the objectors and the objectors attorney filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for failure to name the electoral board as a party and true enough the is why it was not filed prior to that date but we did show up in court and the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction we believe correctly i also want to address mr mor saying that there's no mailing address of the electoral board and that is not true of the electoral board's meeting place is dictated by section ten dash ten of the election code and in this case the meeting place was the school board's regular meeting place by statute that is five twenty five north third street in girard and it's really not subject to dispute so the lack of a mailing address is is really not  reason here there is a business address for electoral boards it's dictated by statute and nelson the nelson case out of the first district explicitly acknowledged that and rejected the notion that cases this original case cases such as nelson and rivera state that ten days ten point one a requires both service on the board and all individual board members can you point to the statutory language that clearly provides this well the other parties to the procedure needs to be construed by the courts and in sync us the supreme court noted that administrative review law  provides the standard procedure for review of electoral board decisions and in an ministry to review law it is elementary and fundamental that all of the members of the agency section ten dash nine five then defines what the electoral board is great and the electoral board by definition is the presiding officer of the school district board the secretary of the school district board in the longest serving member of the board right is your why can't we simply substitute those defined terms into section ten dash ten point one eight where uses the term board and conclude that that section requires service on those three individuals because the electoral board is a separate legal entity it is called the education officers electoral board or at least at the time these proceedings took place it was so called course now your school district electoral boards no longer exist but the electoral board as a corporate entity is what is referred to as serving the electoral board and other parties to the proceeding that the the fact is as mr morris noted notice the purpose of of the service is to get the record before the trial court and it's not the president or the secretary or the third member of the electoral board that have a duty to prepare the record it is the electoral board is a corporate entity that has a duty to prepare and file that record and that's interesting though it serve on the board right correct and if there are two reasonable interpretations of yours that other parties as the electoral board members of the electoral board is an entity and if it's a reasonable interpretation to say we're just they define who the what the electoral borders make up of the electoral board and serving the people who are serving the board why when this court err on the side of ballot access well ballot access and the policy in favor of allowing access to the ballot has been applied by this court and by the appellate courts cases involving candidates seeking to get on to the ballot but it's never been applied to the election code since fourth the the basics of you know for judicial review it doesn't say in the election code that you use any specific statute that might apply to the subject matter but if there is none then the fallback is the general administrative review law is that correct that's how i'm reading it that is ok because you made reference to administered review yes and i mean there is a separate act a separate statute that is called by in the language of the statu sections three dash one o six on the parents of defendants and three dash one all five on service a summons that that says service on the director agency had in his or her official capacity shall be deem service on the administrative agency board and what all the other kinds of entities same thing on and said and it goes on to say there is no basis to dismiss for failure to serve if you serve a name individuals now was the chairman of the board the elect board served not in his official could not my question is was he served or she at his home address ok and how was the person referenced in the plate as simply by their name nothing more their name and their home address  reference to their position on the board not mr but if if if i may that letter where proceedings are also extremely active expedited and start the judicial review actions need to serve everybody had notice and you mentioned something about the the caption well we're intended as one ten dash one you rely on your support for that the only procedural requirement under the election code that recognizes the electorate board is a separate legal entity and joins it as a party in the proceedings is that provision requiring service on the electoral board and other parties to the proceedings it in this case the electoral board members were searching for home address without any identification of their roles and if that is sufficient it would allow petitioners didn't hire the disregarding electoral boards corporate existence the electoral board is an entity again is preparing for the record not the individual members and joining the electoral board brings the record into the proceedings because the elector board wasn't served and joined here couldn't file the record without would have would have had  fact though is that any complaint identifies a party that's just one of the elementary basic aspects of a complaint and and and there's a difference between notice that a lawsuit has been filed and notice that the parties actually joined as a defendant i'd like to move back into what was the sampson caption i'm i'm not arguing here that that it's necessary to have a caption be a certain way but every complaint that i've ever seen has a description of the party and there was none in in in this case other than the caption which in this case but did not include the electoral basis for this court to affirm right up to the appellate court specifically address that now ok they did address the caption right ruled against you and they did and that's the cross spillages ok so on and this other issue is there enough in the record for this court to glean that and grant the relief and that alternative basis yes and we correct something you just said the failure to attach the written decision i believe the  elementary that a complete founded on an instrument of hatch's that instrument in expedited electoral board proceedings the idea that you could obtain review of an electoral board's decision without attaching it or at least reciting the relevant portions on those factors the court can and should decline to invoke the public interest doctrine and may or may dismiss the case and move this alone even if the public interest doctrine is used however the it should be that upon remain and we would have the opportunity file a motion to dismiss in the trial court or moodiness and it should be granted because again the election code says very  a petition seeking a referendum is valid for the election identified in that petition and no other election this court has acknowledged that circumstances similar to this case as in jackson there is no further relief available after an election has passed so it seems to me that the trial court ought to then be able to dismiss for mootness problem being that and there could be a whole nother  clear under the cases that failure to address the requirement or otherwise obtain substantial compliance invalidates a petition and there's really no way out from that in sum the electoral board members asked this court to firm and bring finale to this thank you thank you if it's not i think it's not move i think it can go back to the trial court and the trial court can then review the citizens of the electorial court and rule whether or not they were correct and the weather event whether don't even after the name of the party they don't have to file an answer they don't have to do anything all they have to do is file the a copy of the record that that's what the statute says and the electorial board is not a corporate entity i don't know where they got to work with charter or anything along those lines they were reference of the corporate entity act was written so that if a private individual lots of challenge this this is what the private individual has to do and that was specifically spelled out in the pamphlet that the electoral board handed out to all the people that were at the hearing that were here and with regards to this i don't think it's entirely look i think there's an opportunity if it goes back to the trial court the trial court rules that yes the status you were deprived due process yes missed that was the issue of numbering because there's a whole