## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

Lawrence v

. William s , 2013 IL App (1st) 130757

Appellate Court Caption BERNA DETTE LAWRENCE, Objec tor-Appe llant, Cross- Appellee
, v. KE NNETH WI L L IAMS, J UDI TH GI BB S, and ANNETTE ODNEAL ; EDUCATI ONA L OFF I CERS EL ECTORAL BO ARD OF THORNTON TOWNSHI P HI GH SCHOOL DI STRI CT 205
, its Members BU RT OD E L S ON
, ROBERT K. BU S H, an d P AM E L A M cLEAN M E YERSON; ROSE PAPAL EO; a n d D AV ID O RR
, Co o k Co u nty Cl e r k
, Respondents-Appe llees, Cross-Appe llants.

District & N o. First District, Third Division Docke t No. 1-13-0757

Filed April 9, 2013

Held (Note : This syl lab us

c ons ti tut es no par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed by the Repo rt e r of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) An appea l from a tr i al court’s reve rsal of responde nt elec toral board’ s disqualification of three candidates in a school board elec tion bec au s e t h eir nomination paper s wer e not secur ely bound as require d b y t h e Election Code was dismiss ed for lack of jurisdiction, since the elec toral board viol at ed t he Open Meeting s Act by issuing its decisions disqualifying the candidates at a meeting which lacke d a qu o rum and copies of the board’ s decision wer e prese nted at a subsequent proce eding that lacke d a quorum; there fore
, in the absenc e of a final decision, neither the trial cour

t nor the appe llate cour

t had any jurisdiction.

Dec ision Under Review Appea l from the Circui t Court of Cook County
, No. 13-COEL -39; the Hon. Maure en Ward-Kirby , J udg e, pre siding.

J udg ment Dismissed.Counsel on

Appea l Christopher J . Agrella, of Ba rrington, for appe llant.

Andre w Finko, of

Andre w Finko, P.C., of Chicag o, for a ppellees.

Panel J USTI CE HYMAN de livered the opinion of the court, with opinion.
Pres i d i n g J ustice Neville and J ustice Sterba concur red in the judgme nt and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 For the students of Thornton Township High School, this opinion makes possible a little civics lesson. But for the Educational Offic ers Electora l Boa rd of Thornton Township Hig h School District 205 (ele ctora l board) and other elec toral boards, it re v e a ls something else–the ramifica tions of ignoring the interac tion betwee n the I llinois Election Code and the I llinois Open Me eting s Act. ¶ 2 The appea l a

rises from an orde r of the c ircuit court reve rsing decisions by the elec toral board disqualifying three ca n d i d ates from the April 9, 2013, consolidated elec tion ballot. Be rnade tte L awr ence , in her objections, contende d the candidates’ nomination paper s wer e not secur ely bound as require d by section 10-4 of the I llinois Election Code (10 I L CS 5/10-4 (West 2010)). The elec toral board sustained the objections. The aff ecte d candidates, having b ee n removed from the ballot, filed a petition for judicial revie w under section 10-10.1 o f the Election Code (10 I L CS 5/10-10.1 (West 2010) ). The circ uit c ourt grante d the petition,

reve rsed the elect o ral board, and order ed the candidates’ names place d on the ballot. L awr ence appea led, contending the elec toral board’ s finding s wer e not ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e. But, due to the elec toral board’ s failure to abide by the provisions of the I llinois Open Me eting s Act (5 I L CS 120/ 1 et seq. (West 2010)), we dismiss for lac k of jurisdiction.

¶ 3 I . Ba ckground ¶ 4 Kenne th Wil liams, J udith Gibbs, and Annette Odnea l are candidates for positions on the Thornton Township High School District 205 Boa rd o f Education in the April 9, 2013 elec tion. On J anuar

y 3, 2013, L awr ence filed objections alleg i n g th e t h ree candidates’ nomination paper s wer e not secur ely bound as require d by section 10-4 of the Election Code. 10 I L CS 5/10-4 (West 2008). The elec toral board, which consisted of three public members, Bur t Odelson, Pamela Meyerson, and Robert Bush, initially m et o n J anuar y 12, 2013, to

-2-adopt proce dural rules. A hearing on L awr ence ’s objections was held on J anuar y 28, 2013. 1 Ros e P apaleo, an administrative assistant to the superintende nt and rec ording secr etar y of Thornton Township High School District 205, testified that on Dec ember 17, 2012, Kenne th Wil liams submitt ed nomination paper s for the three candidates and none of the paper s wer e bound. Papaleo described the proce dure she follows wh en receiving nomination paper s, stating she stamps them and provides a rec eipt to the submitt ing party

. She then remove s any binding, scans the paper s, rebinds them, and place s them in a separ ate folder to be filed with other nomination paper s. Papaleo found no marks or indication of binding on the candidates’ nomination p ap ers and she did not alter the paper s in any way

. L ori Koditek, an administrative assis tant for District 205, testified s he was prese nt when W illiams filed t he candidates’ nomination paper s and conc urre d with Papaleo that they wer e not bound. ¶ 5 Eac h candidate’s nomination paper s wer e about 15 to 16 pag es long. Kenne th Williams testified that 5 to 10 minutes befor e filing the nomination paper s , h e s ecured them with a black binder

clip and sawPapaleo r emove the binde r clip to stamp the pape rs. ¶ 6 Severa l exhibi ts we re ad mitted into evidenc e. The objector submitt ed the ca ndidates’ nomination p ap er s in an unbound condition. The candidates submitt ed a copy of the nomination p ap er s bound with a black binder clip and an aff idavit with three photogr aphs taken be fore filing of

the nomination paper s with the black binder clip. ¶ 7 On J anuar

y 28, the elec toral board voted unanimously to sustain L awr ence ’s objections and decla red the three candidates’ n o m i n at i on paper s invalid. The board’ s decisions wer e

announce d orally in an open proce eding

. The elec toral board said it d ee med Papaleo and Koditek to be cr edibl e witnesses and found the candidates failed to provide sufficie nt evidenc e or documentation to rebut their testim o n y t hat the nomination paper s wer e not properly bound when submitt ed. The elec toral board then order ed the candidates’ names not be printed on the April 9, 2013, ballot. ¶ 8 The elec toral board rec onvened on Fe bruar y 1, 2013. Electora l board member P am el a Meyerson took roll call and noted t wo m ember s of the thre e-me mber boa rd, Burt Odelson and R o bert Bush, wer e not prese nt. Meyerson said Odelson and Bush had signe d written copies of the d ec i s i o n s made during the J anuar y 28 hearing. Meyerson then added her signature to the de cisions and re cesse d the meeting

. ¶ 9 On Fe bruar

y 6, 2013, the candidates filed a petition for judicial revie w in the circ uit court under section 10-10.1 of the Election Code (10 I L CS 5/10-10.1 (West 2010)). The candida tes argued: (1) a d ef

au l t judgme nt should be enter ed beca use L awr ence failed to file an appea ranc e in the circ uit court; (2) the elec toral board ’s attorney s should be disqualified beca use they repr esent the school board, and Kenne th Wil liams, the school board president, is a party in this case ; a

nd (3) the elec toral board failed to c omply with the require ments of the I llinois Open Meeting s Act (5 I L CS 120/1 et seq. (West 2010)) and section 10-10 of the Election Code (10 IL CS 5/ 10-10 (West 2010)). ¶ 10 The candidates’ petition for judicial re v i ew wa s i n i t i al l y as signe d to J udg e Robert

T he hea ri ng al so addr ess ed obj ect ion s fil ed by K evin Grif fi n ag ai nst al l thr ee can did at es, 1 however , th ose obj ect ion s a re notra is ed i n t his app eal

.
-3-Be rtucc i, who transfe rre d the case to J udg e Edmund Ponce de L eon. On Februar y 14, 2013, J udg e Ponce de L eon order ed the elec toral board to file a rec ord of proce eding s by Fe bruar y 19, 2013. On Fe bruar

y 20, 2013, the elec toral board filed a rec ord of p ro ce ed i n gs, which lawyers for t h e board acknow ledg ed only included a transcript of the proce eding s held on J anuar y 28, 2013, not the proce eding s held by the elec toral board on J anuar y 12, 2013, and Fe bruar y 1, 2013, or exhibit s that were part of the rec ord. ¶ 11 The candid at es fi l ed a motion for substitut ion of judge on Fe bruar y 14, 2013. J udg e Ponce de L eon initially denied the motion but rec onsidered and grante d it, vacating all order s he enter ed, and transfe rring the case to J udg e Maure en Ward-Kirby

. Du ri n g a h earing on Marc h 12, 2013, Judg e Ward-Kirby told the parties she did not have a complete rec ord of the
proce eding s and ordered the elec toral board to file one by 4 p.m. th at d ay

. An attorney for the elec toral board agree d on the rec ord to meet the deadline. J udg e Ward-Kirby rec onvened

a hearing the next day and noted the elec toral board had not filed a complete rec ord of
proce eding s with the cler k of the court by the 4 p.m. deadl i n e. At torney s for the elec toral board stated they delivere d a courte sy copy of the re co rd o f proce eding s to the judge ’s chambe rs late on Marc h 12 and filed one with the cler k of the court on the morning of Marc h 13. The elec toral board’ s attorney acknow ledg ed that the rec ord filed with the cler k s t i l l omitted some exhibi ts from the hearing. J udg e Ward-Kirb y s ai d she did not rec eive the
courte sy copy of the rec ord of proce eding s and re m i n d ed t he attorney s her order require d them to file it with the clerk of the cour t by 4 p.m. the day

befor e. ¶ 12 The circ uit court then hear d argument and reve rsed the elec toral board’ s decisions. The
court denied the candidates’ motion for a defa ult judgme nt and their motion to disqualify the elec toral boar d’s attorne y s. The court conclude d, howeve r, the e lectora l board violated the Open Meeting s Act (Act ) (5 I L CS 120/1 et seq. (West 2010)), by failing to vote on the written decisions in a public meeting. T h e co u rt said this violation alone would not be
enough to reve rse, but found the elec toral board also neg lected to timely file a complete

rec ord of proce eding s with the c o u r t. Ju d g e Wa

rd

- Kir b y a c k n o w ledg ed that on administrative revie w she does not rew eigh the evidenc e, but stated she “[has] to m ak e s u re t h er e is competent evidenc e in the rec ord to support their decision,” and she could not do so beca use

o f the incomplete rec ord. The court found the “cumulative eff ect” of the erro rs b y t h e elec toral board war

rante d reve rsal and order ed the candidates’ names place d on the April 9, 2013, ballot. ¶ 13 L awr ence appea led, asking this court to aff irm the elec toral board on the grounds that its finding s wer e not ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e. The candidates filed a motion
to dismiss and a cross-a

ppeal argui n g: (1) the trial court corr ectly reve rsed the elec toral board’ s decisions beca

use they wer e not supported by the rec ord of p ro ce ed i n g s; (2) L awr ence had no standing to appea l the trial court’s decision beca use she did not file an appea ranc e in the cir cuit court; (3) the elec toral boar d failed to issue fina l decisions on the objections beca

use the board failed to c omply with the require ments of the Open Meeting s Act; (4) the electoral boa

rd’s finding s of fa ct should be re viewed de novo instead of under

a manifest weight of the evidenc e revie w beca use the board’ s decisions wer e not issued by

a majority of its members under the Open Meeting s Act; and (5) th e t ri al court err ed in denying the ir motion to di squalify the elec toral boar d’s attorne y s.

-4-¶ 14 I I . Analy sis

¶ 15 Standard of Re view ¶ 16 When an elec toral board’ s decision has been revie wed by the circ uit court, the appe llate
court revie ws the decision of the board, not the court. Lockh a r t v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board
, 328 I ll. App. 3d 838, 841 (2002). The board’ s finding s of fac t are deeme d prima facie true and corr ect and will not be overturne d unless they are ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e; its finding s of law are not binding on this court and will be revie wed de novo. Cinkus v

. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board
, 228 I ll. 2d 200, 210 (2008). Be cause we resolve the appea l on the basis of a vio l at ion of proce dural due
proce ss rights, a leg al question, we apply a de novo standard of revie w. Girot v. Keith
, 212 I ll. 2d 372, 379 (2004).

¶ 17 Open Me eting s Act ¶ 18 I llinois courts do not have g ener al jurisdiction over elec tion case s, but may only revie w them as provided by statute, namely
, sections 10-10 and 10-10.1 of the Election Code. Rivera

v. C i t y o f Chicago Electoral Board
, 2011 I L App (1st) 110283, ¶ 20. “[T] he requirements mandated upon the parties as provided in these sections are jurisdictional require ments that must be followed.” Id . See also Hough v. W ill County Board of Elections , 338 I ll. App. 3d 1092, 1094 (2003) (“[f]ailure of a party to comply with any of the *** require ments when
appea ling an elec toral board decision invites dismiss al via section 2-619 (735 I L CS 5/2-619 (West 1996)), for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction” (interna l quotation marks omitted)). ¶ 19 The ca n d i d at es fi led a motion to dismiss asser ting L awr ence lacks standing to appea l since she did not participa te in the trial court pr ocee dings a nd did not raise or prese rve any issues for appea l. The candida tes also fi l ed a cross-a

ppeal contending the elec toral board

never issued final decisions on the objections beca use it did not follow the require ments of the Open Meeting s Act (5 I L CS 120/1 et seq. (West 2010)) or section 10-10 of the Election Code (10 I L CS 5/ 10-10 (W est 2010)). Specifically , the ca ndidates conte nd section 2.01 of
t h e Ac t states “[a] quorum of members of a public body must be phy sically prese nt at t h e location of an open meeting .” 5 I L CS 120/2.01 (West 2008). Both parties conce de only one elec toral board member, Pamela Meyerson, was prese nt when the board rec onvened on Fe bruar y 1, 2013, to issue its written decisions. During oral argument, the objector’ s attorney contende d the elec toral board satisfied the require ments of the Act by announcing its decisions in an open meeting on J anuar y 28 and then issuing its decisions in an open meeting on Fe bruar

y 1. We disag ree

. ¶ 20 The purpose o f th e Open Meeting s Act is to ensure that deliberations and actions of public bodies be conducte d in an open and public session. 5 I L CS 120/1 (West 20 1 0); Gerwin v. Livingston County Board
, 345 I ll. App. 3d 352, 359 (2003). Section 2 of the Act requir es t h at , wi th some exceptions, “[a]ll meeting s of public bodies shall be open to the public.” 5 I L CS 120/2 (West 2010). Section 2.01 of the Act provides “[a] quorum of members of a public body must be phy sically prese nt at the location of an open meeting .” 5 I L CS 120/ 2.01 (West 2010). ¶ 21 Be tween J anuar y 28 and Fe bruar

y 1, two of the three elec toral board members signe d the

-5-written decisions. Contrary t o s ec t i o n 2.01 of the Act, when the elec toral board met on

Fe bruar y 1, a quorum of members was not prese nt to issue its written decisions, as the parties
agree only one board member was prese nt. Henc e, the proce dure used by the elec toral board for signing the written decisions violated the provisions of the Open Meeting s Act, as did the issuance of those decisions. Fur ther, section 2(e) of the Act provides “[n] o final action may be taken at a closed meeting .” 5 I L C S 120/2(e) (West 2008). I ssuing the signe d written decisions was the “fina l action” by the elec toral board and had to oc cur in a n open meeting with a quorum prese nt. The vote at the J anuar y 28 meeting coupled with the two signatures

on the written decisions obtained befor e the board’ s attempt to rec onvene a quorum does not suffice

. Other districts of the appellate court have held that the failure to meet the provisions of the Open Meeting s Act, without more, does no t n ec es s ar ily rende r an elec toral board’ s proce eding s null and void (see Powell v. East St

. Louis Electoral Board
, 337 I ll. App. 3d 334, 338-39 (2003))

. But, wher e the p u rpose of the Act is undermined by noncompliance with its provisi ons, an ele ctora l board’s a ctions will not be upheld. ¶ 22 The elec toral board made another misstep by failing to comply with the require ments of section 10-10 of the E l ec t i o n Code. Section 10-10 provides, in part, “[t ]he elec toral board
must state its finding s in writing and must state in writing which objections, if any , it has sustained. A copy of the decision shall be serve d upon the parties to the proce eding s in open proce eding s befor e the elec toral board.” 10 I L CS 5/10-10 (West 2010). Her e, written copies of the elec toral board’ s decisions sustaining L awr ence ’s objections to the ca n d i d at e’s nomination paper s wer e prese nted in a proce eding on Fe bruar y 1; howeve r, that proce eding

was not “b ef

o re the elec toral board” since only one member, rathe r than a quorum of the board, w as pre sent. ¶ 23 Due t o t h es e v i o l at i o n s of the Open Meeting s Act and the Election Code, no final decision on L awr ence ’s objections to the ca ndidates’ nomination pape rs was issued by the elec toral board. In the absenc e of final decisions by the elec toral board, the circ u i t court lacke d juris d i ct i o n t o revie w the board’ s actions. Since the circ uit court did not have jurisdiction, we likewise a re w ithout jurisdi ction.

¶ 24 Record of Procee dings ¶ 25 We also addre ss the elec toral board’ s failure to file a complete rec ord of proce eding s in
t h e circ uit court. S ection 10-10.1 of the Election Code provides, in part, when a candidate

or objector seeks judicial revie w of a decision by the elec t oral board, “the elec toral board shall cause the rec ord of proce eding s befor e the elec toral board to be filed with the cler k of the court on or befor e the date of the hearing on the petition or as order ed by the court.” 10 I L CS 5/ 10-10.1 (West 2010). ¶ 26 In reve rsing the elec toral board, Judg e Ward-Kirby noted she never rec eived a complete
copy of the re cord of

proce eding s befor e the e lectora l board. Theelec toral board claims to have filed an incomplete rec ord on Fe bruar y 20, 2013, one day afte r the deadline set by J udg e Ponce de L eon. After the case was transfe rre d to J udg e Ward-Kirby on Marc h 12, 2013, she order ed the e lectora l board to file a complete rec ord of proce eding s by 4 p.m. that day , but the board failed to meet that deadline, fi ling a rec ord the following morning that was still missing some of the exhibi ts that wer e prese nted to the board. At the time J udg e Ward-Kirby

-6-rec onvened a hearing on the morning of Marc h 13 to make a decision o n t h e ca n d idates’

petition, the complete rec ord had not been rec eived. Consequently
, the trial court could not have c onsidered a ll of the evidenc e pre sented to the e lectora l board. ¶ 27 As noted above, the require ments of the Election Code are j u ri sdictional and must be followed. Rivera v. City of Chicago Electoral Board
, 2011 I L App (1st) 110 2 8 3
, ¶ 2 0

. Although a circ uit court applies a manifest weight of the evidenc e standard of revie w to a n elec toral board’ s finding s of fac t, as J udg e Ward-Kirby noted, in the absenc e of a complete

rec ord, a trial judge is unable to deter mine whether the evidenc e sup p orts the elec toral board’ s decision. By failing to timely file the complete rec ord of proce eding s with the cler k of the court, the elec toral board failed to satisfy an essential require ment of section 10-10.1 of the Elec tion Code. This omi ssion alone re sulted in a failure of jurisdiction in the circ uit
court a nd, conseque ntly , in this court. ¶ 28 The elec toral board’ s violati o n o f s ec t i on 10-10.1, espec ially considering the lapse of

more time than usual to file a complete rec ord, is curious. Trial courts should be vigilant in
appropriately deali n g wi th elec toral boards that neg lect this statutory duty beca use of the potential disastrous eff

ect it ca n have on the appea l rig hts of third parties. ¶ 29 Finally
, a comment on that “little civics lesson” mentioned in the open i n g p ar agr ap h

. This case exempli fi es the importance of transpar ency in g overnme nt. Take n toge ther, the Open Meeting s Act and the Election Code require o ff i ci al action and the deliberations involving candida cies be open to public view

. I n a democr acy like ours, in which the integrity of the e lection proc ess is sacrosanct, nothingless is acc eptable.

¶ 30 Dismissed.

-7-