Petitioner seeks to have me hold respondent accountable for its actions. Respondent asserts that the appeal is untimely since it was filed more than 30 days after the bond issue was passed. Additionally, respondent argues that to the extent petitioner alleges the video contained false and misleading information, such allegations are barred by the doctrine of res judicata , since petitioner previously raised essentially the same claim in an earlier appeal. The bond vote occurred on December 11, 1991. The board resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds was passed on February 10, 1992.
Petitioner offers no explanation for the delay.
Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as untimely. Petitioner contends in this appeal that the video contains false and misleading information designed to exhort the electorate to vote for the bond issue.