Respondents raise numerous defenses. They assert that all their actions were lawful. They further contend that the petitions fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted because an officer may not be removed for alleged misconduct that occurred during a prior term of office. Respondents also claim that the petitions are untimely and that service of the petitions was defective. Before reaching the merits, I will address several procedural issues.
Respondents claim that service of the petitions was defective.
In the first appeal, petitioner allegedly attempted to personally serve Ginsberg on September 20, 1993. However, absent any evidence to the contrary, it appears that petitioner subsequently perfected service by having a third party serve Ginsberg on October 4 and Jones on October 6, 1993. Since respondents claim no prejudice from being served on the later dates, there is no reason to dismiss on that basis. Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claims regarding respondents' actions under the Open Meetings Law. However, that principle has been rejected.