Petitioner also seeks an order holding respondents personally and financially responsible for all excessive spending directly or indirectly caused by their alleged improper procedures, and requiring the Commissioner to oversee all future spending in the district. Respondents deny petitioner's claims, and assert that it was within the purview of the board to appoint this temporary, purely advisory committee and that there was no delegation of authority or powers reserved to the board. Respondents also contend that the petitions are defective in form and content, are untimely, and that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to afford the relief requested. Respondents further claim that petitioner lacks standing to bring these appeals, either in his personal capacity because he is not an aggrieved party, or on behalf of other district residents, and that the petitions are moot in any event because the committee was discharged in June 1997. The petitions are verified, identify the respective respondents, and include the required notices of petition.
Respondents correctly assert, however, that the appeals are untimely.
The petitions were verified and served in August 1997, more than six months after the committee was formed, more than two months after it was disbanded, and more than 30 days after petitioner received final information concerning the alleged financial conflict of interest of one committee member. No excuse was proffered by petitioner for the delay. Thus, the petitions in both appeals are untimely and must be dismissed. Petitioner also lacks standing to pursue these appeals. The appeal must also be dismissed on the merits.