Court Opinion

ID: 9574374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:04:28.339507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:27.293981
License: Public Domain

*412CONCURRING OPINION BY
PADGETT, J.
I concur in the above opinion.
As the opinion notes, HPERB found that HSTA made disbursements “out of service fees during the subject period in program areas clearly outside the scope of permissible service fee expenditures.” I write this concurring opinion to make clear that the appellants have not, in these proceedings, properly raised any contention that those improper expenditures violated their rights under the State and Federal Constitutions. Compare Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977); International Ass’n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961).
On an examination of the record, it is clear that no such issue was raised by appellants in their pleadings in the court below. Moreover, on the eve of oral argument, appellants filed a document entitled “Notice of Pending Federal Cases and Reservation of Rights Under Federal Law” making clear that they did not desire to submit such issues to this court. Accordingly, no constitutional issue is before us in this case.