Updates on cases, laws, and other topics of interest to local governments

Subscribe by Email

Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Subscribe in a Reader

Follow Municipal Minute on Twitter

Disclaimer

Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Wednesday, November 13, 2024

Administrative Decision Reversed and Remanded Due to Lack of Factual Findings to Support Decision


The Bond County Community United School District 2 (District) voted to close one of its public schools and transfer its 107 students to other schools. In response to the school closing, the "Sorento Parents Committee of Ten" (Parents Committee) filed a petition with the Regional Board of School Trustees for Bond, Christian, Effingham, Fayette, and Montgomery Counties (RBST) proposing to detach the school from the District and attach its property to the Mount Olive Community Unit School District.

The RBST held a hearing on the detachment petition, and heard evidence presented by the Parents Committee, before issuing an administrative order to deny the petition. The RBST determined that the Parents Committee failed to establish that the students would receive significant direct educational benefits from switching school districts. The Parents Committee appealed the denial of its petition to the circuit court which upheld the decision of the RBST. The Parents Committee then appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, which reversed and remanded the case back to the RBST in Sorento Parents Committee of Ten v. Regional Board of School Trustees for Bond.

The Appellate Court first reviewed the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, which requires administrative agencies to include findings of fact and conclusions of law in their final decisions. Because the RBST ’s administrative order did not contain any factual findings or legal conclusions, the Appellate Court held that there was no basis for a reviewing court to review the decision for error. As a result of the Board’s failure to meet these requirements in issuing its final decision, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the circuit court and vacated the decision of the RBST. The case was remanded back to the RBST for further review, evaluation, and decision.

Post Authored by Madeline Tankersley and Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink


0 comments:

Post a Comment