Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
22516
B. SPIEGEL and pursuant to the U.S. and State Constitutions and the Election and
School Codes of the State of Illinois, petition against the Respondents RIVERSIDE-
BROOKFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT 208 and the District's School Board members in
WELCH and MATTHEW SINDE, Jr. This Petition seeks to contest the validity of the
referendum placed on the April 5, 2011 general election ballot by these Respondents
and seeks declaratory, injunctive and other additional relief. In support of this
Brookfield School District 208. He is also a property owner who is compelled to pay
property taxes in said District and was so on April 5, 2011, the date of the
who are registered voters, property owners and parents of school children in
“District”) is the school district that placed a referendum on the ballot for the April
are respectively, the President, the Vice President, and Board members of School
District 208 and are named herein in both their official and individual capacities for
the purposes of injunctive relief and damages. They are referred to hereafter as
5. Prior to the general election, the District and its members became aware
that the the tax rate increase and the estimated amount of said increase on a
property valued at $100,000.00 as stated on the ballot, did not include the state
both the District and its members understated the estimated amount of the tax
increase by approximately two-thirds.
understated the amount of the tax increase, the District and its members
cast on the referendum on April 5, 2011, a total of 3,314 voters voted No and just
Count I
Declaratory Judgment
17. The nature of this Count is a proceeding for declaratory relief under 735
between the parties concerning whether the referendum ballot was invalid by reason
of its misstating the amount of the tax increase and whether the electioneering
18. The Board and its members were required by the School Code to
determine how much the tax bills would increase per $100,000.00 of assessed
valuation if the referendum measure was to pass. The Respondents phrased the
19. The parties are governed by the Election and School Codes, by the
language on the ballot used to misstate the amount of the tax increase, by the
20. A dispute has arisen between the Petitioners and the Respondents with
ballot and whether the effect of using such figures rendered that ballot invalid.
Petitioners further claim that the use of that knowingly misleading calculation,
violation of both the State and U.S. Constitutions and the School and Election Codes
and therefore made the ballot invalid. The Respondents claim there was no
intentional misleading of the voters, that the ballot was not invalid, that the
discrepancy in the calculations was adequately explained to the voters prior to the
election and that they did not engage in illegal electioneering despite their use of
public resources and public funds to promote an affirmative vote on the referendum.
Respondents.
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, of Article I, Section 2 and Article III, Section 3
of the Illinois Constitution (1970) and of 10 ILCS 5/23-20, et seq. of the Election
Code, 105 ILCS 5/20, et seq. Of the School Code and 735 ILCS 5/2-701 against the
Respondents as follows:
a. the court declares the District 208 referendum ballot invalid for
increase;
c. the court order the individual Respondents to pay from their private
this action and to pay form their own funds all costs expenses and
d. the Court grant Petitioners any other relief it may deem equitable in the
circumstances.
Count II
Preliminary Injunction
1-8 above as if fully set forth herein as paragraphs 23-30 of this Count II.
31. The Respondents were required by the School Code, to determine how
much tax bills would increase per $100,000.00 of assessed value if the District 208
32. The Respondents were required to clearly indicate the substance of the
public question. Their failure to factor in the State equalizer so vastly understated
the effect of the proposed tax increase that the voters were denied the ability to
know the fundamentals and general effect of the proposed increase. Smith v.
Calhoun Community School District No. 40, 16 Ill.2nd 328, 157 N.E.2 nd 59 (1959).
and each of the individual District Board member Respondents named herein to
enjoin them from using any public funds to pay for their defense in this action and
from using any public funds or resources in the future to promote an affirmative
34. The harm of not imposing such an injunction far outweighs any harm in
granting such injunctive relief as the injunction would merely prevent the
Respondents from doing what they are already prohibited by law from doing.
Petitioners are in good faith defending their constitutional rights under both the U.S.
and State Constitutions for the benefit of all the property taxpayers in the 208 th
District and to require them to post a bond is not in the public interest.
36. The Petitioners have incurred costs, expenses and attorneys' fees in
prosecuting this cause and should be awarded all of such expenditures from each of
future in any manner similar to how those funds were used by these Respondents to
incurred as a result of this action with any such award to be paid jointly and
Count III
Election Interference
1-8 above as if fully set forth herein as paragraphs 37-44 of this Count III.
of the Election Code (entitled Election interference) by using public funds to support
tables, chairs, official publications and the like at school events on school
grounds and inside the school building seeking support for the referendum
pro-referendum group for its use in pro-referendum fliers and other campaign
literature;
f. using the same television spot on RBTV.org. the website for the
television station;
process and equal protection rights of the Petitioners as guaranteed by both the
State and U.S. Constitutions and by the State Constitution's mandate that all
elections shall be free and equal. (Art. 3, sec. 3, Illinois Constitution, 1970).
47. Petitioners have been injured by the actions of these Respondents, and
had to expend countless time as well as financial resources to counter the illegal
continue to incur costs, expenses and attorneys' fees in defending their rights.
judgment in accordance with the due process and equal protection clauses of the 5 th
and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, of Article I, Section 2 and Article III,
Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution (1970) and of 10 ILCS 5/23-20, et seq. of the
Election Code, 105 ILCS 5/20, et seq. Of the School Code and 735 ILCS 5/2-701
funds all damages and all costs, expenses and attorneys, fees of this action;
circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________________
Andrew B. Spiegel, Attorney for Petitioners
_________________________________
ANTHONY PERAICA
_____________________________________
Notary Public
Andrew B. Spiegel
Attorney for Petitioners
407 S. Dearborn Street
Suite 1170
Chicago, Illinois 60605
630 567-5379