IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION MOSE VINES ACADEMY LOCAL ) SCHOOL COUNCIL, ET AL. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 08 CH 4912 ) THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ) Judge Sophia H. Hall THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOW COMES Plaintiffs, the Local School Councils of Mose Vines Academy ( Vines LSC ), the School of Technology ( Technology LSC ), and the School of Entrepreneurship LSC ( Entrepreneurship LSC ), and Reverend Charles Walker, in his official capacity as Mose Vines LSC member and individually as a Mose Vines community member, by and through their attorneys, Elaine K.B. Siegel and Associates, P.C., and in accordance with Section 2-701, and , of the Code of Civil Procedure, submits this Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Defendants, Board of Education of the City of Chicago ( Board or CPS ), and Arne Duncan, in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Chicago Public Schools (collectively Defendants ), and in support thereof, states the following: General Allegations 1. On or about February 7, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their three-count Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Other Relief (the Complaint ). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs complain against Defendants as follows: Defendant CPS is wrongfully failing and refusing to hold elections in

2 April 2008, for parent and community representatives to Plaintiff LSCs, as mandated by Section of the Illinois School Code (the School Code ), 105 ILCS 5/ et seq. Relevant portions of the School Code have been attached as Exhibit Group A. Defendant CPS is wrongfully preventing Plaintiff LSCs from exercising their statutory authority, as set forth in 105 ILCS 5/ et seq.; Defendant CPS is acting pursuant to policies is has promulgated in contravention of the School Code. CPS policy Governance of Alternative and Small Schools, (the 2007 Policy ), in violation of ß et seq. of the School Code because it strips all LSCs in so-called small schools of the authority vested in them under the School Code, and abolishes LSC elections mandated by the School Code Policy is attached as Exhibit B; 105 ILCS 5/ et seq. 2. In 1987, to achieve educational reform in school districts, the Illinois legislature passed the Illinois School Reform Act (the Act ), codified at 105 ILCS 5/34-1 et seq., now part of the School Code. The Act created local school councils ( LSCs ), for the each attendance center (school) within the Chicago Public Schools. The General Assembly stated that to achieve the goals that they desired they were going to make the individual local school the essential unit for educational governance and improvement and to establish a process for placing the primary responsibility for school governance and improvement in furtherance of such goals in the hands of parents, community residents, teachers and the school principal at the school level. Complaint _18,19; 105 ILCS 5/ B. 3. LSCs consist of twelve public officials, comprised of six elected parents, two appointed teachers, two elected community members, the school principal, and, in high schools, an appointed student member. The LSC has extensive statutory powers including, but not limited to, the selection of the school principal and the oversight of the school budget and school improvement plan (SIPAAA). Complaint 20, 21; 105 ILCS

3 5/ et seq. The Illinois Supreme Court has stressed, We hold that the local school councils are essential units of educational governance, empowered to make important budgetary, educational and administrative decisions regarding the Chicago public school system, and that the statutory scheme which denies or dilutes the vote of certain citizens must therefore be necessary to advance a compelling state interest. Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education, 142 Ill. 2d 54, 81 (1990). (Emphasis added). 4. Under the School Code, Defendant CPS has only the limited and enumerated statutory powers subject to the limitations in this article. Complaint _19; See 105 ILCS 5/ With very limited exceptions, the School Code requires Defendant Board of Education to hold biennial LSC elections at each attendance center. Complaint _47; 105 ILCS 5/34-2.1(c). 6. In accordance with its unlawful and ultra vires policy, Defendant CPS is, inter alia, refusing to schedule and hold elections for Plaintiff LSCs, despite the statutory requirements of the School Code. CPS s rationale to support this action is that Plaintiff LSCs are housed in small schools and are, therefore, exempt from the requirements of the School Code. Complaint 36-42; See 2007 Policy, attached as Exhibit B. 7. Under this same rationale, Defendant CPS is wrongfully denying parents and community members their legal right to run for and vote in their LSC elections, claiming that community members do not have the right to vote for or run in their LSC elections, as Plaintiff LSCs are advisory only. CPS asserts that it will appoint the parent and community representatives to the LSCs, and will conduct advisory polls for the parent representatives. Complaint 44-47; Exhibit B.

4 8. The School Code requires CPS to hold LSC elections every even numbered year on the second semester Parent Report Card Pickup day. 105 ILCS 5/34-2.1(c). The next CPS citywide LSC elections are scheduled on or about April 17, Defendant CPS is unlawfully preventing Plaintiff LSCs from holding elections to directly select parent and community representatives. Instead, CPS claims that it has the authority to appoint the parent and community representatives, and will conduct advisory polls for parent representatives. Complaint 44-47; 105 ILCS 5/ et seq. Defendants actions violate the well-settled requirements of the School Code, which cannot be read to authorize Defendants incursions into the powers of this important unit of local government: The local school councils role is far from being simply advisory. Clearly, the legislature envisioned that the local school councils would play an important role in the reform of the school system. Fumarolo, supra. at 86 (emphasis added). 10. Plaintiff Walker is currently a Vines LSC community representative-member. Defendant CPS is wrongfully denying Plaintiff Walker his legal right to get on the ballot and run for reelection. Defendant CPS is denying Plaintiff Walker his legal right to vote for other community members whom represent his interest. Complaint 41, 44; See 2007 Policy. 11. Defendant CPS s actions, and the 2007 Policy that purports to authorize them, are unlawful, and must be enjoined: The right to vote in an election of general interest is a fundamental right and any legislation which operates to impair a person s right to vote on grounds other than residency, age or citizenship, can only stand if it can survive a strict scrutiny analysis. Fumarolo, 142 Ill. 2d at 74, citing Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289,

5 44 L. Ed. 2d 172, 95 S. Ct (1975). 12. In accordance with their unlawful and ultra vires 2007 Policy, Defendant CPS is also refusing to allow Plaintiff LSCs from exercising their full statutory authority as mandated by the School Code. Complaint 39, 40, 42; 105 ILCS 5/ et seq. 13. Defendant CPS willfully misstates the law establishing and limiting their authority with respect to the governance of small schools. The School Code specifically and unambiguously requires the establishment of fully-empowered local school councils in small schools that are located in school buildings that had in place a legally constituted local school council. Complaint 34, 35; 105 ILCS 5/34-2.4b. 14. Mose Vines Academy, the School of Technology and the School of Entrepreneurship, were established in 2004 and 2003, respectively, and designated by CPS as small schools. Complaint 24, Mose Vines Academy, and the School of Technology and the School of Entrepreneurship, are located in school buildings formerly known as Orr and South Shore High Schools, respectively. Complaint 24, Prior to their restructuring into small schools, Orr and South Shore High Schools had LSCs, with elected members, and all of the statutory powers and duties afforded LSCs in accordance with the School Code at 105 ILCS 5/ et seq. Complaint 25, When CPS converted Orr and South Shore High Schools, they dismantled the LSCs that previously served these schools. In derogation of the School Code, CPS failed to establish LSCs with full statutory authority, for their small schools now located in these school buildings. Complaint 39, 41; 105 ILCS

6 5/34-2.4b. 18. Plaintiffs Mose Vines Academy LSC, School of Technology LSC, and the School of Entrepreneurship LSC are specifically and unambiguously entitled to have local school councils, as mandated by 105 ILCS 5/ et seq. Complaint 34, Mose Vines LSC and School of Technology LSC have repeatedly demanded that CPS recognize their LSCs in accordance with 105 ILCS 5/ et seq. CPS has refused, claiming Plaintiffs are only advisory LSCs, without the statutory powers granted in the School Code. Complaint 40, CPS s refusal to hold elections violates the School Code and is ultra vires. CPS has a non-discretionary, legal obligation to hold LSC elections for Mose Vines Academy, School of Technology and the School of Entrepreneurship strictly in accordance with the School Code. Complaint 45-47; 105 ILCS 5/ CPS has since taken arbitrary and unlawful action to undermine the law, and has acted in a way that circumvents the School Code s statutory scheme. Complaint _46. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 22. In Illinois, in order to establish a right to a preliminary injunction, a litigant must meet the requirements of the following four part test: i. Plaintiff has a clearly ascertainable right that needs protection; ii. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without the protection of an injunction; iii. There is no adequate remedy at law to redress plaintiff s

7 injury; and iv. Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits in the underlying action. Board of Education of Hawthorne School District Number 17 Marengo v. nd Eckmann, 103 Ill App. 3d 1127 (2 Dist. 1982). 23. Plaintiff LSCs have a clearly established right under the School Code to have elections to elect officials to represent parents and community members on the LSC. Defendant CPS has a corresponding obligation to hold these elections. Plaintiff Reverend Walker, a community representative on Plaintiff Mose Vines LSC, has an ascertainable right under the School Code to be on the ballot as community member representative, and to vote in and be part of Vines LSC elections. Plaintiff Walker has a right to run for reelection as a community representative and intends to do so. Complaint 4, 47, 49; 105 ILCS 5/ et seq. 24. This case involves the fundamental and important right to participate in and be part of the electoral process. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right and in the electoral context, and stated that a law will be upheld only if it withstands a strict scrutiny analysis. Tully v. Edgar, 171 Ill. 2d 297 (1996). Furthermore, the Illinois Constitution at Article III, ß3 states that "[a]ll elections shall be free and equal." Id. The Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted this section to import the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S Constitution s Fourteenth Amendment into Illinois elections. See Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education, 142 Ill. 2d 54, 70-71, (1990). Defendant CPS is wrongfully prohibiting Plaintiff Walker from taking part in the electoral process of the LSC that is part of his

8 community. Defendant CPS is also denying Plaintiff Walker his legal right to vote for other community representatives of his choice, which he believes will support his interests. Complaint _4; 105 ILCS 5/ et seq. 25. Without the issuance of a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs will be disenfranchised from holding and participating in LSC elections, and will be excluded from playing their role in their local schools established by the Illinois General Assembly. Without the issuance of an injunction, Plaintiffs will be governed by Defendant CPS appointees, not freely and democratically elected representatives of their choosing. Complaint _42; See 2007 Policy 26. An action at law cannot adequately redress the injuries to Plaintiffs. The Illinois Supreme Court held that, for there to be an adequate remedy at law which will deprive equity of its power to grant injunctive relief, the remedy must be clear, complete, and as practical and efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the equitable remedy. Bio-Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Trainor, 68 Ill.2d 540 (Ill. 1977). Money damages will not provide Plaintiff LSCs with their statutory rights under the School Code, including their right to have elections and have decision-making authority over their respective school communities. 27. As articulated in their Complaint, Plaintiffs establish that Defendant Board of Education is in violation of the School Code. Complaint 37, 42, 47. The School Code specifically mandates that small schools located in school buildings that ha[d] in place legally constituted local school councils are required to have local school councils with the powers granted to them under the School Code. Complaint 34, 35; 105 ILCS 5/34-2.4b. Defendants refuse to

9 recognize Plaintiff LSCs as LSCs with full statutory authority, are preventing Plaintiffs from being placed on the ballot or being able to participate in elections, and have promulgated policies that are in violation of the School Code and are ultra vires. Complaint 42, 43. With limited exception, the School Code requires Defendant Board of Education of the City of Chicago to hold biennial elections for every attendance center, and to recognize LSCs as having the authority granted according to the School Code. Complaint 30, 33, 34; 105 ILCS 5/ et seq. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mose Vines Academy LSC, School of Technology LSC, School of Entrepreneurship, and Reverend Charles Walker, respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant the following relief: Order Defendant CPS to hold elections for Plaintiff LSCs in April 2008, in accordance with 105 ILCS 5/ et. seq;. Enter a Preliminary Injunction pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/11-102, enjoining and compelling Defendant Chicago Board of Education to immediately recognize Plaintiff LSCs as local school councils with full statutory authority in accordance with 105 ILCS 5/ et seq.; Set aside Defendant CPS Policies that violate the School Code. Issue Preliminary Injunction instanter and without bond; Order that this Preliminary Injunction become a Permanent Injunction after a final hearing and a determination on the merits; Award Plaintiffs legal fees and costs in the bringing and prosecuting of this action; and Any further relief that this Court deems just and equitable. DATED: March 5, 2008 Respectfully submitted,

10 Elaine K.B. Siegel Benjamin P. Kailin Elaine K.B. Siegel & Assoc., P.C. 39 South LaSalle Street, Suite 617 Chicago, IL (312) Attorney No One of Plaintiffs Attorneys