ILNews

Case asks whether school board members can run for political office

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Lake Superior judge may not be breaking any new legal ground with an election-related ruling this week, but he’s set the stage for an appeal that could clear up confusion about whether nonpartisan school board members must give up their right to run for a public office that requires the candidate to declare their political party affiliation.

The ruling by Lake Superior Judge Jesse Villalpando came in George T. Janiec v. Lake County Board of Election and Registration, No. 45D12-1103-MI-00014. Hammond school board member George Janiec wants to run as a Republican against incumbent Democratic city mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. in the May 3 primary. The Democratic Party members of the Lake County Elections Board agreed to remove Janiec from the ballot on grounds that state statute prevents local school board members from political campaigning. If Janiec wants to run for mayor, he must first resign from the school board.

Janiec appealed to the trial court. Judge Villalpando on Wednesday ruled against him and found that he should essentially remove himself from the ballot. At issue is whether Janiec breached an implied statutory duty outlined in Indiana Code Section 20-25-3-3(c)(4) that he wouldn’t be influenced by any political considerations once he took the school board seat July 1, 2010, but did just that when declaring his candidacy for the partisan municipal mayor seat in February.

In his ruling, the judge wrote, “The court finds as a matter of law that the Election Board acted consistent with legislative authority pursuant to: I.C. 20-25-3-3(c)(4), contrary to the legal authority cited in either Petitioner’s or Respondent’s legal memoranda. I.C. 20-25-3-3 specifically applies to the question of conduct to which eligible school board members must adhere. This statute is unambiguous and spot on as it applies to the operative facts of this case.”

Judge Villalpando wrote this isn’t a case of first impression as the election board attorney James Weiser argued, and that the petitioner’s attorneys Cordell Funk and William Fine are also incorrect in saying the election board created a new standard in denying Janiec’s candidacy.

In his 10-page ruling, the judge cited a code of ethics adopted by the School City of Hammond and the Indiana School Board Association that states board members should refuse to "'play politics in either the traditional, partisan or in any petty sense." The Indiana Supreme Court dictated the limited judicial review applicable in this case in its ruling, LTV Steel v Griffin, and using that case, Judge Villalpando ruled that Janiec alone created the condition that undermined his candidacy for mayor according to any straightforward examination of I.C. 20-25-3-3(c)(4). As a result, the Election Board did not abuse its discretion in its March 7th ruling barring Janiec’s candidacy.

The holding is limited to the specific operative facts stated in Janiec’s case and is not intended to establish new policies pertaining to school board members’ constitutionally protected political activities, other than filing a declaration of candidacy for partisan municipal office while holding a nonpartisan office.

But whether the judge intends for this to be a broad stroke or not, history shows that others have done what Janiec is being barred from doing now.

Four decades ago, Hammond school board member Ralph Potesta used his position to win election as a Republican to the Indiana Senate, and currently two other Lake County school board members remain on the May 3 primary ballot for city council seats despite their current positions. Gary School Board trustee LaBrenda King-Smith faced a challenge in her running for city council but that failed on technical grounds. Lake Station School Board member Michael Stills is running for an at-large City Council seat and has been unchallenged.

A notice of appeal in Janiec’s case was filed following a hearing on Thursday, but nothing yet appears on the appellate docket. This issue is on a truncated time table because early voting begins on Monday.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Ð?ажнаÑ? Ð?Ð?ФÐ?РÐ?Ð?ЦÐ?Я о войне в Ð?ивии
    Ð?амÑ? и Ð?оÑ?пода!

    Ð?Ñ?ли вÑ? инÑ?еÑ?еÑ?Ñ?еÑ?еÑ?Ñ? немного полиÑ?икой, Ñ?о должнÑ? бÑ?ли замеÑ?иÑ?Ñ? - Ñ?Ñ?и неожиданнÑ?е волнениÑ? в Ñ?Ñ?Ñ?анаÑ? Ð?Ñ?Ñ?ики
    возникли неÑ?пÑ?оÑ?Ñ?а.

    Ð?Ñ?Ñ?Ñ? 2 веÑ?Ñ?ии Ñ?Ñ?иÑ? Ñ?обÑ?Ñ?ий - "оÑ?иÑ?иалÑ?наÑ?" и "неоÑ?иÑ?иалÑ?наÑ?", и обе веÑ?Ñ?ии Ñ?коÑ?ее Ñ?водÑ?Ñ? в Ñ?Ñ?оÑ?онÑ? оÑ? Ñ?еалÑ?нÑ?Ñ? Ñ?акÑ?ов.
    Ð?еÑ?Ñ?иÑ? 1: Ð?аддаÑ?и - Ñ?иÑ?ан и Ñ?амодеÑ?жеÑ?, Ñ?Ñ?Ñ?елÑ?л в миÑ?нÑ?Ñ? гÑ?аждан, поÑ?Ñ?омÑ? его надо бÑ? Ñ?бÑ?аÑ?Ñ?.
    Ð?еÑ?Ñ?иÑ? 2: на Ñ?амом деле Ð?вÑ?опе Ñ? Ð?меÑ?икой заÑ?оÑ?елоÑ?Ñ? немного Ð?ивийÑ?кой неÑ?Ñ?и, и они Ñ?еÑ?или навеÑ?Ñ?и неболÑ?Ñ?ой "дебоÑ?"

    РаÑ?Ñ?моÑ?Ñ?им веÑ?Ñ?иÑ? 1.
    Ð?а, Ð?аддаÑ?и Ñ?же Ñ?оÑ? еÑ?Ñ? Ñ?Ñ?аÑ?ик, емÑ? конеÑ?но поÑ?а бÑ? и на пенÑ?иÑ?. Ð?о извеÑ?Ñ?но ли вам, Ñ?Ñ?о конкÑ?еÑ?но в Ð?ивии
    наÑ?од имееÑ? веÑ?Ñ?ма вÑ?Ñ?окие пÑ?еÑ?еÑ?енÑ?ии пÑ?и его пÑ?авлении? УÑ?иÑ?елÑ? полÑ?Ñ?аÑ?Ñ? под $3.000, вÑ?плаÑ?Ñ? безÑ?абоÑ?нÑ?м
    поÑ?Ñ?дка $1000 и Ñ?ак далее. Ð?а, он Ñ?Ñ?ал Ñ?кÑ?оÑ?аÑ?Ñ? гÑ?Ñ?ппки взбÑ?нÑ?овавÑ?иÑ?Ñ?Ñ? бедÑ?инов, но кÑ?о-нибÑ?дÑ? понимаеÑ?
    Ñ?еалÑ?нÑ?е пÑ?иÑ?инÑ? Ñ?Ñ?иÑ? бÑ?нÑ?ов?
    ЭÑ?а веÑ?Ñ?иÑ? не вÑ?деÑ?живаеÑ? никакой кÑ?иÑ?ики.

    Ð?еÑ?Ñ?иÑ? 2.
    Ð?еÑ?Ñ?Ñ? Ð?ивии? Ð?а, она оÑ?лиÑ?аеÑ?Ñ?Ñ? вÑ?Ñ?оким каÑ?еÑ?Ñ?вом, Ð?ивийÑ?каÑ? неÑ?Ñ?Ñ? оÑ?енÑ? Ñ?иÑ?Ñ?аÑ?. Ð?о еÑ? Ñ?ам не Ñ?ак много.
    Ð?а и к Ñ?омÑ? же, заÑ?ем Ñ?огда бÑ?доÑ?ажиÑ?Ñ? Ð?гипеÑ? и пÑ?оÑ?ие аÑ?Ñ?иканÑ?кие гоÑ?Ñ?даÑ?Ñ?Ñ?ва, коÑ?оÑ?Ñ?е веÑ?Ñ? пÑ?оÑ?лÑ?й
    год вообÑ?е никого не Ñ?Ñ?евожили и не волновали?! Ð? Ñ?Ñ?Ñ? вдÑ?Ñ?г - "Ñ?иÑ?анÑ?", "извеÑ?ги" и Ñ?.п.

    Ð?а, Ñ?Ñ?а Ñ?иÑ?Ñ?аÑ?иÑ? дополниÑ?елÑ?но подогÑ?ела Ñ?енÑ? на неÑ?Ñ?Ñ?. Ð?Ñ?делÑ?нÑ?м коÑ?поÑ?аÑ?иÑ?м Ñ?Ñ?о вÑ?годно.

    Ð?о иÑ?Ñ?ина коÑ?оÑ?е.
    Ð?аддаÑ?и не Ñ?ак давно наÑ?ал обÑ?единÑ?Ñ?Ñ? ближневоÑ?Ñ?оÑ?нÑ?е Ñ?Ñ?Ñ?анÑ? под идеей пеÑ?ейÑ?и на Ñ?аÑ?Ñ?Ñ?Ñ?
    за неÑ?Ñ?Ñ? и Ñ?оваÑ?Ñ? Ð?Ð? доллаÑ?ами, Ð?Ð? евÑ?о, а алÑ?Ñ?еÑ?наÑ?ивой вÑ?емÑ? Ñ?Ñ?омÑ?. Ð? Ð?гипеÑ? - одна из Ñ?Ñ?Ñ?ан,
    коÑ?оÑ?аÑ? Ñ?Ñ?о поддеÑ?жала...

    Ð?одÑ?обнее - здеÑ?Ñ?:
    http://sterligov.livejournal.com/4389.html

    Ð?днако в попÑ?лÑ?Ñ?нÑ?Ñ? СÐ?Ð? Ñ?Ñ?о никогда не Ñ?кажÑ?Ñ?.

    P.S. У Саддама Ð¥Ñ?Ñ?ейна, кÑ?Ñ?аÑ?и, Ñ?оже бÑ?ли Ñ?акие наÑ?инаниÑ?. Ð?ообÑ?е, поÑ?ле кÑ?изиÑ?а оооÑ?енÑ? многие
    Ñ?Ñ?Ñ?анÑ? Ñ?Ñ?али задÑ?мÑ?ваÑ?Ñ?Ñ?Ñ? об Ð?Ð?Ð?Ð?Ð?Ð?Ð?Ð?Ð?Ð? Ð?Т Ð?Ð?Ð?Ð?СÐ?Ð?Ð?СТÐ? Ð?Т Ð?Ð?Ð?Ð?Ð?РÐ?. Рано или поздно
    Ñ?Ñ?о пÑ?оизойдÑ?Ñ?. ФРС Ñ?же некÑ?да понижаÑ?Ñ? Ñ?Ñ?авки.

    РаÑ?пÑ?оÑ?Ñ?Ñ?аниÑ?е Ñ?Ñ?о где Ñ?можеÑ?е. Ð?Ñ?ди должнÑ? знаÑ?Ñ? пÑ?авдÑ?.


    Ð?Ñ?Ñ?аÑ?и, Ñ?Ñ?о Ñ?оже по Ñ?еме: Ð?еликобÑ?иÑ?аниÑ? оÑ?Ñ?иÑ?алаÑ?Ñ? об Ñ?ниÑ?Ñ?ожении ливийÑ?киÑ? Ð?Ð?С, огнÑ?, Ð?еликобÑ?иÑ?аниÑ? пÑ?имеÑ? Ñ?Ñ?аÑ?Ñ?ие в военной опеÑ?аÑ?ии в Ð?ивии, Ñ?бÑ?оÑ?или, РоÑ?Ñ?иÑ? оÑ?казалаÑ?Ñ? Ñ?Ñ?аÑ?Ñ?воваÑ?Ñ? в военной опеÑ?аÑ?ии в Ð?ивии, Ð?, СÐ? Ð?Ð?Ð? пÑ?инÑ?л Ñ?езолÑ?Ñ?иÑ? по Ð?ивии, о

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT