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. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  2. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  3. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  4. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  5. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

ADVERTISEMENT