The Special Election May be the least of Board's Worries.

Mr. Peterson's reporting is correct, "The judge's ruling doesn't mention the election because he said he has no authority to call it off." What was made very clear that if the district conducted the election, he may exercise is authority to void the election, if the election impedes Mr. Fleming from serving.

But, the special election maybe the least of the board's worries The Board of Trustees made several decisions while case was still being litigated. One has to question the board's judgment and the legal counsel the board received. These decisions now have serious ramifications for the district.
Why would the president of the board of trustees declare and a majority of the board trustees concur that the trustees seat vacant, when that very question was being litigated. Clearly, this was a violation the State election code.
Sec. 145.004. FINAL JUDGMENT REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATION OF INELIGIBILITY. A candidate's entitlement to a place on the ballot or to a certificate of election is not affected by a judicial determination that the candidate is ineligible until a judgment declaring the candidate to be ineligible becomes final.

Clearly, it was improper for the board to declare the seat vacant while the issue of Mr. Fleming's eligibility was being litigated and should have seated Mr.Fleming while the case was adjudicated.


Because the Board declared the seat vacant, Mr. Tepper was seated, under the "carry

over doctrine." This raises several problems, for the district. first the  board

of trustees certified the election results on May 18, submitted these results to

Secretary of State on May 22. On June 3, Mr.Fleming took the oath of office. On September 21, the district court found that Ms. Chaffin claims that Mr. Fleming was ineligible were unfounded.
Obviously, two individuals cannot hold the same elected office. Clearly, the place 4 trustee position was never vacant, clearly on June 3, Mr. Fleming was the occupant of the office.

Unfortunately, Mr. Tepper did take actions "as the acting trustee place 4." He participated in deliberations of the board both in public meetings and in executive sessions, he voted on resolutions, made and second motions.

If Mr. Tepper participated discussions with attorneys on current or possible future litigation, he cannot claim those discussions were conducted under lawyer client privilege. In effect, the entire board's claim of lawyer client privilege may be challenged.

Any executive sessions attended by Mr. Tepper may have been violation of open meeting act. Any actions directly related to discussions or hearings conducted in executive session maybe subject to nullification.

Any agendas, minutes, recording, presentations, etc from excessive sessions, conveyed, or reviewed by Mr. Tepper may be considered public documents.
Any votes and motions by Mr. Tepper are subjected to a challenge, what is particularly problematic is Mr. Tepper seconded the budget resolution...do we even  have a budget?
Remember all the boogie man stories, about if person who wasn't really legally entitled to was to serve on board...guess what boo!