*1 might future, in happen a post-conviction proceeding be appears likely such a here that I think we prospect judicial should conserve time by addressing, as the did, court the merits of jeopardy defendant’s double conten- tion. To so do under of this would the circumstances case not undermine the file a requirement party must appeal notice of within the rules prescribed by time after a criminal is that problem conviction. The this case conviction, defendant’s notice appeal was his filed before but he was tried and his appeal convicted while pending.
Because the court prefers to delay consideration thе substantive aspects this case and view of that this possibility may court, case this feel I again reach I should refrain from at this expressing my views time double jeopardy question. I respectfully dissent however from the manner in this which the court disposing appeal; raise procedural barrier is to case complicate the litigation instead dispense justice. of to
(No. 54274. OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION THE CITY OF CHICAGO, v. CHICAGO TEACHERS Appellant, UNION, al., et LOCAL Appellees. 18, 1981.
Opinion December filed *2 SIMON, J., dissenting.
Michael Girard, E. Murray, Chicago (Richard J. Whitten, Wren, Patricia L. counsel), J. John appellant. Poltrock,
Lawrence A. B. Giam- Chicago (Wayne Freerksen, N. pietro Poltrock & Gregory Dejong, Giampietro, Chicago, appellees. MORAN opiniоn delivered the of the court:
JUSTICE The circuit court of Cook County declaratory entered a judgment holding that the board of education of city Chicago (Board) had breached its collective bargaining agreement with the Chicago (Union) by Teachers Union closing schools one day before the date June provided by the official school calendar. In addition to *3 accounting, the court pay ordered the Board to employees covered day for the on which schools were closed. appellate The court 89 Ill. App. affirmed. 3d 861.
There is but question one to be resolved: Are the employees covered under the bargaining agree- collective ment entitled to day’s one salary?
On 13, 1976, October the Board and the Union entered a into collective bargaining agreement year for the school September 1, 1976, 31, to August 1977. Provisions were made for annual salaries for teachers and career service employees. On 23, 1977, February adopted the Board a recommendation, for the purpose reducing the deficit in the Board’s budget, that general superintendent allowed the of schools lay off employees days for three during June 1977. In a press 24, 1977, release dated March the superin- tendent announced that the “Chicago Public Schools will days three rather than the day early
close one June above, the schools were originally As stated contemplated.” 16, union 1977. The day then closed one early, June arbitration, one-day layoff that the violated sought alleging the Board. The its bargaining agreement collective Union brought enjoin an action to arbitration. amendment, and, by counterclaimed arbitration compel declaratory relief sought claimed breach of contract pay accounting requiring and an arbitration enjoined the one circuit court day’s salary. The and entered earlier. the order described trial noted, testimony
As before court financial condition predominantly court to the pertained the collective surrounding the Board and the circumstances short, record reveals bargaining agreement. fiscal 1976-77 Board had a of funds for budgeted deficit comprised This amount was approximately $115.3 million. $52 plus projected $63.3 a a million accumulated deficit aof appearance operating permit million deficit. To for the total budget appropriations balanced when (see revenue anticipated individual line items exceeded the Stat. (Ill. Rev. (Code) section 34 — 44 of the School Code budget), a balanced par. 44) requiring ch. 34 — line- negative “pro-rata” two budgeted deficit was offsеt The pro-rata million. totaling $115.3 item appropriations million $91.66 negative a designations line item consisted of appropriation $506 million appropriation, following salaries, appropria million $23.64 a negative teachers’ civil service tion, appropriation $132 million following as the as well salary appropriations salaries. The above Edu to the applied were negative pro-rata appropriations were Fund, salary costs to which primary cational fund charged. *4 at the that shows report
The 1977 annual financial Fund the Educational year, 1976-77fiscal conclusion of the million, represent- $13.2 of about operating surplus had ing revenues еxcess expenditures opera- for current tions. During same period, the Board reduced million; accumulated $17.2 deficit almost The record that, also shows $19.1 out of million expected taxes, receive from $1.4 State aid and only million was 23,1977, realized. February adopted recommendation by the Board providing three-day layoff for a at the end of the school term was designed one of the measures compensate for the This discrepancy. recommendation was phase second plan of a adopted by the Board directed at eliminating deficit, the accumulated but the first time a recommendation for an early closing wаs adopted. The annual financial statement that at showed the close of the fiscal year the Educational Fund had a total deficit of $70.6 approximately million. The record reveals would cost the Board $2.8 about million to pay the teachers one day’s salary.
The essential portions of the contract as it concerns this review are:
“ARTICLE 36-SALARIES 36—1. The annual salaries of all teachers and the prorated monthly segments thereof are forth in set salary teacher schedules Appendix attached hereto as A. Such schedules and all other governing compensation and Appen- remuneration contained in dix A are hereby рart made a of this Agreement.
36—2. service The annual salaries of all career employees in the bargaining prorated unit and the monthly segments thereof are set forth the career salary service in Appendix schedules hereto attached A. Such schedules and all provisions governing other compensation Appen- and remuneration contained dix A hereby are part made a Agreement.” Appendix A specifically incorporated schedules into salary the contract. Schedule 1Aprovided for the schedule “[b]asic of school month upon salaries and annual salaries based 6-hour day during regular school term оf weeks for
68 oe<\” staff regularly appointed teaching members of the (The days 10 salary payment annual included the pay vacation so that was based 41 weeks of upon addition, 44—31 of employment.) paragraph weeks of agreement provided: the in
“The BOARD shall maintain a school calendar Employees which: for 39weeks shallreceive scheduled salary (including pay) prorated their annual vacation (39 over 41 weeks and two weeks of school weeks vacation). aaa”
Finally, paragraph agreement provided: 36—3 of the
“In the School provisions accordance with the Illinois, salary compensatory Code of and schedules Agreement shall and remuneration terms, subject рrovisions, be to the and conditions of fiscal appropriations contained the therefore supplemental budgets.” 1976-77annual and school Section 3 budget provided: Board’s salaries appropriations
“That the herein made for wages shall be for officers and/or regarded as both as to the appropriations maximum appropriated length sum time for which and the employed. No position incumbent is to be of each employee continuous right shall have the to demand employment by appro- compensation reason of him priation necessary lay if it off becomes account of lack of or lack of funds.” work bar- that the collective appellate The court concluded salary for an annual gaining agreement guaranteed teachers in the the limitation year, notwithstanding 39-week school whereby subject budget agreement annual to which the because of lay off teachers right reserved the concluded lack of court funds. Because clear, consider it declined to agreement terms of the were a clause requested Union uncontroverted evidence that the separate guarantee the contract or a written were both of assuring year, contract a full 39-week guaran- a written (After request refused. a third Union statement, tee, prepared following the Board made the top “Our team: negotiating thé the Union superintendent, to and to year school priorities qualitative are to maintain a full children, their provide stability for a half-million members, City parents, our staff and the citizens was then agreement Chicago.” bargaining The collective parties.) executed if the that even appellate court further concluded pay the Board to unequivocally obligate
contract did not subject annual if were salaries and *6 con the contractual introductory language budget, of the current “lack in light dition of of funds” was not met layoff, $13.2 and a operating surplus of million dollars therefore, court also found unnecеssary. was The discretionary that the improperly delegate Board did not rather, power budget; to fix a adopt salaries of teachers and view, it in its when the Board exercised its discretion 861, entered 870. agreement. App. into the 89 Ill. 3d arguments. On appeal, presents principal the Board two First, it argues that the of Board one-day layoff for economic breach of the reasons did not constitute a Second, argues collective bargaining agreement. layoff that it has a for discretionary power impose to it and which reasonably economic reasons which exercised argues cannot that by be restricted contraсt. The Union one-day layoff provided breached the a guaranteed annual that the contractual condition salary, budget “lack in of funds” contained section of the in the met originally appropriated because the salaries bargain- budget more than annual salaries of the covered the members, agree- ing bargaining unit and the collective discretion, than ment an rather constituted exercise of fix annual delegation of the teachers’ power Board’s salaries. reached, only
Because we need consider of the result discretionary power impose whether the Board has the layoff by not be restricted economic reasons that could bargaining agreement the collective this case. Illinois 62 Ill. (1975), Education Association v. Board Education 127, County College 2d and v. Cook Trustees Union, 470, 62 Ill. the unio (1976), Teachers Local 1600 2d n bargaining agreement and board entered a collective into demotion, involuntary whereby discharge, or other in the teacher had to be change employment any status of per preceded classroom evaluation of the teacher’s board, formance. with the evalua complying without termi procedure clearly agreement, tive in the outlined cases, Code nated the teacher’s services. In those the School (Ill. imposed upon duty the board the teachers appoint 1973, 122, 20.7) empowered Rev. Stat. ch. par. 10 — terminate dismissal or the employment of teachers (Ill. Rev. probationary nonrenewal of teacher’s contracts 10—22.4, 15). 122, pars. through Stat. ch. — 1 1 24 24 — cases, In both to be discretion powers court held these compliance ary nondelegable, and that a termination failed to though the board the statute was valid even the collective comply with the evaluation County v. Cook bargaining agreement. Board Trustees Ill. 2d Union, (1976), 62 College Teachers Local 1600 476; Education Illinois Association v. Board Education *7 127, 130-31. 62 (1975), Ill. 2d not, court the
The above two cases do such аs suggests, hinge party, on fact that a third the arbitrator, the board’s delegation of object was the of the County In v. Cook discretionary power. Board Trustees of Union, an arbitra- is made of College Teachers no mention Education, tor. Illinois Association v. Board Education of notwith- part, this trial decision court reversed the court’s arbitrator could that the standing holding the lower court’s This court remedy. a grant employment not contracts as
71 reversed because the an arbitrator could trial court held that require reevaluation in accordance with the terms (62 470, 476.) collective bargaining agreement. Ill. 2d emphasis of this party court’s a third opinion was on (the the arbitrator) being object delegation of of contract, power board’s teaching renew a but on impropriety subordinating power of to the board’s terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
In neither of the above cases did court construe agreeing board’s to a provision for classroom allowing evaluation before a as an teacher could be terminated hire, exercise of discretionary power to teachers and to Rather, terminate their employment. the court concluded the contract provision had no effect the discretionary powers granted to the board Sсhool See Code. v. 261, 271; Lindblad (1906), Board Education 221 Ill. of Weary v. 182, (1977), Education Ill. 3d App. 184-86;Board Education v. Associa Education Bockford (1972), tion 1090, 1093; Ill. App. 3d Elder v. Board of 56, Education (1965), 60 Ill. App. 2d 68. As this court stated in Illinois Education v. Association Board Education:
“Strict requires construction us to hold that neither powers rights granted by conferred nor the section 24 — 11 expanded by were or restricted of paragraph Appendix M of XXX to the collective bargaining agreement.” 127, 62 Ill. 2d 130-31.
In our judgment, holdings v. Trustees Cook County College Teachers Union and Illinois Educa tion Association v. Board Education control this case. Here, section 10 — 19 of the boards grants Code discretionary power “sрecify closing than date earlier that set on the annual calendar when the schools district provided have the minimum of computable number attendance].” days under this Section days pupil of actual [176 (I Rev. Stat. 19.) par. ch. Section ll. 10 —
72 duties, com 34 — 16 empowers prescribe Board to pensation employees. and of Section terms office of provides: 34 — 18 general supervision shall
“The board exercise public management public of education and power: school system city, of the and shall have 1. for the estab provision To make suitable throughout year lishment and maintenance or direct, such'portion 9 may not less than thereof as months, 000; grades of all and kinds schools O O O Article, Subject
8. in this to the limitations employees employ teachers and other educational 1975, 122, (Ill. fix ch. compensation.” their Rev. Stat. 18.) par. 34 — 34 — 18 provides:
Section also powers granted specifications
“The herein exclusive, not be as but the board are construed requi may shall all that be powers also exercise other develop site or and the proper for the maintenance public system, ment of a inconsistent with apply all school of this Code which 122,par. 34 — 18. districts.” Ill. Rev. ch. Stat. discretionary derived power, as the had board Just Code, in Illinois from the terminate Education v. Trustees v. Board Association Board Education and Union, empowers the Code County Cook College Teachers (see Bond v. budgetary Board to control considerations 242, 248), well as Ill. as (1980), Education 2d earlier than closing it to date specifically set empowering calendar, the minimum long on the so set annual granted powers number of has met. Like the days been cases, here powers the Code in the the Board’s above two delegated. See may not discretionary are unto itself and be 261, 271; (1906), 221 Ill. v. Board Education Lindblad 3d App. 46 Ill. (1977), v. Weary Education 184-86. day early
The Board’s schools one closing action compliance power granted by with its the Code. *9 requirements keeping Board met the minimum time open schools as sеctions 10 — 19 and established Further, 18(1). huge in of a accumulated deficit light 34 — and a in anticipated reduction State aid revenue both and local property (reductions taxes which were not con templated at the bargaining agreement time the collective was executed), to its closing day early pursuant schools one statutory authority, on a scheduled day when students were hours, only discriminatory two was arbitrary, or not (1981), unreasonable. See v. 84 Bagley Board Education of 474, 479, Ill. 2d citing v. Richards Board Education of (1960), 104, 109; 21 Ill. 2d v. Bond Board Education (1980), Ill. 81 246. 2d case,
In this any length terms the relating to the school term the agreement collective were bargaining subject to the Board’s statutory power to close the schools early. Inasmuch as closing Chicago the schools one public day was early compliance effected of the Code, that action was a lawful exercise of the Board’s discretionary power.
We note parenthetically that the Board’s action closing the schools was last in an taken resort effort to reduce the deficit. The instituted many accumulated Board other cost-saving measures the This closing. before school fact, combined with the explicit requirements section 10 — 19 of the Code that the minimum Board maintain a attendance, term of 176 days of pupil actuаl and of section 34 — 18 that a public school term in schools Chicago the duration, must be not less than nine militates months’ “against the court’s the appellate allowing concern about Board an opportunity lay any unlimited teachers at to off time because of its accumulated deficit. that,
We also note the contrary finding court, part we find no clear intention The collective guarantee year. Board to a 39-week school bargaining subject to section budget, gave right lay which Board the off Moreover, “on account lack of or lack of funds.” work Code, into incorporated section 10 — 19 of (see (1974), contract & Co. Teschner v. Title Trust Chicago early 458), 59 Ill. 2d specify enables Further, requests by closing. twice turned down Thus, the Union guarantee year. a 39-week an inten collective does evince bargaining agreement tion on the its discretion part of the Board to exercise the schools agreeing statutory to limit its to close power early. case, in this
Finally, reply after the brief Board filed motion, That the Union filed a to strike same. motion case, points. which was taken with the raises two essential *10 First, misrepresentation the that it a Union contends was it, by to the superintendent assert that rather than release, 24, 1977, the closed press virtue of his March this His action early. schools find merit contention. We no to a adoption of recom- pursuant was taken the Board’s to lay him to off specifically allowing mendation reducing of days during purpose for three 1977for the June delegation not a budget. This was the deficit the Board’s assertion, Board its to the Union’s power. Contrary the resolution, 23, 1977, take Board, did in its February Further, the reduction action to the annual calendar. modify to benefit layoff day to was days from three one bargaining the collective employees covered agreement. Board, in contravention
The Union also asserts raised 341), Ill. R. (81 of Illinois Rule 341 2d Supreme Court However, reply time in its brief. new issues for the first in our determinаtion those issues were not considered to motion the Union’s Consequently, deny this case. we strike the brief. reply Board’s reasons, For trial court erred the above-stated ordering salaries the Board to teacher’s pay June 1977. Accordingly, judgments circuit courts are reversed. reversed.
Judgments SIMON, dissenting: JUSTICE I would affirm the col- ground on the that the terms of lective bargaining agreement unambiguous are as to obligations of the contract was for an school board: The annual salary rather so that the annual daily wage, than amount was due even if the did all the not use teaching to; services was has not entitled overcome the showing Union’s that there was “lack оf no funds” such as promise pay would defeat the full Board’s to wages. The to deal majority opinion, attempting rather than with the agreement terms, on its Board’s own elevates the statutory “discretion” in its affairs such an managing to exalted status virtually incapable render the Board entering into view binding contracts. Such broad discretion is not supported by the statutes involved case, and it has ominous for the implications only Board’s affairs, future ability manage particularly its respect credit, securing but for the law of contracts generally.
The appellate opinion court’s demon exhaustively strates that the Board contractually required pay salaries, teachers their full annual 39- regular based week year. (89 Ill. App. 861.) 3d The matter end should there.
As I understand majority the the opinion, problem that the Board’s something discretion to off is lay people that cannot be bargaining agree- restricted a collective ment, regardless of might say what contract law otherwise about the validity of agreement the of the regardless and terms of agreement. the the Board unbridled discretion itself,
claims agreement to have does from the for not come right lay conditions the off on lack work or lack of and into requires inquiry funds thus at least some Rather, if whether either of is met. from these conditions it anywhere, must 34 — 18 of the School arise section Code, provides specifications which that “[t]he exclusive, powers granted herein are not construed as to be may but board shall all other that powers also exercise requisite develop proper be or the maintenance and the of a with the ment inconsistent public system, school all districts” Code which apply 122, (Ill. Rev. par. 18) Stat. ch. and from section 34 — Code, gives 10 — 19 of the Board discretion thé annual “specify closing earlier than that set on date statutory open calendar” have when schools been 122, par. minimum ch. (Ill. number of Stat. days Rev. results, 19). accord Unbridled discretion in the 10 — to the neither section of ing majority, though even bargaining says School Code collective anything about derogation in agreements, retain rights may or contracts, its anything or about salaries.
I sections which nothing statutory find either these deroga- cut at will gives power Board the salaries into ability to enter tion of contracts or restricts the Board’s or collective other- bargaining agreements with employees, wise, do not exceed agreements so as the long terms budgetary appropriations. fact, the words “all [****] pow- and for the maintenance may requisite proper ers be or appear, would system” of a development public school tо exercise if license to anything, statutory to be unions, if employee by contracting discretion employer- improve morale decides such contracts will management employee relations and effective promote operation system. of the school proce- be a standard has come to bargaining
Collective
employ-
their
bodies and
dealings
public
dure
between
*12
ees, and
in
of
no doubt had this mind
one
legislature
the necessary courses to be made available to the Board.
The Board
into the
statutory
had
“discretion” to enter
collective bargaining
being challenged here. To
say that this
what it
“discretion” аllows the Board to do
in
pleases
disregard
the name
in
good management,
of
of
contract, is
a
like
that
contract” allows
saying
“freedom of
person to do whatever he
he
wants even after
has contracted
with another. What
in
is
and
happens
fact
that
discretion
the freedom
subject
to contract
to the
of
become
contract,
applies
into
bargains
to
entered
public bodies as
as private parties.
Arlington
well
See
Heights national Bank v. Village
Arlington Heights
of
(1965),
The majority opinion relies on Educa strongly Illinois tion Association v. (1975), 62 Ill. 2d Education of and on Board v. Trustees Cook Teachers County College of Union (1976), 62 Ill. 2d which was decided on the basis of Association, Illinois Education proposition for the that the school board away cannot contract to its discretion close cases, schools early however, fix or salaries. Those do not involve the power salaries; to close fix they schools or deal instead with the power promote to refuse to rehire or nontenured teachers year to year. from
The basis of Illinois Education Association decision (and, indirectly, Trustees, followed Illinois Education Association) discharge was that the teacher, early unlike the decision to close schools due funds, lack of subject statutory a сomprehensive system. legislature The has various decreed status have, teachers their rights, are to be procedures and what followed in discharging legislature them. The has covered subject in depth as a must policy. matter The Board be able to eliminate inferior if it is teachers to maintain quality schools, necessary and the decisions about individual teachers can be hardly made advance.
legislature that has struck an balance between elaborate need security. and the The Board is opposing job interest permitted away powers contract its essential adopt statute. system conflict with the one created The Board does not refrain exercis- authority have ing its when own in discharging discretion arises; occasion statutory duty has a exercise *13 discretion to it discharge, which cannot abandon. however, enter
Obviously, authority the has to Board into order some contracts. It must be able to enforceable supplies repudiate on credit. the its contracts Could Board with it does not need the suppliers ground the that does supplies once it Even Board early? closes school the accepted not claim it kept open, have the schools could paid not day, simply the teachers’ services last and then the effect, Board for thеm. The is that the majority saying, day, the may by to services only pay teaching contract that, mainte- by not and year. say the The statute does not require not system nance and do development of it. Teachers County College Board Trustees v. Cook 470, 480-82, upheld the court (1976),
Union
Ill. 2d
trustees to
contractual
the board of
provision requiring
its
teachers
any
qualified
offer
available summer work to
in the
passed over
strict rotation.
who had been
Teachers
jobs they
pay
rotation
held
to full
were
entitled
offered,
they
not done
though
even
had
should have been
trustees
work.
that the board
The court remarked
to
programs
what summer
power
retained thе
to decide
them,
the board
was
to teach
qualified
offer and who
were
teachers
complaining
not
that the
argue
of trustees did
qualified.
not
about
the details
Decisions
get paid
the work and
were to do
qualified
several
teachers
inalienable discretion
to the
did
have to be committed
those
properly;
schools
in order maintain the
Board
contract
decisions,
held,
by
could be controlled
court
left to
arbitrator.
I
present
work
believe the
case is more like
summer
rotation controversy
discharge controversy.
than like the
for,
Salaries
routinely
by
are
contracted
even
school boards.
to,
The Board dоes not
is
by
have
and not authorized
statute
to, change its
any
mind at
moment
how much it will
about
Indeed,
its
pay
teachers.
point
of the annual budgeting
process mandated by law is that the Board’s appropriations
are not supposed to
change
day
day,
considering everything
meeting;
at each
anew
supposed to anticipate and
its
at
obligations
stabilize
beginning
year. The
duty
Board has no
to exercise
continuing
juggle
year pro
discretion to
salaries as the
gresses, and
signed
the contract it
illegal attempt
was not an
contract,
any
abandon
such duty. By
signing
was not giving
discretion;
away
simply
future
exercis
ing its present
discretion
set salaries. The Board had
discretion to engage
year.
teachers and pay salaries
That discretion could
be exercised
contract. Having
fixed annual
by contract,
salaries
the Board has
exercised
fully
law,
discretion as
as is required by
and it must abide
*14
by its decision. Compelling the Board to
its promises
honor
does not deprive it of its lawful
Arlington
discretion. See
Heights National Bank
Village
Heights
v.
Arlington
(1965),
The Board entitled to schools early, close to save whatever it expenses is on obligated pay only daily basis. But it cannot thereby repudiate obligations that are not determined length of the school If the year. Board contracts to pay salary, а fixed annual rather than a per wage, diem it has to pay salary, the annual school or no school, when, especially here, main for closing reason the schools was to paying avoid the salaries.
The Board seems argue, majority opinion and the does not dispute, that is public policy there some should exonerate a public obliga- body from contractual posi- its financial honoring endanger
tions when them would is a situation good public policy tion. such Unfortunately some easy not the Board to breach Allowing so to discern. well might of its financial need obligations on account of that, it it be public body, an attitude is a should foster since creditors obligations able to towards other repudiate only in greater when need arises. will result Such an attitude wary of financial over time as creditors become difficulty compensate the school board and better terms to require risk those circumstances. for the credit under extending was no there danger especially great The is because Board’s and the intrinsic link the teachers’ salaries between the fund found that financial The circuit court difficulties. operating had an paid out of which were teachers’ salaries long as that surplus. that so The court determined funds, its action on justify account had Board could funds, was sоund. of lack I believe basis conclusion staggering The deficits Board’s troubles consisted of other Any previous years. from hung other accounts over plausible equally breach of been an contract would have addition, prob- labor way saving money. significant if holding, even may majority’s lems arise from the willing less limited its facts. Teachers would become binding, promises with a are not bargain body whose them they bargain, prevents even when what do that, theory engaging in strikes of their own wildcat can the so if its agreements, the Board can renounce teachers? policy is public
The legislature’s version of already it has Board is to make contracts unless nоt allowed Any con budget. in its necessary money appropriated the Stat. (Ill. Rev. is void. provision tract violation of that the 1975, 122, requires par. 49.) legislature ch. 34 — par. ch. Stat. budget (Ill. be balanced. Rev. words, supposed are members 44.) In other 34 — *15 they before coming is money to know where the ample promise pay it. here appropriate The Board did view, salaries, is money for the contract my teachers’ valid scheme therefore and enforceable. The Board’s through unortho- evading balanced-budget requirement dox accounting using resulting then procedures and not insolvency an its does escaping obligations excuse conform to the has established for system legislature not keeping This court should financially sound. sanction that public policy. scheme the name of
Contract legitimate expecta- law was created make tions enforceable and thus is encourage bargaining, which the basis of our system. agency economic When a public contract, to repudiate allowed it loses some the credibi- lity it must have in relationship order to continue its employees. The ultimate Once public. loser is the board of education signs obligations an and its under due, the agreement come it is too late for to raise “discretion” as argument nullifying the contract. effect, the claiming prefer Board is now right some others, creditors over more as it I pleases. or less would permit it.
(No. 54430. BROWN, ex THE PEOPLE rel. IDA v. RONALD Appellee, BAKER, Appellant.
Opinion 1981. December filed