THIRD DIVISION

March 28, 2003

PRESIDING JUSTICE SOUTH delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal arises from an order of the circuit court reversing a decision of the EducationOfficers Electoral Board for School District 148 (Board) and ordering that plaintiff's name appearon the ballot for an election to be held on April 1, 2003. Inasmuch as the election is due to beheld on April 1, 2003, and inasmuch as a prompt and speedy decision is required, this court hasallowed an expedited appeal.

The essential facts are as follows: On January 13, 2003, plaintiff, James E. Bendell, filedhis nominating petitions, statement of candidacy, loyalty oath, and statement of economicinterests for the position of member of the Board of Education of School District 148. Thosedocuments, which totaled somewhere between 6 and 8 pages, were clipped together with a largepaper clip. On January 28, 2003, defendant-objector Lucille Malone filed her verified objector'spetition against plaintiff's nominating papers claiming that plaintiff had failed to meet therequirements of the Illinois Election Code (Code) in that the petitions and nominating paperswere not securely bound in book form.

Subsequent to a hearing and arguments, the Board voted 2-1 that plaintiff failed tocomply with the statutory requirements of the Code by paper clipping his nomination paperstogether and ordered his name not to appear on the ballot for the April 1, 2003, non-partisanelection.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a petition for judicial review in the circuit court of CookCounty. Following briefing and oral arguments, the court ruled that the Board's decision wasagainst the manifest weight of the evidence, that plaintiff's nominating petitions "substantiallycomplied" with the provisions of the Code, and that plaintiff's name shall appear on the April 1,2003, ballot.

Defendants have filed the instant appeal raising a single issue: (1) whether section 10-4 ofthe Illinois Election Code requiring that nominating petitions shall be neatly fastened together inbook form in a secure and suitable manner is satisfied through the doctrine of substantialcompliance when the candidate uses a paper clip to secure those documents.

Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal which has raised two issues: (1) whether the decision ofthe Board was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (2) whether the Board hasjurisdiction to bring this appeal.

Before we address the issue of whether a paper clip can satisfy the requirements stated insection 10-4 of the Illinois Election Code, we must decide whether the Board and its membershave standing to appeal the circuit court's reversal of the Board's decision.

The appellate court in Kozenczak v. Du Page County Officers Electoral Bd., 299 Ill. App.3d 205, 207, 700 N.E.2d 1073, 1074 (1998), specifically dealt with this issue. The court foundthat the Election Code does not expressly or implicitly authorize the Board to assume the role ofadvocate for the purpose of prosecuting an appeal. See 10 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 1996);Kozenczak, 299 Ill. App. 3d at 207. Instead, the Election Code only authorizes the Board toconduct hearings, administer oaths, subpoena and examine witnesses, subpoena documentaryevidence, and pass upon objections to nomination petitions and objections to petitions for thesubmission of questions of public policy. See 10 ILCS 5/10-9, 10-10, 28-4 (West 1996);Kozenczak, 299 Ill. App. 3d at 207. The court further held that the Board functions in anadjudicatory or quasi-judicial capacity, and that to allow the Board to assume the role of advocatewould compromise the Board's required duty of impartiality. Kozenczak, 299 Ill. App. 3d at 207.The court further stated that the Board was not a party before an administrative agency, nor was itpersonally aggrieved by the reversal of its decision. Kozenczak, 299 Ill. App. 3d at 207. We findthe reasoning in Kozenczak to be persuasive and conclude, therefore, that the Board lacksstanding to prosecute this appeal.

That holding, however, does not dispose of defendant-objector Malone's standing toprosecute this appeal. In Kozenczak, the court held that while the objector had standing toprosecute the appeal, he had not filed an appellant's brief. Pursuant to its discretion underSupreme Court Rule 343, the court dismissed his appeal. In the instant case, however, Malonefiled her notice of appeal separate and apart from the Board on March 12, 2003, and herappellant's brief on March 18, 2003. Therefore, we find that Malone has standing to prosecutethis appeal.

We next address the issue as to whether the requirements stated in section 10-4 of theIllinois Election Code (10 ILCS 5/10-4 (West 1993)), that nominating petitions be fastenedtogether in book form in a secure and suitable manner, may be satisfied through the doctrine ofsubstantial compliance when the candidate uses a single large paper clip to bind the nominationpapers.

Section 10-4 states in pertinent part:

"