Following through with what he said he would do, Regional Superintendent of Schools Kelton Davis again cited and tried to shut down the addition at Red Bud Elementary School. This of course led to the Red Bud School District and Davis going back to court on Aug. 6.
The school district and the Regional Office of Education had previously been in court on June 28, where Judge Jeremy Walker issued an order for Davis to sign an occupancy permit for the school that he had not signed.
The June 28 court hearing was the result of Davis claiming that there were significant code violations with the expansion. He had tried to shut down the school on May 8, to which the school responded with seeking a temporary restraining order against Davis.
Both parties had attended the June 28 hearing, bringing along architects and plans, however no evidence was presented at the hearing. That day an agreement was reached where Davis would sign the school district’s occupancy application, with it noted that it was signed only by court order.
Davis had told the North County News after the hearing that he had planned to pursue the matter further and submit a re-issuance of the violations to the school district.
In a letter to the school district, dated July 18, Davis stated, “The judge’s order, purposefully, did not address code violations.”
He then noted that the violations made the school building unsafe and with the “district’s refusal to remedy these violations,” he would be temporarily closing the new gymnasium, stage, band room and chorus room.
Davis also stated in the letter that he would be filing a complaint with Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) regarding the school district’s architect Steve Raskin.
In response to Davis’ letter, the school district filed a motion to compel compliance with the writ of mandamus that Walker had issued on June 28. They also asked the court for sanctions “to end retaliatory actions against the district and its architects.”
In the filing, the school district noted that they maintained there were no code violations and that Davis “had every opportunity to point towards, argue and explain any and all alleged code violations,” but had failed to do so.
In addition, “Davis was fully aware in signing the occupancy permit, that he was signifying under court order, that there were no discrepancies/violation of the building code.”
The school district felt that the actions taken by Davis and the Regional Office of Education were “in clear violation of the writ of mandamus and the court order,” and that “the additional threats by Davis are retaliatory against both the district and architect.
The district expressed in the filing that they felt that Davis would continue to try to shut down the school and make retaliatory threats.
So on Aug. 6, both parties were back in Walker’s courtroom at the Randolph County Courthouse.
This time, Davis had switched up his attorney, going from the Randolph County state’s attorney, which is no cost to the ROE, to hiring Robert L. Jackstadt of Tueth, Keeney, Cooper, Mohan and Jackstadt, P.C. in Edwardsville.
Per Jackstadt’s page on the law firm’s website, he specializes in commercial, construction and education litigation.
Red Bud School District Superintendent Jonathan Tallman was there with district attorney Barney Mundorf.
Mundorf started off by noting that Davis “had every opportunity to present evidence of any code violations which he was claiming that existed.”
He continued, “They chose not to challenge our petition. They conceded that he would sign the application for occupancy permit, he presented no evidence of any code violations at all, and you entered an order compelling him to sign the application for occupancy permit.”
And since the first hearing, Davis threatened to shut down the school citing the same code violations.
“Mr. Davis has taken the position that signing the application for occupancy was simply a procedural requirement, but it included substantive components,” Mundorf continued. “When you look at the occupancy permit that he signed, the last sentence says, ‘No certificate of occupancy was issued until all discrepancies were remedied.’ By signing the occupancy permit, he certifies that there were no code violations. In fact, once he signs the application for occupancy, he’s required to issue a certificate of occupancy.”
Walker asked if the certificate of occupancy had been signed by Davis, to which Mundorf said it had not.
He further explained that once Davis had signed the occupancy permit, the procedure was for an occupancy certificate to be issued.
“Your Honor, when you issued a writ of mandamus, when you ordered him to sign the occupancy permit application, that took all of the code violations off the table,” Mundorf continued. “And Mr. Davis has continued to harass the school district, he’s continued to threaten to shut down the school with no authority and in complete contradiction of your order.”
Jackstadt countered that the district had “complied with all procedures for the issuance of the occupancy permit, and you will note in the order that all the building code requirements were crossed out. That was never a part of the order entered. And, in fact, under Illinois law, a writ of mandamus can only be used to require an official to perform a specified ministerial act.”
(When signing the occupancy application on June 28, Davis crossed out the last sentence. The sentence states, “No certificate of occupancy was issued until the discrepancies were remedied.” He was told he couldn’t alter the document, so he wrote on the document that the sentence was underlined.)
Walker asked about the certificate of occupancy, noting that signing of it was supposed to be included when he ordered Davis to sign the occupancy permit application.
Jackstadt agreed that the court order was to sign the occupancy permit, but added it “did not address code violations or future remedies to violations.”
“The document that Mr. Davis was ordered to sign and then this next document, I do agree that it seems to indicate that there are no code violations,” Walker stated. “And it was represented to me in a pretrial conference by the state’s attorney that the architect that Mr. Davis had at the June 28 hearing agreed that all of these issues, albeit in that architect’s opinion could have been done differently or maybe done a little bit better, were not a code violation.”
“The idea that we went to a writ of mandamus to compel Mr. Davis to sign the application for occupancy and that the code violations were not part of the process is ridiculous,” stated Mundorf. “The whole reason that we signed, that we filed the writ of mandamus is because the architect had certified the building complied with school code.”
He continued, “Mr. Davis did not produce any evidence that there were code violations, which resulted in the order compelling him to sign the application for occupancy permit. Once that’s signed, it’s certifying that all deficiencies have been remedied.”
Mundorf stated that Davis knew what he was signing and by doing so, the alleged code violations were no longer on the table, and the building was in compliance.
Jackstadt said that there was no question that Davis had signed the original form. He then added, “The court never ordered regional superintendent prohibiting him from continuing his mandatory duties under Illinois law to inspect school building to ensure that buildings are in compliance with Illinois law.”
He continued, “If in the opinion of the regional superintendent a facility or part of a facility poses an imminent threat to the safety or of its occupants, the regional superintendent shall temporarily close that facility or part of the facility pending determination of the extent of the hazard and order it evacuated immediately.”
Jackstadt summarized that Davis is performing his duties under the safety code.
Mundorf noted that under Illinois Administrative Code the architect’s plans are submitted to the Regional Office of Education for review, and that the ROE confirms that the plans comply with code. After construction, an application for occupancy is submitted and the regional superintendent reviews the inspections and signs off, confirming all codes are complied with.
However, he pointed out that Davis hasn’t inspected the building. “He hasn’t done that. He hasn’t been in that building since I don’t know when, but he hasn’t been in that building since June 28. He hasn’t inspected it. There’s been no new construction performed. The building is in the same condition it was in from the time this application was submitted to him on Nov. 17 of 23.”
Mundorf argued that a regional superintendent can’t sign off on an application for occupancy certifying it is in full compliance, then turn around and say it isn’t. And on the application, it specifically said any code violations had been remedied.
Jackstadt tried to counter by saying that Davis signing the building permit did not waive the right to claim any building code violations.
“We were in court and a mere less than two weeks later they’re getting the notification that what they thought they had just resolved in court wasn’t resolved at all. Which kind of is in contradiction of what the court order was,” Walker told Jackstadt.
“I mean, if Mr. Davis has an architect that says that there is a code violation, he had the opportunity to call them as a witness that day. They weren’t. It was represented to me that there was no such violation. Period.”
Walker continued, “The court’s going to issue a mandamus order. Mr. Davis is going to sign a clean application for occupancy not lining out that last sentence. That ship sailed.”
He added, “And this also is going to read clean exactly how this says, specifically verbatim, ‘The above named facility has been inspected by this office and has been determined to comply with the requirements of the health/life safety code. Occupancy of the facility is hereby approved.’”
Walker added that Davis could try to continue to close the school, “But Mr. Davis, if you do and they sue you, you don’t want to be in my courtroom because you had your chance.”
He continued, “Now, if you think that the school’s in imminent danger to the life and safety of the students, you have the ability under the administrative code to go to the state board of education.”
However, Walker noted that the Red Bud School District will have the clean documents, signed by Davis that says the building is in compliance. “How do you think the state board of education is going to react to that? I think you’re on thin ice, but you’ve got the ability to do it, and you proceed however you want to.”
He then warned that if the school district comes back to the court for tortious interference with their building because Davis was harassing them, it would not be well received.
“I want that stuff signed in my courtroom right now, no mark outs.”
Following the Aug. 6 hearing, Mundorf told the North County News, “The hearing this morning was a motion to compel Mr. Davis to comply with the court’s writ of mandamus it issued on June 28, 2024. The writ of mandamus ordered Mr. Davis to sign the application for occupancy, which certified the building complied with all building code and health life safety requirements.
“On July 18, 2024, Mr. Davis cited the school district for the same code violations that were litigated on June 28, 2024, and Mr. Davis failed to present any evidence of code violations at the June 28, 2024, hearing.
“Today, the Judge ruled in Red Bud School District’s favor, and ordered Mr. Davis to comply with the writ of mandamus and directed him to sign, a second time without any strike through, a clean copy of the application for occupancy, and directed him to sign the certificate of occupancy. The judge ruled that Mr. Davis had every opportunity to call an expert witness to testify to code violations at the June 28, 2024, hearing, and he failed to do so.
“The district is pleased that the court saw through Mr. Davis’s antics.”
Tallman added, “The board of education is pleased with Judge Walker’s decision once again. We are thrilled with the new addition to our elementary building, which has been fully utilized and enjoyed by our students and staff since late November. It will continue to benefit our district for many years to come. Despite the challenges we faced to get to this point, we are now concentrating on the 2024-2025 school year.”