{ "id": 1083966, "name": "COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 205 et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205", "decision_date": "2004-09-01", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201403\u20140821", "first_page": "1109", "last_page": "1120", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "351 Ill. App. 3d 1109" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "776 N.E.2d 166", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "180" }, { "page": "180" }, { "page": "185" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 Ill. 2d 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1477051 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "374" }, { "page": "375" }, { "page": "383" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/201/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "606 N.E.2d 1111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1117" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 Ill. 2d 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4738801 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "88" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/153/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "720 N.E.2d 1113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1122" }, { "page": "1122" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 Ill. App. 3d 529", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 261359 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "542" }, { "page": "542" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/308/0529-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 N.E.2d 218", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "220" }, { "page": "220" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2965527 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103" }, { "page": "103" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/61/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "570 N.E.2d 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460" }, { "page": "461-62" }, { "page": "462" }, { "page": "462" }, { "page": "466" }, { "page": "466" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 Ill. App. 3d 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2529493 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "478" }, { "page": "480" }, { "page": "480" }, { "page": "480-81" }, { "page": "486" }, { "page": "486" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/211/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "739 N.E.2d 57", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "62", "parenthetical": "agency's final decision is subject of review in administrative review proceeding, and hearing officer's findings are not entitled to deference over agency's findings of facts" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 Ill. App. 3d 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1026053 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64-65", "parenthetical": "agency's final decision is subject of review in administrative review proceeding, and hearing officer's findings are not entitled to deference over agency's findings of facts" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/317/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "617 N.E.2d 514", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "518" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "247 Ill. App. 3d 768", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2928129 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "775" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/247/0768-01" ] }, { "cite": "747 N.E.2d 1025", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1030" }, { "page": "1030" }, { "page": "1030" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 Ill. App. 3d 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 132353 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "492" }, { "page": "492" }, { "page": "492" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/321/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 N.E.2d 785", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "791" }, { "page": "791" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5436215 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "128" }, { "page": "128" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/65/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 L. Ed. 746", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "766" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 U.S. 364", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6157998 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "395" }, { "page": "542" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/333/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "763 N.E.2d 272", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280-81" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 Ill. 2d 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 29956 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "393" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/198/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "692 N.E.2d 295", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "302" }, { "page": "302" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 Ill. 2d 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 821407 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "205" }, { "page": "204" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/181/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "740 N.E.2d 428", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 9, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434" }, { "page": "431" }, { "page": "431" }, { "page": "431" }, { "page": "431" }, { "page": "432" }, { "page": "433-34" }, { "page": "431" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 Ill. App. 3d 790", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1025881 ], "weight": 7, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "796" }, { "page": "791-92" }, { "page": "792" }, { "page": "792" }, { "page": "792" }, { "page": "794" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/317/0790-01" ] }, { "cite": "750 N.E.2d 709", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "712" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 Ill. App. 3d 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 126371 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "320" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/322/0316-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 933, "char_count": 25495, "ocr_confidence": 0.74, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08, "percentile": 0.29574465538338335 }, "sha256": "d34040ac6cca79703062170746195e80573a90ede829c10c73decd105950ef26", "simhash": "1:4bec75b2ac678202", "word_count": 4106 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:07.473803+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "KNECHT, EJ., and McCULLOUGH, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 205 et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE TURNER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn June 2001, plaintiff, Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. (CCS), submitted a charter-school application to defendant, Rockford School District No. 205 (School District). In September 2001, the School District rejected CCS\u2019s proposal. CCS appealed the decision to defendant, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). In May 2002, ISBE affirmed the School District\u2019s denial of the charter. In July 2002, CCS filed a complaint for administrative review. In September 2003, the circuit court affirmed ISBE\u2019s decision.\nOn appeal, CCS argues (1) this court should presume the findings of the ISBE appeal panel are true, (2) ISBE\u2019s denial of the charter-school application violated the Charter Schools Law (105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 1 through 27A \u2014 13 (West 2000)), and (3) ISBE\u2019s decision was clearly erroneous. We affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn June 2001, CCS submitted a charter-school application to the School District pursuant to the Charter Schools Law (105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 1 through 27A \u2014 13 (West 2000)), proposing the YouthBuild Rockford Charter School (YouthBuild) to serve \u201cat-risk and out-of-school students through a multifaceted program of educational, social, and employability supports that provide youth with the full range of resources they need to transition from \u2018street to work\u2019 or \u2018street to school\u2019 effectively.\u201d The application included a financial plan regarding the economic soundness of the proposed charter school as required by section 27A \u2014 7(a)(9) of the Charter Schools Law (105 ILCS 5/27A\u2014 7(a)(9) (West 2000)).\nOn August 14, 2001, the Rockford Board of Education held a public meeting, wherein several people expressed support for the YouthBuild proposal. The Board of Education\u2019s charter-school advisory committee evaluated the proposal and recommended approval of a contract contingent upon successful negotiations of the financial plan. On August 28, 2001, the Board of Education rejected a motion to grant the YouthBuild proposal by a 3 to 3 vote. In September 2001, the Board of Education filed a report, notifying ISBE of the denial of the YouthBuild proposal. In part, the report indicated board members found the YouthBuild proposal would provide \u201cduplicative\u201d services and \u201c[gjiven the dire financial situation, the Rockford School District cannot take on more debt.\u201d CCS formally appealed the decision to ISBE.\nIn November 2001, an ISBE appeal panel held a hearing as to CCS\u2019s appeal. The School District stated it currently had a $20 million deficit in its education fund and had been \u201coperating on a deficit budget for at least 25 years.\u201d In January 2002, the appeal panel requested additional information from CCS.\nIn February 2002, the appeal panel found the YouthBuild proposal complied with the Charter Schools Law and recommended the denial of the proposal be reversed and ISBE grant the charter. The appeal panel found the \u201ccumulative net \u2018deficits\u2019 to Rockford over five years ranging from $2,570,962 at 100% of the per capita tuition rate to $1,873,170 at 80% of the per capita rate. These figures represent .27% and .20% respectively of the five-year cumulative educational budgets projected for Rockford.\u201d The appeal panel noted the possible loss of revenue was not to be minimized but noted \u201ca revenue loss to the district is inescapable under the Charter Schools Law[ ] but is necessary to serve the law\u2019s goal \u2018to provide parents and pupils with expanded choices within the public school system.\u2019 \u201d Further, the panel found\n\u201c[b]y funding charter schools through per[-]capita payments from the district, the Charter Schools Law recognizes that the funding in essence \u2018belongs to\u2019 the student and the student\u2019s parents[ ] and may be spent in a charter school rather than in the district\u2019s schools if the parents see fit. So viewed, the creation of a charter \u2018costs\u2019 a district nothing.\u201d\nThe appeal panel concluded the financial impact on the School District did not make the proposal economically unsound by jeopardizing the educational programs available to the School District\u2019s other students. The State Superintendent of Education, Respicio F. Vazquez, reviewed the record and recommended ISBE grant a charter to the YouthBuild charter school.\nOn February 20 and 21, 2002, ISBE held a meeting to discuss CCS\u2019s charter-school appeal and requested additional information. On March 13, 2002, ISBE held another meeting and requested additional information. The School District provided information, indicating that if the charter-school proposal was approved, the total estimated deficit incurred by the School District would be $1,037,363. Further, the School District stated that in considering the $12,200,034 in budget cuts and $55 million in tax-anticipation warrants maturing in October 2002, \u201cit [was] apparent that the [School District] cannot take on new debt.\u201d The School District\u2019s report also indicated a referendum to repay tax objectors would require an additional $3,100,000 to be paid to bondholders over a 10-year period.\nIn May 2002, ISBE conducted meetings on the charter-school appeal. ISBE board members voted down the motion to reverse the School District\u2019s denial of the proposal on a 4 to 4 vote. The members voting to deny the charter expressed their concerns over the School District\u2019s financial problems. In its final decision denying the appeal, ISBE found the proposed charter school was \u201cnot economically sound for [the School District] in view of the serious financial problems that currently exist in the district.\u201d\nIn July 2002, CCS filed a complaint for administrative review, asking the circuit court to reverse the decisions of the School District and ISBE and grant its charter. In January 2003, the court remanded the matter to ISBE to set forth what evidence it accepted or rejected in making its decision. In June 2003, ISBE indicated it denied the appeal for the following reasons:\n\u201c(1) board members were concerned that the charter[-]school proposal had not adequately shown that it was economically sound for the charter school and the school district;\n(2) board members reviewed additional material such as an independent financial analysis by ISBE staff of costs and budget impact; and\n(3) board members expressed reservations that the charter[-] school proposal was in the best interests of the students it was designed to serve.\u201d\nIn September 2003, the court affirmed the administrative decision. This appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nA. Standard of Review\nIn reviewing a final decision under the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 101 through 3 \u2014 113 (West 2002)), this court reviews the administrative agency\u2019s decision and not the circuit court\u2019s determination. Key Outdoor, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 322 Ill. App. 3d 316, 320, 750 N.E.2d 709, 712 (2001). Cases involving ISBE\u2019s decision to accept or reject a charter-school application involve a mixed question of fact and law. Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District No. 59 v. State Board of Education, 317 Ill. App. 3d 790, 796, 740 N.E.2d 428, 434 (2000). The standard of review applicable to agency decisions that present a mixed question of law and fact is the clearly erroneous standard. City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 205, 692 N.E.2d 295, 302 (1998). Under this standard, we will reverse only if, after reviewing the entire record, we are \u201c \u2018left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.\u2019 \u201d AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 393, 763 N.E.2d 272, 280-81 (2001), quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 92 L. Ed. 746, 766, 68 S. Ct. 525, 542 (1948).\nB. Review of Findings\nCCS argues this court should base our review on the findings of ISBE\u2019s appeal panel and \u201cnot the cursory, incomplete[,] and unexplained conclusions of *** ISBE.\u201d We disagree.\nUnder the Charter Schools Law, an applicant seeking to establish a charter school must submit a proposal to ISBE and the local school board, setting forth all the details of the proposed charter school. 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 7(a) (West 2000). The proposal must include, inter alia, a proposed budget and \u201c[e]vidence that the terms of the charter as proposed are economically sound for both the charter school and the school district.\u201d 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 7(a)(9) (West 2000).\nAfter the local school board decides to grant or deny the charter-school proposal, it must file a report with ISBE. 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 8(f) (West 2000). The applicant may appeal the denial of the proposal to ISBE, and ISBE may request additional evidence to decide the appeal. 23 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a7\u00a7 650.60(a), (b) (Conway Greene CD-ROM April 2000). Following oral presentations, staff of ISBE must then submit a recommendation to the State Superintendent of Education, who submits the findings and recommendation to ISBE for a final decision. 23 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a7 650.60(d) (Conway Greene CD-ROM April 2000). ISBE \u201cmay reverse a local board\u2019s decision if [ISBE] finds that the charter school or charter[-]school proposal (i) is in compliance with this [a]rticle, and (ii) is in the best interests of the students it is designed to serve.\u201d 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 9(e) (West 2000). ISBE\u2019s final decisions are subject to review under the Administrative Review Law. 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 9(e) (West 2000).\nIn the case sub judice, CCS places great weight in the appeal panel\u2019s \u201cdetailed analysis\u201d and \u201ceight pages of factual findings and conclusions,\u201d while deriding ISBE\u2019s \u201cone-sentence\u201d and \u201ctwo-paragraph\u201d decisions that lack the \u201cdetail\u201d of the appeal panel\u2019s report. However, CCS has failed to cite authority to indicate this court must review the findings and recommendations of the appeal panel instead of the final decision of ISBE.\nOur supreme court has stated that \u201cadministrative proceedings may be conducted by hearing officers who refer the case for final determination to a board which has not \u2018heard\u2019 the evidence in person.\u201d Homefinders, Inc. v. City of Evanston, 65 Ill. 2d 115, 128, 357 N.E.2d 785, 791 (1976). The rights of due process are satisfied \u201cif the decision-making board considers the evidence contained in the report of proceedings before the hearing officer and bases its determinations thereon.\u201d Homefinders, 65 Ill. 2d at 128, 357 N.E.2d at 791.\nA hearing officer may conduct administrative proceedings and refer the case for final determination to a decisionmaking body. Gounaris v. City of Chicago, 321 Ill. App. 3d 487, 492, 747 N.E.2d 1025, 1030 (2001). \u201cThe hearing officer hears the evidence and recom mends findings and a disposition to the decision[ (making authority of the administrative agency.\u201d (Emphasis in original.) Gounaris, 321 Ill. App. 3d at 492, 747 N.E.2d at 1030. The agency then makes its own decision based on the record and may accept or reject the hearing officer\u2019s recommendations. Gounaris, 321 Ill. App. 3d at 492, 747 N.E.2d at 1030. In Cherington v. Selcke, 247 Ill. App. 3d 768, 775, 617 N.E.2d 514, 518 (1993), this court noted \u201c[i]t is the decision of the agency, not that of its hearing officer, which is entitled to deference.\u201d See also Wilson v. Department of Professional Regulation, 317 Ill. App. 3d 57, 64-65, 739 N.E.2d 57, 62 (2000) (agency\u2019s final decision is subject of review in administrative review proceeding, and hearing officer\u2019s findings are not entitled to deference over agency\u2019s findings of facts).\nIn Pundy v. Department of Professional Regulation, 211 Ill. App. 3d 475, 478, 570 N.E.2d 458, 460 (1991), the Department of Professional Regulation filed a complaint against Pundy, a psychiatrist, alleging, inter alia, he engaged in sexual relations with a patient. A hearing officer found no credible evidence of improper sexual activity and recommended no discipline be imposed. Pundy, 211 Ill. App. 3d at 480, 570 N.E.2d at 461-62. The Medical Disciplinary Board declined to follow the hearing officer\u2019s recommendation and recommended that Pundy\u2019s medical license be suspended. Pundy, 211 Ill. App. 3d at 480, 570 N.E.2d at 462. The Department adopted the recommendation, and the circuit court upheld the decision. Pundy, 211 Ill. App. 3d at 480-81, 570 N.E.2d at 462.\nOn appeal, Pundy argued that although the disciplinary board was not required to rehear the evidence to reject the hearing officer\u2019s findings and recommendations, the hearing officer\u2019s report must be given weight by the reviewing court. Pundy, 211 Ill. App. 3d at 486, 570 N.E.2d at 466. The appellate court \u201cfound that while the decision of the hearing officer is part of the record, it is the decision of the [bjoard, not the hearing officer, which is reviewed by the court.\u201d Pundy, 211 Ill. App. 3d at 486, 570 N.E.2d at 466.\nHere, ISBE is the final decisionmaker on the issue of whether to grant or deny a charter-school proposal. Although ISBE may delegate to staff to hear oral presentations and submit recommendations to the State Superintendent of Education, it is ISBE\u2019s duty to take the findings and recommendations and make a final decision. It is that decision that is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Review Law.\nCCS argues this conclusion is contrary to decisions in Reinhardt v. Board of Education of Alton Community Unit School District No. 11, 61 Ill. 2d 101, 329 N.E.2d 218 (1975), and District No. 59, 317 Ill. App. 3d 790, 740 N.E.2d 428. In Reinhardt, 61 Ill. 2d at 103, 329 N.E.2d at 220, the supreme court stated \u201ca decision by an administrative agency must contain findings to make possible a judicial review of the agency\u2019s decision.\u201d However, Reinhardt does not stand for the proposition that if any administrative agency\u2019s decision is not as \u201cdetailed\u201d as a hearing officer\u2019s findings, then the hearing officer\u2019s recommendations become the final decision for judicial review. Instead, Reinhardt held the cause must be remanded for further proceedings and allow the administrative body to enter its findings. Reinhardt, 61 Ill. 2d at 103, 329 N.E.2d at 220. We note the circuit court cited Reinhardt in remanding this matter to ISBE to indicate which findings of the appeal panel it accepted or rejected. ISBE reviewed the record and submitted its final decision with accompanying evidentiary reasons, and the court affirmed the decision.\nIn District No. 59, 317 Ill. App. 3d at 791-92, 740 N.E.2d at 431, the applicant sought to establish a charter school and submitted its proposal. The school district rejected the proposal, and the applicant sought review by ISBE. District No. 59, 317 Ill. App. 3d at 792, 740 N.E.2d at 431. Following review and recommendations by the appeal panel, ISBE issued a final decision reversing the local school board\u2019s decision. District No. 59, 317 Ill. App. 3d at 792, 740 N.E.2d at 431. The circuit court affirmed ISBE\u2019s decision. District No. 59, 317 Ill. App. 3d at 792, 740 N.E.2d at 431.\nThe appellate court noted ISBE\u2019s final administrative decisions may be appealed to the courts. District No. 59, 317 Ill. App. 3d at 794, 740 N.E.2d at 432. The court plai? Jy indicated it was reviewing ISBE\u2019s decision and did not indicate it was the appeal panel\u2019s findings and recommendations that required deference. As ISBE concurred with the appeal panel in District No. 59, CCS cannot contend the appellate court affirmed ISBE\u2019s decision based soMy on the decision of the appeal panel.\nThe argument by CCS that the appeal panel\u2019s findings are the decisions requiring judicial deference is without merit. ISBE is not a rubber stamp that must blindly agree to the recommendations of the appeal panel, and CCS has not cited any case law to indicate ISBE must deferentially bow to the wishes of its own appeal panel. Moreover, CCS has not cited any authority requiring this court\u2019s deference to the findings and recommendations articulated by an entity other than the final agency decisionmaker. Here, ISBE reviewed the record and listed reasons for denying the appeal, and thus ISBE\u2019s decision was sufficient to make judicial review possible. As ISBE may accept or reject the appeal panel\u2019s recommendations, ISBE\u2019s final decision is the proper subject of review.\nC. Financial Impact and the Charter Schools Law\nCCS argues ISBE\u2019s denial of the charter-school application based only on \u201cschool[-]district economics\u201d violated the Charter Schools Law. We disagree.\nAs stated earlier, the charter-school proposal to be submitted to the local school board and ISBE must include detailed information, including \u201c[e]vidence that the terms of the charter as proposed are economically sound for both the charter school and the school district.\u201d 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 7(a)(9) (West 2000). ISBE has \u201cthe explicit power to reverse the decision of a local school district upon a finding that the charter proposal is in compliance with the [Charter Schools Law] and is in the best interests of the students it is designed to serve.\u201d District No. 59, 317 Ill. App. 3d at 795, 740 N.E.2d at 433-34.\nIn this case, ISBE indicated \u201cboard members were concerned that the charter[-]school proposal had not adequately shown that it was economically sound for the charter school and the [S]chool [District.\u201d Moreover, ISBE stated that \u201cbased on the uncertain impact of an insufficiently clear charter[-]school proposal upon a school district already in grave financial condition and in turn upon the proposed charter school itself, the board members found that the charter!-] school proposal was not in the best interests of the students it was designed to serve.\u201d CCS argues that although financial terms of a charter-school proposal are a consideration, to make district finances the sole or dispositive consideration \u201cwould undermine the entire purpose of the Charter School[s] Law.\u201d\nThe General Assembly enacted the Charter Schools Law in part to \u201cprovide parents and pupils with expanded choices within the public school system.\u201d 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 2(b)(6) (West 2000). In the charter-school contract, the charter school and local school district must agree on funding and any services to be provided by the school district. 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 11(b) (West 2000). Further, ISBE is required to make transition impact aid available to the school district that approves a new charter school or if it withholds funds when it charters a new school. 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 11.5(1) (West 2000). Thus, economic interests are very much a concern in the proposal of a charter school.\nCCS appears to argue that if other relevant factors outweigh the financial impact on the school district, the charter-school proposal must be accepted. However, the Charter Schools Law does not require such blanket acceptance of proposals. Instead, evidence must be shown that the proposal is economically sound for both the charter school and the school district. Such evidence must realistically require consideration of the school district\u2019s finances. CCS argues section 27A \u2014 7(a)(9) of the Charter Schools Law was not meant to provide a school district with an \u201cabsolute veto\u201d over any charter-school proposal based on the district\u2019s existing financial condition. It should be noted the school district does not have an \u201cabsolute veto\u201d as ISBE can reverse the decision of a local school board if the proposal meets the requirements of the Charter Schools Law as it did in District No. 59, 317 Ill. App. 3d at 792, 740 N.E.2d at 431. Further, ISBE\u2019s decision is subject to further review by the circuit court and the appellate court. Here, the board members considered evidence the School District was in \u201cgrave financial condition\u201d and found the proposal \u201cwas not in the best interests of the students it was designed to serve.\u201d We find ISBE\u2019s focus on the School District\u2019s finances was a valid factor to consider and did not violate the express goals of the Charter Schools Law.\nD. ISBE\u2019s Final Decision Denying CCS\u2019s Appeal\nCCS argues ISBE\u2019s decision denying its appeal was clearly erroneous. We disagree.\nThe factual findings of an administrative agency are held to be prima facie true and correct. Cathedral Rock of Granite City, Inc. v. Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, 308 Ill. App. 3d 529, 542, 720 N.E.2d 1113, 1122 (1999); 735 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 110 (West 2002). \u201cIn examining an administrative agency\u2019s factual findings, a reviewing court does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency.\u201d Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 204, 692 N.E.2d at 302. \u201cIf the record contains evidence supporting the administrative agency\u2019s decision, the decision should be affirmed.\u201d Cathedral, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 542, 720 N.E.2d at 1122; see Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76, 88, 606 N.E.2d 1111, 1117 (1992).\nCCS argues ISBE did not issue a decision based on the factors defined in the Charter Schools Law. We find CCS\u2019s reliance on Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 201 Ill. 2d 351, 776 N.E.2d 166 (2002), is misplaced. In that case, the Administrative Code contained a list of 25 factors that the Department of Employment Security was to examine in determining whether direction or control existed on the issue of the employment status of carpet installers and measurers. Carpetland, 201 Ill. 2d at 374, 776 N.E.2d at 180. The Director, however, \u201cignored the 25 factors.\u201d Carpetland, 201 Ill. 2d at 375, 776 N.E.2d at 180. The supreme court examined the evidence using the 25 factors and was left with the definite and firm conviction the Director was incorrect. Carpetland, 201 Ill. 2d at 383, 776 N.E.2d at 185.\nAs to this case, Carpetland does not stand for the proposition ISBE must discuss every finding and recommendation of the appeal panel in making its final administrative decision. The 15 factors listed in section 27A \u2014 7 of the Charter Schools Law are requirements the applicant must include when submitting the charter-school proposal to ISBE. When deciding whether to reverse a local board\u2019s decision, ISBE looks at the charter-school proposal and whether it \u201c(i) is in compliance with this [ajrticle, and (ii) is in the best interests of the students it is designed to serve.\u201d 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 9(e) (West 2000). Here, ISBE considered the economic impact the proposal would have on the charter school and the School District, one of the requirements in this article, and the best interests of the students. Thus, ISBE examined the relevant statutory factors, and a reexamination of the facts is not warranted.\nCCS also argues ISBE misinterpreted the school district\u2019s financial information. ISBE indicated it considered evidence that the School District was in \u201cgrave financial condition.\u201d An independent audit found the School District\u2019s projected operating deficit, liability in long-term debt, uncertainty in repayment of two outstanding bond issues, and not-yet-identified funding source for future court-ordered expenditures raised \u201ca substantial doubt about the District\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern.\u201d ISBE cited to the record indicating the total estimated deficit for the Board of Education would be $1,037,363 if the application was granted. In considering the $12,200,034 in cuts approved and the $55 million in tax-anticipation warrants, the Board of Education stated it could not take on new debt. Further, an additional $3,100,000 was to be paid to bondholders over a 10-year period. ISBE\u2019s decision also found \u201cconsiderable confusion\u201d over which figures apply to which funding level. ISBE was unclear what level of funding CCS sought, such as the minimum 75% level, a variable level ranging from 88% in the first year to 95% in the fifth year, or the maximum 100% level.\nISBE conducted meetings, requested additional information, and reviewed the record in making its final decision. Based on the financial concerns to the School District and the proposed charter school, ISBE concluded \u201cthe proposal was not in the best interests of the students it was designed to serve.\u201d The Charter Schools Law requires evidence that the terms of the proposal are economically sound for both the charter school and the school district. 105 ILCS 5/27A \u2014 7(a)(9) (West 2000). ISBE was unable to find the economic soundness of this proposal, a necessary requirement considering the large expenditure of public funds and the state of education spending in Illinois. In reviewing the final decision of ISBE and its reasoning, we are not left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Thus, we hold ISBE\u2019s decision denying CCS\u2019s appeal was not clearly erroneous.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the circuit court\u2019s judgment.\nAffirmed.\nKNECHT, EJ., and McCULLOUGH, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE TURNER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas H. Wilson and James G. Fahey, both of Sorting, Northrup, Hanna, Cullen & Cochran, Ltd., of Springfield, and David J. Chizewer (argued), of Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Thomas J. Lester and Nancy G. Lischer (argued), both of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago, for appellee Rockford School District No. 205.", "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Gary S. Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Mary Patricia Kerns (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee State Board of Education." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 205 et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201403\u20140821\nArgued July 14, 2004.\nOpinion filed September 1, 2004.\nThomas H. Wilson and James G. Fahey, both of Sorting, Northrup, Hanna, Cullen & Cochran, Ltd., of Springfield, and David J. Chizewer (argued), of Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, of Chicago, for appellant.\nThomas J. Lester and Nancy G. Lischer (argued), both of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago, for appellee Rockford School District No. 205.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Gary S. Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Mary Patricia Kerns (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee State Board of Education." }, "file_name": "1109-01", "first_page_order": 1127, "last_page_order": 1138 }