If elected, our challengers have publicly stated that they intend to represent not just the library, but also the “community at large.” They clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a library trustee. It’s time to clear up this misconception. 

As a general matter, trustees have a fiduciary duty to the party whose property they control, to act primarily for that entity’s benefit. It is the highest legal duty anyone can hold for another. In this context, a library trustee has a duty to act for the library’s interests above all others, and to act in the “community’s” benefit - particularly at the library’s expense — would violate that duty.

The Barrington Public Library District is governed by the Illinois Public Library District Act of 1991. (75 ILCS 16/1.1 et seq.) The Act states that 

“The board of trustees of district shall carry out the spirit and intent of the Act in establishing, supporting, and maintaining a public library ... and for providing library service...the board shall have the powers set forth the in following Sections.“ (75 ILCS 16/30-55)

The spirit and intent of the Act is stated as follows:

“To provide local public institutions of general education for citizens of Illinois, library districts and libraries may be established, equipped, and maintained by the board pursuant to this Act. That library shall be forever for the use of the residents and taxpayers of the district in which it is located, subject to reasonable rules and regulations the board adopts to render the use of the library of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of those residents and taxpayers.” (75 ILCS 16/1-10)

The challengers believe that the Library Board’s April 2018 decision was a “misalignment to the interests of the community.” However, a review of the applicable state statutes reveals the invalidity of this assumption.

Specifically as to the sale of library property, the law provides that, “[t]he board may sell … real … property that it deems no longer necessary or useful for library purposes under terms the board deems best.” (75 ILCS 16/30-55.30) 

The Library Trustees may sell the property to the Village of Barrington only if such a sale was of property deemed not necessary or useful for library purposes.

In other words, the focus - and the protection - of this statutory provision regarding library property is on library purposes, not those of the “community at large,” “a portion of the constituents,” or even “another municipality.”

SCt decided  Bondi v. Vanderstok, 604 U.S. ___ (2025) on Wed, 26mar25. Decision was more or less 7 - 2. It's really not a 2d Amendment case.

For decades, the Gun Control Act has regulated the sale of firearms. This case poses the question whether the Act’s longstanding mandates also apply to those who make and sell a new product—“weapon parts kits.”***

Everyone worries about and hates ghost guns, blah, blah, blah. ATF proposed a new rule that treated parts kits the same as firearms. Manufacturers sued.

The issue is whether the ATF's new regulations were authorized by the GCA.

SCt said the manufacturers had the "burden is to show that the Rule itself is inconsistent with the statute on its face.”

J. Gorsuch actually included color graphics in the majority opinion.

The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed.

As this Court explained in the City of Naga v. Agna,** viz:

... When statutes are in pari materia, the rule of statutory construction dictates that they should be construed together. This is because enactments of the same legislature on the same subject matter are supposed to form part of one uniform system; that later statutes are supplementary or complimentary to the earlier enactments and in the passage of its acts the legislature is supposed to have in mind the existing legislation on the same subject and to have enacted its new act with reference thereto. Having thus in mind the previous statutes relating to the same subject matter, whenever the legislature enacts a new law, it is deemed to have enacted the new provision in accordance with the legislative policy embodies in those prior statutes unless there is an express repeal of the old and they all should be construed together. In construing them the old statutes relating to the same subject matter should be compared with the new provisions and if possible by reasonable construction, both should be so construed that effect may be given to every provision of each. However, when the new provision and the old relating to the same subject cannot be reconciled the former shall prevail as it is the latter expression of the legislative will.

*Loyola Grand Villas Homeowner’s (South) Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 681, 696 (1997); Natividad v. Felix, 229 SCRA 680, 687 (1994); Corona v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 378, 392 (1992).

** 71 scra 176 (1976).

AUGUST 30, 1990 CORTES, J.

FACTS:

The New Armed Forces of the Philippines Anti-Graft Board moved to investigate private respondent Lt. Col Troadio Tecson (ret.) for violation of RA 1379. The Board alleged that the PCGG has the power to investigate and cause the prosecution of private respondent because he is a “subordinate” of former President Marcos.

Private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss but said motion was denied. He then filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction with the RTC; respondent Judge herein granted the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether private respondent may be investigated and caused to be prosecuted by the Board

RULING:

Applying the rule in statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, that is - where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.

We are confronted with a situation wherein the PCGG acted in excess of its jurisdiction and, hence, may be enjoined from doing so, but the court that issued the injunction against the PCGG has not been vested by law with jurisdiction over it and, thus, the injunction issued was null and void.

The Security Deposit Of An Insurance Company Filed With The Insurance Commission Is Exempt From Levy By A Judgment Creditor Or Any Other Claimant…

The Case:

To lift the preliminary attachment issued against it in a case filed by Del Monte Motor Works Inc. (Respondent), Maura Villegas filed an Extremely Urgent To discharge Upon Filing Of A Coutnerbond, attaching thereto CISCO Bond No. 0001 1-00005/JCL(3) dated June 10, 1997 and its supporting documents purportedly issued by the petitioner, Capital Insurance and Security Co. Inc.  After…

The First And Fundamental Duty Of The Court Is The Application Of The Law According To Its Express Terms, Interpretation Being Called For Only When Such Literal Application Is Impossible…

The Case:

Purina Philippines Inc., is a domestic corporation with 100% equity. It was granted authority by the Board of Investments in 1990 to engage in the manufacture of animal feeds in the country. In the course of its business, petitioner buys or import corn with authority from the National Food Authority and stored in a warehouse in Pulilan, Bulacan. In 1995, the NFA required Purina to…

Taxation: Availment Of Voluntary Assessment Program Prior To Commencement Of Investigation By BIR Erases Tax Liabilities…

George filed an Affidavit with the BIR Revenue Region 19 Davao City that Juliet earned substantial income in 1994, 1995 and 1996 without paying income tax. The Chief of the Special Investigation Division then issues a mission order for a revenue officer to conduct preliminary verification of the allegations and to submit progress report; he also sent a request to the Revenue District 112, Tagum…