text:
    Judy CHANG, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. PURDUE UNIVERSITY; The Trustees of Purdue University; Dr. France A. Cordova, President of Purdue University, (in her official capacity); Dr. Michael A. Wartell, Chancellor of IPFW, (in his official capacity); Dr. Linda. Finke (in her individual capacity); Dr. Linda Meyer (in her individual capacity); Dr. Carol Sternberger, (in her individual capacity); and Dr. Kathleen O’Connell (in her individual capacity), Appellees-Defendants.
    No. 02A03-1206-PL-272.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    March 19, 2013.
    Rehearing Denied June 20, 2013.

      Norman L. Roelke, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
    Tandra M. Stovall, Stuart & Branigin LLP, Lafayette, IN, Attorney for Appel-lees.
   OPINION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

Judy Chang appeals the denial of her summary judgment motion and her motion for directed verdict, as well as the grant of a summary judgment motion submitted by Purdue University, the Trustees of Purdue University, Dr. France Cordova (in her capacity as Purdue University’s president), Dr. Michael Wartell (in his capacity as chancellor of Indiana University — Purdue University at Fort Wayne (IPFW)), and, in their individual capacities, Dr. Linda Finke, Dean of the College of Health and Human Services (CHHS), Dr. Linda Meyer, IPFW’s Director of Undergraduate Programs for the Department of Nursing and a professor in that department, Carol Sternberger, Chair of the Department of Nursing, and Kathleen O’Connell, a former professor in the nursing program and IPFW’s Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Chang also appeals a jury verdict against her. Chang presents the following restated issues for review:

1. With respect to Chang’s breach-of-contract claims, did the trial court err in not granting Chang’s pretrial summary judgment motion, or her motion for a directed verdict at the end of trial; and did the evidence support the jury’s verdict?
2. With respect to Chang’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, did the trial court err in denying Chang’s summary judgment motion and granting Purdue’s summary judgment motion?
3. With respect to Chang’s claim arising under article 1, section 12 of the Indiana Constitution, did the trial court err in denying Chang’s summary judgment motion?
4. Did the trial court err in dismissing Chang’s claims of tortious interference with Chang’s contract and property rights?
5. Did the trial court err in not allowing the testimonies of Chris Mertz regarding his suspension from class for unprofessional conduct and violations of the IPFW Disciplinary Code, and of Grace Decker, who witnessed the October 30, 2008 incident that led to Chang’s dismissal from the Department of Nursing, College of Health and Human Services?

We affirm.

In the fall of 2008, Chang was a student enrolled in CHHS’s Department of Nursing at Purdue’s regional IPFW campus. This case ultimately centers upon her dismissal from the CHHS and the Department of Nursing, a dismissal that was precipitated by an incident involving Chang and primarily one other CHHS student on October 30, 2008. This incident was not Chang’s first difficulty in the nursing program.

Chang’s studies in IPFW’s nursing program began in 2007. On January 29, 2007, Chang’s lab coordinator formally documented concerns about Chang’s lab skills. When lab personnel attempted to discuss their concerns with Chang, Chang “became very argumentative and stated she felt targeted.” Appellees’ Appendix at 67. When someone in the program again attempted to discuss their concerns with Chang on or about February 7, 2007, this resulted in “angry behavior” on Chang’s part. Id. When that person was asked about another meeting with Chang, she responded: “I am not comfortable talking to [Chang] alone. As I have thought more about this today, I am concerned that there is more to this than just a difference in cultures. I am wondering about some type of personality disorder or mental problem.” Id. Finally, on February 16, Dr. Sternberger met with Chang and they discussed a specific plan “for improvement in nursing lab check-offs and clinical.” Id. at 67-68. Dr. Sternberger sent Chang a follow-up email summarizing the substance of their meeting. Chang responded to this email as follows: “PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE. I DON’T WANT TO BE BOTHERED LIKE THIS AGAIN.” Id. at 68.

On April 3, 2007, Chang had a confrontation with another nursing student. A supervisor saw Chang leaning over a table within six inches of another student and “talking very hateful” to that student. Id. at 69. Moments later, the supervisor observed the other student crying and saying to Chang, “I don’t want to discuss this with you any more.” Id. The supervisor observed that Chang leaned back over to the student and “was talking hateful again.” Id. On April 6, Dr. Sternberger advised Chang that a hearing was scheduled concerning the April 3 incident. On April 10, program personnel received an email regarding an incident involving Chang in the office of Services for Students with Disabilities. According to the email, Chang was “argumentative with Mary and Judy in their office, throughout which Chang ‘became increasingly agitated and disrespectful.’ ” Id. at 70. On April 18, 2007, Dr. Sternberger filed a report with IPFW campus police reporting that students overheard Chang making statements to the effect, “I have a gun” or “I have a gun and know how to use it.” Id.

On September 17, 2007, Dr. Sternberger advised Dr. Donna Bialik, IPFW’s Dean of Students, that Chang was failing her clinical course at St. Joseph Hospital’s Adult Behavioral Health Unit as a result of unprofessional conduct. Chang was advised that a meeting was scheduled for September 19 to discuss Chang’s behavior in the course. Chang did not attend the meeting, but instead dropped the course. On December 21, 2007, the Nursing Department notified Chang that she had earned a grade below a “C”, and thus on January 8, 2008, Chang was placed on academic probation.

As indicated previously, however, all of the foregoing was prelude to the incident that gave rise to the present litigation. On October 30, 2008, Chang and student Julie Webb argued about “a group project and the tasks to be performed by the students for their nursing class.” Appellant’s Appendix at 25. The argument left Webb feeling threatened by Chang. Webb, who was pregnant at the time, believed that Chang was going to push her down the stairs. On November 4, 2008, Dean Finke and Dr. Sternberger determined that Chang had violated the professional misconduct policy and Meyer informed Chang that she would be removed from the clinical course pending an investigation of the complaint about Chang’s conduct. Chang was then escorted out of the hospital by security personnel.

In connection with the October 30 incident, Chang was charged with unprofessional conduct pursuant to the Department of Nursing Professional Misconduct policy, which states:

Students may be failed in a nursing course and/or dismissed from the IPFW/Parkview Department of Nursing for unprofessional conduct that jeopardizes the health and/or safety of patients/clients and/or others or has a potentially detrimental effect on the Department of Nursing. Due to the serious consequence of certain unprofessional behaviors, procedures for dismissal from the program may be initiated. If the student is in a clinical setting at the time that professional misconduct occurs, the person will be immediately removed from the site. The student will be suspended from all clinical settings pending the outcome of the disciplinary process.
Students are held to the standards of the Indiana Nurse Practice Act and as such, they are liable for their own actions. Behaviors of professional misconduct occurring at any time while the person is a student in the nursing program may result in disciplinary action include, but are not limited to:
• Patient Abandonment and/or neglect
• Commission of fraudulent acts/documentation
• Breach of confidentiality
• Theft of property from a clinical agency, client, others of IPFW
• Disorderly conduct
• Verbal abuse that involves an expressed or implied threat to a person’s safety
• Physical abuse of any person
• Possession of a weapon
• Failed drug screen and/or possession of drugs or controlled substances
• Failed drug screen and/or possession of alcohol while at a clinical agency
• Failure to report an arrest with felony charges or a felony conviction
• Any behavior that constitutes misconduct as defined by the IPFW Student Handbook and Planner and/or the IPFW Undergraduate Bulletin.
The Department of Nursing follows the processes outlined in the College of Health and Human Services (CHH) Policy on Professional Misconduct and the IPFW Student Disciplinary Procedures. The CHH Policy on Professional Misconduct may be obtained from the office of the Dean. The IPFW Student Disciplinary Procedures is found in the IPFW Student Handbook and Planner and/or the IPFW Undergraduate Bulletin.

Appellee’s Appendix at 64. On November 6, Chang met with a committee of the Department of Nursing to discuss the allegations against her and to allow Chang an opportunity to respond. The committee consisted of Pam DeKonnck and Sanna Harges, members of the nursing faculty, Meyer, Director of Undergraduate Programs, and Sternberger, Chair of the Nursing Department. Chang attended with her advisor, Bialik. The committee first met with Webb, the other student involved in the incident. Webb “voiced extreme concern for her safety”, and indicated that she had filed a statement with the Fort Wayne Police Department and stated that she was considering obtaining a restraining order. Id. at 27. The student also indicated that although her home telephone number was- unlisted, Chang had called her at home earlier in the semester. Later, Chang had left a “rambling message” on the student’s cell phone. Id. After the student met with Bialik, Chang was directed to stop calling the student. In a letter sent to Chang informing her of her dismissal from the program, the committee stated:

The nursing department committee determined that sufficient evidence of a pattern of unprofessional conduct that jeopardized the health and/or safety of classmates was documented to support dismissal from nursing program [sic]. The decision was based on the pattern of action of verbal abuse that involved an expressed or implied threat to a person’s safety.

Id.

On November 23, 2008, Chang appealed her dismissal to the Student Appeals Committee. In addition to reviewing a packet containing all that had occurred up to that point, the Student Appeals Committee met with the faculty members involved in Chang’s case, and also met with Chang in order to allow her to tell her side of the story. On December 8, 2013, the Student Appeals Committee informed Chang by letter that the committee had reviewed Chang’s appeal of the decision and “unanimously believes the decision made by the Department of Nursing was justified.” Id. at 91. ■

On December 29, 2008, Chang appealed the Student Appeals Committee’s decision to the Campus Appeals Board. This board consisted of Dr. O’Connell, faculty members Douglas Townsend and Margit Codis-poti, S.S., a business student, and A.K., a psychology student. Chang initiated the appeal to the Campus Appeals Board by submitting a letter to the IPFW office of the Dean of Students, in which she cited the following grounds for appeal:

I beleive [sic] improper Procedures and a lack of Due Process have been followed at the earlier steps of the appeal process in that I was not given the names of the witnesses against me, their statements and/or allowed to confront them in the appeals process or confront false evidence provided and cited by Dr. Carol Sternberger to support dismissal from the College of Health and Human Services. It is also believed the department tried to coerce an impartial witness to testify against me and yet her statement stated that she did not see any expressed or implied threat.
I believe I have been discriminated upon [sic] based on my race, sex, and/or national origin.

Id. at 25. The Campus Appeals Board held a hearing on March 30, 2009. Chang was present at the hearing and Norman Roelke, Chang’s appellate counsel in the present litigation, served as her advisor. The Campus Appeals Board heard statements and reviewed evidence submitted by both sides, and also received the testimony of Meyer, Finke, and Sternberger as witnesses for the Department of Nursing and CHHS. The board ultimately affirmed Chang’s dismissal on the strength of the following conclusions:

Testimony and documentation appear to identify that [Chang] was treated fairly, received notification, engaged in a discussion of the charges with the nursing faculty, and was informed of the results and her right of appeal. No documentation was found to identify whether or not Ms. Chang was informed that she would possibly be dismissed from the program as a result of the meeting. However, a review of documentation of concerns about the student’s behavior in the clinical setting dating back to her first clinical course revealed that the faculty had, or had attempted to, talk with, meet with, or communicate with Ms. Chang on a number of occasions to inform her that she needed to present herself in a more positive and cooperative professional manner when dealing with patients, staff and classmates. The consequences for unprofessional behavior are identified in the Professional Misconduct Policy in the Nursing Student Manual and the behaviors covered by the policy do not appear to be limited to the clinical setting. The removal from the clinical setting by the dean of the college and security staff was also a significant event. The majority of the Board therefore concluded that the student should have known that her place in the nursing program was in jeopardy when she attended the meeting.

Id. at 95.

Finally, Chang appealed to IPFW Chancellor Wartell, who affirmed the Campus . Appeals Board’s ruling. In an April 15, 2009 letter to Chang, Chancellor Wartell explained:

Based upon the facts and circumstances in this matter, I concur with the Recommendations and determine there was no violation of due process when you were dismissed from the Department of Nursing and the College of Health and Human Services. Specifically, I find you were notified of the allegations causing your removal from the clinical setting. Further, you were notified of the meeting and were offered an opportunity to rebut information as well as present information in your favor. Still further, documentation was provided that you were previously informed of your prior unprofessional behavior. Still further, the Professional Misconduct Policy, in the Nursing Student Handbook, states dismissal' may occur for unprofessional conduct and “behaviors of professional misconduct occurring at any time while the person is a student in the nursing program may result in disciplinary action ... [.] ” Still further, the College of Health and Human Services chooses the most stringent course of action regarding misconduct and a “student dismissed from his or her program will also be dismissed from the College of Health and Human Services.” Still further, the Student Appeals Committee found your dismissal to be proper. When considering these factors, you were afforded due process in your dismissal from both the Department of Nursing and the College of Health and Human Services.

Id. at 60-61.

On October 6, 2009, Chang filed the present lawsuit. In Count I, Chang alleged a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, she sought injunctive relief against the Trustees, Cor-dova, and Wartell in the form of reinstatement in the nursing program and expungement from her student files and records of all references to the above-described events, including the “F” she received in the class she was talking at the time of her dismissal. She also sought under Count I compensatory damages against Finke, Meyer, Sternberger, and O'Connell, in their individual capacities. She sought essentially the same relief under Count II, which alleged that Appellees violated her rights under article 1, section 12 of the Indiana Constitution, Indiana’s version of the guarantee of due process. Under Count III, Chang alleged that Appellees’ acts constituted a breach of the implied contract between Purdue University and Chang with respect to Article 16 of the Purdue Conduct Code. Under this count, Chang sought injunctive relief against Cor-dova and Wartell, and compensatory and punitive damages against the Trustees, Finke, Meyer, Sternberger, and O’Connell. Under Count IV, Chang alleged a second claim of breach of contract, this one related to the IPFW Code. As with her claim for relief under Count III, Chang also sought injunctive relief against Cordova and Wartell, and compensatory and punitive damages against the Trustees, Finke, Meyer, Sternberger, and O’Connell. Under Count V, Chang alleged that Appellees tortiously interfered with her property right in obtaining a nursing education at Purdue University and thereby sought compensatory and punitive damages from Finke, Meyer, Sternberger, and O’Connell in their individual capacities. Finally, under Count VI, Chang sought compensatory and punitive damages from Finke, Meyer, Sternberger, and O’Connell in their individual capacities under a theory of tortious interference with contract pertaining to Chang’s contract with Purdue University.

On March 29, 2010, the trial court granted Purdue University’s motion to dismiss Count I, but denied all of Appellees’ other motions to dismiss Count I with respect to the remaining defendants, and also denied all other motions to dismiss Counts II, V, and VI. On October 5, 2011, Chang filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellees countered with a summary judgment motion of their own on October 7, 2011. On March 21, 2012, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees “on that portion of Count I ... seeking monetary damages and equitable relief from [Appellees] pursuant to § 1983.” Appellant’s Appendix at 45. The court granted Appellees’ summary judgment motion with respect to Chang’s claims for monetary damages under Count II, but denied summary judgment on the request for injunctive relief. The court determined that neither side was entitled to summary judgment concerning Counts III and IV. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees with respect to Counts V and VI on grounds that Chang failed to comply with the notice provision of the Indiana Tort Claims Act. See Ind. Code Ann. § 34-13-3-8 (West, Westlaw current through 2012 2nd Reg. Sess.).

Essentially, only Counts III and IV survived the pretrial phase and proceeded to jury trial. By that time, Purdue University was the only remaining defendant. The trial court decided to conduct a bifurcated trial, with the first phase addressing liability and the second phase focusing on damages. In the first phase, the court determined that the following two issues would be submitted to the jury:

1. The nature and terms of the contractual agreement between [Chang] and the Defendant, Purdue University.
2. Whether the Defendant, Purdue University, breached its contract with [Chang] by failing to follow proper procedures in dismissing [Chang] from the Nursing Program.

Appellant’s Appendix at 18. The jury found in favor of Purdue University and against Chang on Counts III and IV, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.

1.

Chang contends the trial court erred in not granting her pretrial summary judgment motion and her motion for a directed verdict at the end of trial concerning her breach-of-contract claims. She also contends the evidence did not support the jury’s determination that Purdue University did not breach its contract with Chang.

Our standard of review for rulings on summary judgment motions is well settled.

When reviewing a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment our standard of review is the same as it is for the trial court. The moving party “bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 970 N.E.2d 633, 637 (Ind. 2012). Summary judgment is improper if the movant fails to carry its burden, but if it succeeds, then the nonmoving party must come forward with evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. In determining whether summary judgment is proper, the reviewing court considers only the evidentiary matter the parties have specifically designated to the trial court. See Ind. Trial R. 56(C), (H). We construe all factual'inferences in the non-moving party’s favor and resolve all doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the moving party. The fact that the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment does not alter our standard for review, as we consider each motion separately to determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277, 285 (Ind. 2012) (some internal citations to authority omitted). ‘We will affirm the denial of summary judgment if it is sustainable on any legal theory or basis found in the evidentiary matter designated to the trial court.” Illinois Bulk Carrier, Inc. v. Jackson, 908 N.E.2d 248, 253 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) (quoting W. Amer. Ins. Co. v. Cates, 865 N.E.2d 1016, 1020 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied), trans. denied.

Chang’s breach-of-contract claims center upon the applicability of the Purdue Code and IPFW Code to Chang’s dismissal. In a nutshell, Chang contended below and reiterates upon appeal that those two codes govern — or should govern — proceedings that, as happened in her ease, result in dismissal. Those codes prescribe a panoply of rights and procedures, some of which were not followed in Chang’s dismissal from the nursing program. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that neither party was entitled to summary judgment on this question and that the question should be submitted to the jury. ■ .

We begin our discussion of this issue by reviewing a matter that is foundational to Chang’s claim in this regard, i.e., the nature of the contractual relationship between a university and its students. We recently had cause to explore this subject in depth in Amaya v. Brater, 981 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind.Ct.App.2013). We understand that the Amaya opinion has not yet been certified and that a petition for rehearing in that case is pending. We discuss this case, however, because we agree with its analysis and rationale, which are instructive and apply with equal force in the present case. In Amaya, a medical student, Amaya, was dismissed from medical school after three professors reported having observed him cheating during a test. A disciplinary complaint was filed and a hearing was held on that complaint. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the student was dismissed. Thereafter, he initiated appeals that ultimately proved to be unsuccessful and the dismissal was upheld. He filed a lawsuit against the medical school seeking reinstatement. One of the theories of liability advanced in his complaint was that the medical school had breached its contract with him by not publishing its standards and procedures for disciplinary actions in accordance with accreditation standards and the Indiana University Code of Student Ethics. He also complained that the medical school breached its contract by not strictly adhering to “its own internal policies and procedures for disciplinary misconduct and to ‘guarantee students in the unit a fair opportunity to be heard consistent with the standards of evidence and due process found’ in the Code of Student Ethics and the LCME’s accreditation standards.” Id. at 1240-41.

Although courts have analyzed the relationship between student and university under many different legal doctrines, “ ‘[t]he most pervasive and enduring theory is that the relationship between a student and an educational institution is contractual in nature. The terms of the contract, however, are rarely delineated, nor do the courts apply contract law rigidly.’ ” Id. at 1240 (quoting Neel v. Ind. Univ. Bd. Of Trs., 435 N.E.2d 607, 610 (Ind.Ct.App.1982)). Although it is generally accepted that a university’s catalogues, bulletins, circulars, and regulations that are made available to its students become of part of this contract, our courts have taken “a very flexible approach to the scope of contractual promises between students' and universities and have noted that hornbook rules cannot be ‘applied mechanically where the principal is an educational institution’ and the result would be to override an academic determination.” Id. (quoting Neel v. Ind. Univ. Bd. Of Trs., 435 N.E.2d. at 611) (citations omitted).

University disciplinary determinations in most cases are premised upon the subjective professional judgment of trained educators, and therefore our courts “ ‘have quite properly exercised the utmost restraint in applying traditional legal rules to disputes within the academic community.’ ” Id. (quoting Neel v. Ind. Univ. Bd. Of Trs., 435 N.E.2d at' 611). As a result, in the area of academic services, our approach has been akin to the one used in the case of contracts conditioned upon the satisfaction of one party. The university requires that a student’s academic performance be satisfactory in the university’s honest judgment. “ ‘Absent a showing of bad faith on the part of the university or a professor, the court will not interfere. The good faith judgment model both maximizes academic freedom and provides an acceptable approximation of the educational expectations of the parties.’ ” Id. (quoting Neel v. Ind. Univ. Bd. Of Trs., 435 N.E.2d at 611). Bad faith in this context “ ‘is not simply bad judgment or negligence [, rjather, it implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.’ ” Id. (quoting Gordon v. Purdue Univ., 862 N.E.2d 1244, 1251 (Ind.Ct.App.2007)). “Literal adherence by a university to its internal rules will not be required when the dismissal of a student ‘rests upon expert judgments as to academic or professional standards and such judgments are fairly and nonarbi-trarily arrived at.’ Id. (quoting Neel v. Ind. Univ. Bd. OfTrs., 435 N.E.2d at 612) (emphasis supplied). Our sole function when reviewing disciplinary actions such as in the present case is to determine whether the educational institution acted illegally, arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith. Amaya v. Brater, 981 N.E.2d 1235.

As set out in detail above, Chang was given notice that the Nursing Department Committee would convene a hearing on November 6, 2008 at which Chang would be given a chance to present her side of the story concerning allegations that Chang had engaged in professional misconduct during the October 30 incident. Chang relayed to the committee her version of what had happened, after which the committee concluded that the evidence revealed Chang had engaged in a pattern of unprofessional conduct that jeopardized the health and/or safety of a classmate. Chang appealed her dismissal to the Student Appeals Committee, which reviewed the evidence presented to the Nursing Department Committee and listened to Chang’s version of the incident. The Student Appeals Committee upheld the dismissal. Chang next appealed to the Campus Appeals Board. Chang provided a written submission to and- appeared personally before the CAB and made a statement outlining her position. The CAB reviewed evidence presented by both sides. After the hearing was concluded, the CAB determined that Chang had been provided a meaningful opportunity to defend the charge against her and thus had received due process, and that the evidence supported Chang’s dismissal. The CAB also determined that the Nursing Department had acted properly in applying its professional misconduct policy rather, than the Purdue Code or the IPFW Code. Finally, Chancellor Wartell reviewed the CAB’s findings and recommendations and accepted its recommendation to uphold Chang’s dismissal.

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that Chang failed to designate evidence establishing that the Nursing Department’s decision to dismiss Chang was arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith. The Nursing Department’s conclusion that Chang violated the its professional misconduct policy was a rational determination arrived at after much deliberation and after Chang had several opportunities before multiple different committees and boards to be heard and to explain her behavior.

Finally, we note, as did the Amaya panel with respect to the decision-makers in that case, that our deference to the foregoing expert judgments concerning Chang’s failure to meet professional standards is dictated by the fact that the administrators and professors in the CHHS and the Nursing Department at IPFW “have a duty to the public as well as to the student.” Amaya v. Brater, 981 N.E.2d at 1242. “To place incompetent, irresponsible, or unethical [nurses] into active practice would surely be to the detriment of the health and safety of the members of society.” Id. We reiterate that we are ill-equipped to second-guess professional judgments that are not arrived at arbitrarily. See Amaya v. Brater, 981 N.E.2d 1235. The trial court did not err in denying Chang’s summary judgment motion.

Chang contends the trial court erred in denying her motion for directed verdict and that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Because these claims essentially allege the same error, we will combine them into a single discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence. See, cf., Delagrange v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1227, 1230 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (“[i]f the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction upon appeal, then a motion for a directed verdict is properly denied; ” for this reason, “our standard of review is essentially the same as that upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence; thus, our standard of review is essentially the same as that upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence”), trans. denied.

The jury concluded that IPFW did not breach its contract with Chang concerning the procedures for addressing acts on the part of nursing students that are alleged to violate the professional misconduct policy. We summarized and discussed the relevant evidence at length in reaching our conclusion that the trial court did not err in denying Chang’s summary judgment motion. We now observe that the same evidence not only supported the trial court’s pretrial ruling, but also supports the jury’s verdict on that same question. Thus, we need not rehash it. The trial court did not err in denying Chang’s motion for directed verdict, because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts against Chang.

2.

In Count I of her complaint, Chang sought injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Trustees, Cordova, and Wartell (seeking expungement of the “F” grade in Nursing 202, reinstatement in the nursing program, and the removal from her permanent record of negative comments and police reports filed against her), and compensatory damages against Fink, Meyer, Sternberger, and O’Connell on grounds that they acted outside the scope of their employment in disregarding the Purdue and IPFW Codes when dismissing Chang. She contends that the trial court erred in not granting her summary judgment motion and in granting Purdue’s summary judgment motion.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 was designed to prevent states from violating the Constitution and certain federal statutes, and to compensate injured plaintiffs for deprivations of those federally conferred rights. Culver-Union Twp. Ambulance Serv. v. Steindler, 629 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind.1994). “It was not intended to supplant state tort law by providing a remedy for every wrong.” Id. at 1233. Moreover, our courts have “previously rejected reasoning that ‘would make of the Fourteenth Amendment a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States.’ ” Id. (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986)). “A state tort does not become a constitutional violation simply because it is committed by a government actor.” Id. That said, it is well settled that a state official may be sued in his or her official capacity for prospective relief such as an injunction for a violation of a person’s due process rights under § 1983. See, e.g., Ross v. Ind. State Bd. Of Nursing, 790 N.E.2d 110 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003). Chang sued the Trustees, Cordova, and Wartell in their official capacities for just such relief, including reinstatement to the nursing program and expungement from Chang’s record of information related to this incident. Also, a state official may be sued in his or her individual capacity for retrospective relief under § 1983. See, e.g., City of Warsaw v. Orban, 884 N.E.2d 262 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied. Chang sued Fink, Meyer, Sternber-ger, and O’Connell for compensatory damages under § 1983 on grounds that they acted outside the scope of their employment in disregarding the Purdue and IPFW Codes when dismissing Chang.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Trustees, Cordova, and Wartell in their official capacities, and in favor of Fink, Meyer, Sternberger, and O’Connell in their individual capacities, and correctly so. Assuming that “Chang had federally protected property rights in her continued education in the nursing department”, Appellant’s Brief at 31, “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984).

In the present case, as the trial court observed, in Counts III and IV of her amended complaint, Chang alleged breach of contract, seeking damages and equitable relief from the aforementioned parties. She had a meaningful post-deprivation remedy and therefore was not entitled to pursue a claim under § 1983 and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees on that count. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,104 S.Ct. 3194.

3.

Chang contends that the actions described in our discussion of Issue 2 above also constituted a violation of her due-process rights under article 1, section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. Specifically, under Count II of her amended complaint, Chang alleged that her dismissal from the nursing department violates section 12’s guarantee that “[a]ll courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.” Pursuant to this claim, Chang sought monetary damages from Sternberger, Finke, Meyer, and Connell and injunctive relief with respect to Purdue, the Trustees, Cor-dova, and Wartell. Chang contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant her motion for summary judgment with respect these claims.

Chang’s argument with respect to article 1, section 12 consists almost entirely of cases discussing the federal Due Process Clause. We say “almost” because Chang cites this court’s opinion in Lake Ctr. Sch. Gorp. v. Scartozzi, 759 N.E.2d 1185 (Ind. Ct.App.2001) for the proposition “that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been construed by the courts as analogous to the federal due process clause.” Appellant’s Brief at 33. We assume that Chang meant that article 1, section 12 has been so construed. Although there is language in Scartozzi to that effect, our Supreme Court has determined that this is not the case.

In Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509, 515 (Ind.2001), the Court clarified that “the state constitutional right in Article I, Section 12 and federal due process are not necessarily identical.” Undoubtedly, it is primarily for this reason that “[questions arising under the Indiana Constitution” are to be resolved “by examining the language of the text in the context of the history surrounding its drafting and ratification, the purpose and structure of our constitution, and case law interpreting the specific provisions.” Indiana Gaming Comm’n v. Moseley, 643 N.E.2d 296, 298 (Ind.1994). “Where a party, though citing Indiana constitutional authority, ’ presents no separate argument specifically treating and analyzing a claim under the Indiana Constitution distinct from its federal counterpart, we resolve the party’s claim ‘on the basis of federal constitutional doetrine[.]’ ” Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1154, 1158 (Ind.2005) (quoting Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162, 167 (Ind.1997)), cert, denied, 547 U.S. 1148, 126 S.Ct. 2295, 164 L.Ed.2d 814 (2006). We have already rejected Chang’s claims under the federal Due Process Clause in Issue 2, and need not repeat that analysis here. Chang’s claim under article 1, section 12 fails.

4.

Chang contends the trial court erred in dismissing her claims of tortious interference with Chang’s contract and property rights under Counts V and VI. Under Count V, Chang alleged that Finke, Meyer, Sternberger, and O’Connell committed tortious interference of her property rights. Under Count VI, Chang alleged that Finke, Meyer, Sternberger, and O’Connell committed tortious interference with her contractual rights. The trial court granted summary judgment against Chang on grounds that she had failed' to comply with the notice provisions of the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA).

The ITCA governs lawsuits against political subdivisions and their employees. Irwin Mortg. Corp. v. Marion Cnty. Treasurer; 816 N.E.2d 439 (Ind.Ct. App.2004). The ITCA provides that a claim against a political subdivision is barred unless notice is filed with (1) the governing body of the political subdivision and (2) the Indiana Political Subdivision Risk Management Commission, within 180 days after a loss occurs. I.C. § 34-13-3-8. For purposes of the ITCA, a state college or university is a political subdivision. Ind. Code Ann. § 34-6-2-110(7) (West, Westlaw current through 2012 2nd Reg. ' Sess.). Where a plaintiff elects to sue a governmental employee in his or her individual capacity, “notice is required only if the act or omission causing the plaintiffs loss is within the scope of the defendant’s employment.” Bienz v. Bloom, 674 N.E.2d 998, 1004 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). The ITCA provides substantial immunity for conduct within the scope of a public employee’s employment “to ensure that public employees can exercise the independent judgment necessary to carry out their duties without threat of harassment by litigation or threats of litigation over decisions made within the scope of their employment.” Irwin Mortg. Corp. v. Marion Cnty. Treasurer, 816 N.E.2d at 445. Compliance with the ITCA is a question of law for the court to decide. Irwin Mortg. Corp. v. Marion Cnty. Treasurer, 816 N.E.2d 439.

As a preliminary matter, we think it clear that the conduct of which Chang complains was .within the scope of Fink’s, Meyer’s, Sternberger’s, and O’Con-nell’s employment. “[I]n order for an employee’s act to fall “within the scope of employment,’ the injurious act must be incidental to the conduct authorized or it must, to an appreciable extent, further the employer’s business.” Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281, 283 (Ind.2008) (quoting Celebration Fireworks, Inc. v. Smith, 727 N.E.2d 450, 453 (Ind.2000)). All of the allegedly injurious actions upon which Chang’s tort claims against the individual defendants were based were performed squarely within the context of their roles as professors and administrators at IPFW. To review, Chang sued Finke, the Dean of IPFW’s CHHS, Meyer, professor and Director of Undergraduate Programs for the Department of Nursing, Sternberger, Chair of the Department of Nursing, and O’Connell, a former professor in the Department of Nursing and IPFW’s Associate Chancellor for Academic Affairs, for their actions, described in detail above, in Chang’s dismissal and subsequent efforts to appeal that dismissal. She alleged that they disregarded her testimony and other evidence in pursuing and affirming her dismissal, and that such wrongfully infringed upon her property right to obtain an education at IPFW. It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of action undertaken in an educator’s official capacity. Thus, Chang was required to comply with the notice requirements of the ITCA in prosecuting her claims against Fink, Meyer, Sternberger, and O’Connell under Counts V and VI.

The individual appellees filed for summary judgment on these counts on the basis that Chang failed to serve them with the requisite notice under the ITCA. There seems to be no disagreement as to whether Chang sent formal notice of her claims against IPFW; she did not. She contends, however, that she substantially complied with the notice requirements of the ITCA.

I.C. § 34-13-3-10 (West, Westlaw current through 2012 2nd Reg. Sess.) provides:

The notice required by sections 6, 8, and 9 of this chapter must describe in a short and plain statement the facts on which the claim is based. The statement must include the circumstances which brought about the loss, the extent of the loss, the time and place the loss occurred, the names of all persons involved if known, the amount of the damages sought, and the residence of the person making the claim at the time of the loss and at the time of filing the notice.

“In general, the cause of action of a tort claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knew or, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, could have discovered that an injury had been sustained as a result of the tortious act of another.” Filip v. Block, 879 N.E.2d 1076, 1082 (Ind.2008) (quotation omitted). “[N]otice is sufficient if it substantially complies with the content requirements of the statute.” Collier v. Prater, 544 N.E.2d 497, 499 (Ind.1989). In determining whether substantial compliance is established, we look to the purpose of the notice requirements, which is “to inform state officials with reasonable certainty of the accident or incident and surrounding circumstances and to advise of the injured party’s intent to assert a tort claim so that the state may investigate, determine its possible liability, and prepare a defense to the claim.” Irwin Mortg. Corp. v. Marion Cnty. Treasurer, 816 N.E.2d at 446 (quoting Gamelis v. Ind. State Dep’t of Health, 806 N.E.2d 365, 368 (Ind.Ct.App.2004)). The claimant bears the burden of establishing substantial compliance. Irwin Mortg. Corp. v. Marion Cnty. Treasurer, 816 N.E.2d 439 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). Substantial compliance with the notice requirement of the ITCA is a question of law. Rudnick v. N. Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist., 892 N.E.2d 204 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied.

Chang contends that she substantially complied with the notice requirement because: (1) on March 24, 2009, she sent a letter to Chancellor Wartell claiming that IPFW had violated Chang’s due process rights, as described above, and that Wartell should recuse from participation in the review of Chang’s dismissal; (2) on April 24, 2009, Chang sent a letter to Cordova, President of Purdue University, informing her that Chang’s due process rights had been violated and “asking several questions” of her, Appellant’s Brief at 36; and (3) “after no action on behalf of Purdue, a demand letter was sent on June 25, 2009 to Purdue as requested by Purdue.” Id. at 37.

We can readily dismiss the claim that the March 24 and April 24 letters satisfied the ITCA’s notice requirement. The purpose of the letter to Wartell was expressly identified in the body of the letter as follows: “The purpose of this letter is to offer IPFW a chance to resolve this matter before this matter moves on to the next public phase of the due process appeal process.” Appellant’s Brief at 65. The remainder of the letter confirms that the subject of the letter was confined to the then-ongoing appeal of Chang’s dismissal via the university appeals process. The letter to Cardova was a lengthy missive that was, in substance, part interrogatories and part critique of the University’s actions in conjunction with Chang’s dismissal from the nursing program and the subsequent appeal process. Both letters functioned almost entirely to advocate Chang’s positions with respect to the appeal process at IPFW and certainly did not communicate an intent to file a tort claim.

We now turn our attention to the demand letter. It is true that the letter advised Appellees’ counsel that Chang had authorized her counsel to file a lawsuit on her behalf, and also set forth a list of Chang’s demands. In fact, that is all it contained, and this is not enough. The statutory standard form and content of the notice required by the ITCA are set out in I.C. § 34-13-3-10, which provides that the notice

must include the following information in a short and plain statement: (1) [T]he circumstances that brought about the loss, (2) the extent of the loss, (3) the time and place the loss occurred, (4) the names of all persons involved if known, (5) the amount of damages sought, and (6) the residence of the person making the claim at the time of the loss and at the time of filing the notice.

Fowler v. Brewer, 773 N.E.2d 858, 864 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied. The demand letter did not include any information relative to items (1), (3), (4), and (6). We understand that Chang might well respond that Appellees were by then familiar with the situation and already knew all of that information. We have held, however, “that independently acquired knowledge or routine investigation of an occurrence was insufficient to show substantial compliance with the notice statute.” Id. (finding no substantial compliance where plaintiffs attorney sent a letter to the defendant’s insurer informing it only of the fact of representation and that the claim was for damages incurred on the date of the relevant accident). Moreover, I.C. § 34-13-3-10 requires that the requisite notice be hand-delivered or sent by certified or registered mail. There is no indication of how this letter was delivered to Appellees’ attorney. See Fowler v. Brewer, 773 N.E.2d 858.

Finally, we note that I.C. § 34-13-3-8 provides that notice must be delivered not only to the governmental entity in question, but also to the Indiana Political Subdivision Risk Management Commission. Again, we find no indication in the materials before us that this was accomplished. More problematically, there is no indication that Chang even attempted to comply with the ITCA’s notice requirement statute. To the extent that her written communications with various entities and individuals associated with Appellees conveyed the required information, it apparently was done without regard to the ITCA. In fact, we can find no indication that Chang even contemplated the ITCA’s notice requirement until Appellees challenged some of her claims for relief on that basis. “While this court has interpreted the- notice statutes to allow substantial compliance when a claimant has taken affirmative steps to notify the governmental entity, we cannot find substantial compliance when the claimant took no steps whatsoever to comply with the notice statute[J” Bromi v. Alexander, 876 N.E.2d 376, 383 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (emphasis supplied), trans. denied.

We stress that this is not'a case where a claimant sought to comply with the ITCA’s notice requirement provisions, but fell short. The present case involves more than a mere technical shortcoming. It appears instead that Chang did not consider the ITCA, and particularly its requirements governing notice. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Fink, Meyer, Sternberger, and O’Connell on Counts V and VI.

5.

The trial court granted Appellees’ pretrial motion in limine, which sought exclusion of, among other things, “[ujnrelated complaints, charges or lawsuits initiated by other IPFW students or employees.” Appellant’s Appendix at 61. Pursuant to this ruling, the trial court did not permit Chang to call witnesses Chris Mertz, who was suspended from class at IPFW for unprofessional conduct and violations of the IPFW Disciplinary Code, and Grace Decker, who witnessed the October 30, 2008 incident that led to Chang’s dismissal from the Department of Nursing, College of Health and Human Services. Chang contends the trial court erred in excluding these witnesses.

Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. W.S.K. v. M.H.S.B., 922 N.E.2d 671 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). We review such rulings for an abuse of discretion and the trial court’s decisions in this respect are afforded great deference on appeal. Whiteside v. State, 853 N.E.2d 1021 (Ind. Ct.App.2006). An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. In reviewing the admissibility of evidence, we consider only the evidence in favor of the trial court’s ruling and any unrefuted evidence in the defendant’s favor. Id.

Mertz was a CHHS student at IPFW who was suspended from class because of an alleged violation of CHHS’s “Human Services Code of Ethics.” Transcript at 370. After the jury had been excused, Chang proffered Mertz’s testimony. He described, in general terms, the reason he had been dismissed and the procedures he had initiated to successfully appeal that dismissal. He detailed the participation of several of the same administrators and school officials who were involved in- Chang’s dismissal and appeal. The gravamen of his complaint was that IPFW had failed to follow procedures set. out in, inter alia, Part II of the IPFW Code, entitled “Student Conduct Subject to Disciplinary Action.” Id. at 364.

We note that although Mertz was CHHS student, he was not enrolled in the nursing program, as Chang was. His dismissal was premised upon an alleged violation of a different code (Human Services Code of Ethics) than was Chang’s (Department of Nursing Professional Misconduct policy). The two codes implicated different procedural mechanisms. Moreover, we have already held that Chang’s due process rights were not violated by virtue of the procedures employed in her case. We agree with the trial court that Mertz’s situation, although perhaps superficially similar to ■ Chang’s, differed in significant ways such that his testimony would have little or no relevance to Chang’s claims. The trial court did not err in excluding Mertz’s testimony.

Grace Decker was a nursing student at IPFW. She was present at the incident that led to Chang’s dismissal. Chang sought to call Decker as a witness at trial, explaining that Decker would testify about her perspective of the incident. Appellees objected and the trial court sustained the objection, explaining:

We’re not getting into that Mr. Roelke. That’s not the issue before the jury. I have allowed some leeway to give the jury context of the dispute and that context, I think has been sufficient: We are not here to re-litigate. whether or not the Department made the correct decision. That’s not the issue before this Court so we’re — if all she’s doing is of-' fering evidence as to the incident then no, I’m not going to allow that.

Transcript at 403. In substantive terms, the trial court excluded Decker’s testimony on the ground that it was irrelevant.

Rule 402 of the Indiana Rules of Evidence provides: “Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” ‘“Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any -fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Evid. R. 401. We review a trial court’s exclusion of evidence on grounds of relevance for an abuse of discretion. Carlson v. Warren, 878 N.E.2d 844 (Ind.Ct.App.2007).

We reiterate here that the two issues presented to the jury were: (1) what were the nature and terms of the contractual agreement between Chang and Purdue University, and (2) did Purdue breach its contract with Chang by failing to follow proper procedures in dismissing Chang? Chang contends that Decker’s testimony was relevant “to rebut the factual mistakes concerning the second student alleged to have been threatened which was both testified to and found in the documents such as the dismissal letter of Sternberger.” Appellant’s Brief at 40. We are hard-pressed to discern how further development of the evidence relative to the facts surrounding the incident implicates the questions before the jury — i.e., what procedures was IPFW contractually bound to follow in pursuing the ensuing disciplinary proceeding, and were those procedures fol-.Ipwed? Decker’s proposed testimony would not have aided the jury in answering those questions. The trial court did not err'in excluding Decker’s testimony.-

Judgment affirmed.

NAJAM, J., and BRADFORD, J„ concur.

      . Article 16 states, in pertinent part: "Every student ... has the right to substantial and procedural fair play in the administration of discipline and the imposition of academic sanctions. This requires in all situations that the student be given an opportunity to refute them, and that the institution not be arbitrary in its actions.” Appellant's Appendix at 32.

      . We note that the trial court determined in its March 21, 2012 ruling that Appellees were not entided to summary judgment on Chang's breach-of-contract claim on grounds that Chang was required to prove bad faith in order to prevail on this theory of liability in the present context, and failed to do so. In reaching this conclusion, the court expressly rejected the argument that this court’s decision in Gordon v. Purdue Univ., 862 N.E.2d 1244, established that bad faith is an element of a breach-of-contract claim by a student against a post-secondary institution that is premised upon a failure to adhere to university regulations pertaining to student disci.plinary proceedings. The court noted that Gordon involved a dismissal for academic misconduct, whereas the present case involved a dismissal premised upon professional misconduct. In the trial court’s view, this was a significant distinction and provided just grounds for rejecting Gordon as applicable in this case. Of course, the trial court did not have the benefit of the Amaya decision when it made its ruling. We are convinced that the expansive language in Amaya, and especially the language highlighted above, indicates that this distinction- does not drive a different result than that reached in Gordon and in the present case.

      . Appellees contend that the claims against Fink, Meyer, Sternberger, and O'Connell in their individual capacities were "in reality a claim against the State rather than the individual” because "Chang has not alleged a single claim against [them] for conduct taken as a natural person, separate and distinct from their roles as professor and/or administrator at IPFW.” Brief of Appellees at 15. Thus, they argue, the claims against these four persons ostensibly in their individual capacities were actually claims against them in their official capacity, and should be analyzed accordingly. The United States Supreme Court has rejected this line of reasoning:
      [This] theory would absolutely immunize state officials from personal liability for acts within their authority and necessary to fulfilling governmental responsibilities. Yet our cases do not extend absolute immunity to all officers who engage in necessary official acts. Rather, immunity from suit under § 1983 is "predicated upon a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 421, 96 S.Ct. 984, 990, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), and officials seeking absolute immunity must show that such immunity is justified for the governmental function at issue, Bums v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486-487, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547(1991).

        Haferv. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 28-29, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). Thus, the Court has held that such absolute immunity has been extended only to a "very limited” class “ ‘whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suit.’ ” Id. at 29, 112 S.Ct. 358 (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). This class includes the President of the United States, legislators carrying out their legislative functions, and judges carrying out their judicial functions. Obviously, none of the Ap-pellees fit in this category.

      . In Poole v. Clase, Al 6 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. 1985), our Supreme Court determined that the ITCA applies not only to political subdivisions, but to employees of political subdivisions as well.

      . Attorney Roelke posed four questions to Cordova. The fourth question is illustrative of the tenor of the other three: "My fourth question to you, Dr. Cordova, is what is the University’s policy concerning police reports, especially those investigated by the campus police department where there is no finding of credible evidence which are placed in the student’s file by the complainant and the Chair of the Nursing Department?” Appellant’s Appendix at 70.

        . The Indiana Political Subdivision Risk Management Commission was "created as a separate body corporate and politic, constituting an instrumentality of the state for the public purposes set out in this chapter, but not a state agency.” Ind.Code Ann. § 27-1-29-5 (West, Westlaw current through 2012 2nd Reg. Sess.). Its purpose "is aiding political subdivisions in protecting themselves against liabilities.” Id.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: NAJAM, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, Appellant, v. Gina ALESSIA, Candi Reiling, Andrew Balkema, Individually and as Members of the Town of Cedar Lake Park Board, Appellees.
    No. 45A03-1207-PL-316.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    March 21, 2013.
    Rehearing Denied May 21, 2013.

      David M. Austgen, Michael J. Jasaitis, Austgen Kuiper & Associates, P.C., Crown Point, IN, Michael J. Rappa, Johnson, Rappa & Ivancevich, LLC, Merrillville, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
    Karen Tallian, Portage, IN, Attorney for Appellees.
   OPINION

NAJAM, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Town of Cedar Lake (the “Town”) dissolved its Parks and Recreation Department (the “Parks Department”) and its Parks and Recreation Board (the “Park Board”). The Town appeals the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment for Gina Alessia, Candi Reiling, and Andrew Balkema, individually and as members of the Park Board (the “Park Board Members”), on their complaint against the Town and others. The Town raises two issues for our review, which we restate as the following four issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it disregarded Indiana’s Home Rule Act in determining the validity of the Town’s action;
2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it ordered the Town to reinstate the Park Board Members to their official positions;
3. "Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it enjoined the Town from “interfering in the workings” of the Park Board, Appellant’s App. at 48; and
4. Whether the undisputed evidence supports the trial court’s judgment that the law firm of Austgen Kuiper & Associates, P.C. (the “law firm”) may represent the Town but not the Park Board Members.

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 1, 2011, during a regular meeting of the Town Council for the Town of Cedar Lake (the “Town Council”), the Town Council terminated the Park Board Members’ positions on the Park Board and voted in new members. On April 12, the Park Board Members filed a complaint against the Town and the members of the Town Council, among others, alleging that they had been improperly removed from their positions and seeking reinstatement, back pay, and an injunction against the Town Council to prohibit it “from taking any action that would hinder, stop, or otherwise prevent the [Park Board Members] from acting in their official capacity.” Id. at 40.

On April 26, the Town Council held a public meeting after public notice. At that meeting, the newly appointed members of the Park Board each resigned their positions, and the Town Council accepted their resignations. The Town Council then heard Ordinance 1129 (the “Ordinance”), which sought to dissolve the Park Board and the Parks Department.

On April 28, at another public meeting held after public notice, the Town Council reinstated the Park Board Members and authorized payment of back pay up to April 28 in response to their complaint. The Town Council then adopted the Ordinance. The Ordinance begins:

WHEREAS, the [Town Council] has determined it appropriate to restructure and reorganize the Town Parks and Recreation function and services, as currently established by enabling Ordinances and Town Code provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined it appropriate and advisable to restructure and reorganize the Town Parks and Recreation function and services ... as such restructuring and reorganization is in the best interests of the residents of the Town for the park and recreation functions and services to be provided by the Town to its residents.

Id. at 191. The Ordinance then repealed the provisions of the Town Code that had established the Parks Department and the Park Board and replaced those provisions with new provisions. The new provisions stated that the “Town Council shall have full authority and responsibility to establish, aid, maintain and operate all public and park-owned park, playground, recreational facilities, programs and properties,” and that the Town Council “shall have and exercise all powers necessary to establish, aid, maintain and operate public parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities, programs and properties, including the authority to hire and fix the compensation of a Park Director and such other personnel as the Town Council deems appropriate.” Id. The Ordinance also included Town Code provisions to allow the Town Council to establish advisory committees “interested in the Town public parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities, programs and properties”; to allow the Town Council to “establish comprehensive rules and regulations for the governance of park land, property, activities and employees”; and to hire a Park Director, whose qualifications, powers, and duties were further defined. Id. at 192.

On May 24, the trial court held a hearing on the Park Board Members’ request for a preliminary injunction. At that hearing, counsel for the Park Board Members expressly acknowledged that “it’s within the rights of a town to dissolve a park board by ordinance. That’s clear in the statute.” Id. at 216. Instead of challenging the Town’s legal' authority to dissolve the Parks Department and the Park Board, the Park Board Members instead asserted that the Ordinance was not passed in accordance with Indiana’s Open Door Law. However, on June 20, before the trial court had ruled on their request for a preliminary injunction, the Park Board Members filed their First Amended Complaint. In addition to their original claims, the Park Board Members further alleged that the Ordinance was “ultra vires, improper, and not authorized by statute.” Id. at 69. On June 22, the trial court denied the Park Board Members’ request for a preliminary injunction.

Thereafter, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The court held a hearing on the parties’ motions and, on May 14, 2012, the court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Park Board Members. Specifically, the court determined that the Town Council had illegally terminated the Park Board Members’ employment; that the Ordinance “was improper[ ] and beyond the scope of [the Town Council’s] authority under the Indiana Code”; and that the Town should be “enjoined from interfering in the workings of the Parks & Recreation Board,” and that the Park Board be “re-instated and the parties returned to the status quo” as of March 1, 2011. Id. at 48. The court further determined that

the law firm ... may continue to represent the [Town] in this action. However, it would be a conflict of interest for [it] to continue to represent the [Park Board] and the [Park Board Members] in any matters as the present interests of the Town and the Park Board are in opposition.

Id. The court then stayed its order pending appeal. The court directed its order to be entered as a final judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 54(B), and this appeal ensued.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Standard of Review

As an initial matter, we note that the trial court entered findings and conclusions in its order on summary judgment. But, contrary to the Park Board Members’ assertions on appeal, this “does not alter our standard of review, nor are we bound by the trial court’s specific findings and conclusions .... ” Dible v. City of Lafayette, 713 N.E.2d 269, 272 n. 2 (Ind.1999). Rather, in a summary judgment, the trial court’s findings and conclusions “merely aid our review by providing us with a statement of reasons for the trial court’s actions.” Id.

Our standard of review for summary judgment appeals is well established:

When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our standard of review is the same as that of the trial court. Considering only those facts that the parties designated to the trial court, we must determine whether there is a “genuine issue as to any material fact” and whether “the moving party is entitled to a judgment a matter of law.” In answering these questions, the reviewing court construes all factual inferences in the non-moving party’s favor and resolves all doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the moving party. The moving party bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and' that the movant is entitled to judgment as a-matter of law; and once the movant satisfies the burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to designate and produce evidence of facts showing the existence óf a genuine issue of material fact.

Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267, 1269-70 (Ind.2009) (citations omitted). Where the facts are undisputed and the issues presented are pure questions of law, we review the matter de novo. Crum v. City of Terre Haute ex rel. Dep’t of Redev., 812 N.E.2d 164, 166 (Ind.Ct.App.2004).

Here, the Town asserts that the trial court ignored the Town’s authority under Indiana’s Home Rule Act when the court determined that the Town had illegally dissolved the Park Board and the Parks Department. The Town further asserts that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it ordered the Town to reinstate the Park Board Members and enjoined the Town from “interfering in the workings of the Parks & Recreation Board.” See Appellant’s App. at 48. Finally, the Town contends that the court erred as a matter of law when it determined that “it would be a conflict of interest for [the law firm] to continue to represent the ... Park Board and the members of the Park Board in any matters as the present interests of the Town and the Park Board are in opposition.” Id. We address each of the Town’s arguments in turn.

Issue One: Indiana’s Home Rule Act

The Town first contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it accepted the Park Board Members’ several arguments that the Town lacked legal authority to dissolve the Park Board and the Parks Department. This issue requires this court to interpret various statutes. Statutory interpretation is a question of law reserved for the court and is reviewed de novo. Ind. Pesticide Rev. Bd. v. Black Diamond Pest & Termite Control Inc., 916 N.E.2d 168, 181 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (quotation omitted), trans. denied. De novo review allows us to decide an issue without affording any deference to the trial court’s decision. Id. Our goal in statutory construction is to determine, give effect to, and implement the intent of the legislature. Id. When a statute has not previously been construed, our interpretation is controlled by the express language of the statute and the rules of statutory construction. Id. We review the statute as a whole and presume the legislature intended logical application of the language used in the statute, so as to avoid unjust or absurd results. See Curley v. Lake County Bd. of Elections & Registration, 896 N.E.2d 24, 34 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quotation omitted), trans denied.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently described the import of Indiana’s Home Rule Act:

Like many other states, Indiana historically adhered to the Dillon Rule that a municipal corporation could exercise only the following powers:
First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in, or incident to, the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation — not simply convenient, but indispensable.
Tippecanoe Cnty. v. Ind. Mfr.’s Ass’n, 784 N.E.2d 463, 465 (Ind.2003) (citing Dillon, Municipal Corporations (1st ed. 1872) (emphasis in original)). A corollary rule of construction required that a court resolve any reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power against the corporation and enjoin the corporation from exercising it. See id.
Under the Dillon Rule, a person who simply found himself on the wrong side of some local action could easily challenge that action by essentially arguing that it was ultra vires. See, e.g., City of S. Bend v. Chicago, S.B. & N.I. Ry. Co., 179 Ind. 455, 458, 101 N.E. 628, 629 (Ind.1913) (“[T]he charter of South Bend delegated no power for the enforcement of the ordinance in controversy....”). The resulting legal landscape handcuffed municipal corporations, preventing them from taking a wide range of governmental actions we might find commonplace today. See, e.g., Pittsburgh. C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Crown Point, 146 Ind. 421, 45 N.E. 587 (1896) (town could not enforce ordinance requiring railroad to post watchmen and maintain gates at crossings at railroad’s expense because statute authorizing ordinances to prevent nuisances did not provide so specifically).
Recognizing the disadvantages of the Dillon Rule, the Legislature abrogated it in 1971, when it passed the Indiana Powers of Cities Act. Act of April 14, 1971, P.L. 250-1971, § 1, 1971 Ind. Acts 955, 967. The Legislature expanded the applicability of this reforming principle in 1980, when it passed the Indiana Home Rule Act. Act of February 27, 1980, P.L. 211-1980, § 1, 1980 Ind. Acts 1657, 1659-62 (codified as amended at Ind. Code §§ 36-1-3-1 to -9 (2007)). In addition to reaffirming the abrogation of the Dillon Rule, the Home Rule Act provides that[,] in general, a unit is presumed to possess broad powers of local government, unless the Indiana Constitution or a statute expressly denies the unit that power, or expressly grants it to another entity. Ind.Code § 36-1-3-5 (2007); see also City of Gary ex rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind.2003) (city could file public nuisance claim against handgun manufacturer when statute authorizing public nuisance claims did not specifically address regulating handguns).

Kole v. Faultless, 963 N.E.2d 493, 495-96 (Ind.2012).

Here, the Park Board Members raise four arguments against the Town’s authority to dissolve the Park Board and the Parks Department, each of which the trial court adopted in its summary judgment order. Specifically, the Park Board Members assert: (1) the Indiana Code “is silent and gives no explicit authorization” for the dissolution of a parks department, Appel-lees’ Br. at 6; (2) Indiana’s Home Rule Act provides no authority for the Town to dissolve the Park Board or the Parks Department; (3) Indiana Code Chapter 36-10-3 establishes “a comprehensive legislative scheme” that preempts any authority the Town may have under the Home Rule Act, id. at 9; and (4) any authority the Town had to repeal is original enactments establishing the Park Board and the Parks Department is subject to the common law limitations discussed in Corn v. City of Oakland City, 415 N.E.2d 129 (Ind.Ct.App.1981). We address each of these four proffered rationales in turn.

Statutory Silence

The Park Board Members first assert that the Town exceeded its legal authority when it enacted the Ordinance because the Indiana Code “is silent and gives no explicit authorization” for the dissolution of a parks department. Appellees’ Br. at 6. The trial court agreed with the Park Board Members. The court erred as a matter of law.

Under Indiana’s Home Rule Act, unless an act is prohibited it is allowed. This paradigm has replaced the common law rules relied on by the trial court for analyzing the power behind a municipality’s authority. See Kole, 963 N.E.2d at 495-96. In particular, Indiana Code Section 36-1-3-3 is unambiguous: “(a) The rule of law that any doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved against its existence is abrogated, (b) Any doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor of its existence.” Further: “The rule of law that a unit has only [] powers expressly granted by statute ... is abrogated.” I.C. § 36-1-3-4. Instead, as a general rule, “a unit may exercise any power it has to the extent that the power[]is not expressly denied by the Indiana Constitution or by statute.” I.C. § 36-1-3-5.

In agreeing with the Park Board Members’ argument, the trial court expressly relied on Vesenmeir v. City of Aurora, 232 Ind. 628, 115 N.E.2d 734, 737 (Ind.1953), a sixty-year-old case in which the Indiana Supreme Court stated that “doubtful claims to power, as well as any uncertainty or ambiguity in the terms used by the legislature!,] are resolved against the [municipal] corporation.” That proposition was based on Indiana law prior to the 1980 enactment of the Home Rule Act, is plainly contrary to the language of the Home Rule Act, and has been expressly abrogated by the Act. See Kole, 963 N.E.2d at 495-96. As such, the Park Board Members’ contention, with which the trial court agreed, that the Town needed express statutory authorization to pass the Ordinance is contrary to Indiana law.

Prohibition Under the Home Rule Act

The Park Board Members next argue that Indiana Code Section 36-1-3-8 explicitly prohibits the Town from abolishing the Park Board and the Parks Department. That statute provides: “a unit does not have the following: ... (3) The power to impose duties on another political subdivision, except as expressly granted by statute.” I.C. § 36-1-3-8. Because parks are special taxing districts, they are political subdivisions. See I.C. § 36-1-2-13. The Park Board Members continue by claiming that the “elimination of a Park Board shrinks ... its duties to zero.” Appellees’ Br. at 9.

The Park Board Members’ novel reading of Indiana Code Section 36-1-3-8 requires that this court interpret the statute. As noted above, when a statute has not previously been construed, our interpretation is controlled by the express language of the statute and the rules of statutory construction. See Ind. Pesticide Rev. Bd., 916 N.E.2d at 181. Here, the express statutory language prohibits a unit from “imposing] duties” on another political subdivision. I.C. § 36-1-3-8. To “impose” is “to give or bestow ... authoritatively or officially.” Webster’s 3d New Int’l Dictionary 1136 (2002). A “duty” is an.“obligatory task[], conduct, service, or function[ ]....” Id. at 705. The dissolution of the Park Board and the Parks Department is not equivalent to giving obligatory tasks or functions to them, which is what Indiana Code Section 36-1-3-8 prohibits. And, again, “[a]ny doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor of its existence.” I.C. § 36-1-3-3. Accordingly, Indiana Code Section 36-1-3-8 does not prohibit the Town from abolishing the Park Board and the Parks Department.

Comprehensive Legislative Scheme

The Park Board Members also argue that Indiana’s park and recreation laws, Indiana Code Sections 36-10-3-1 to -45, evidence a comprehensive legislative scheme that preempts the Town’s authority to abolish the Parks Department and the Park Board. The trial court agreed and found particularly persuasive Indiana Code Section 36-10-3-3, which states:

(a) The fiscal body of a unit may adopt an ordinance creating a department of parks and recreation and repealing in the ordinance or resolution prior ordinances or resolutions creating separate park and recreation authorities. The department consists of a park and recreation board, a superintendent, and other personnel that the board determines.
(b)' After a board has been created, all books, papers, documents, and other property of former park and recreation authorities shall be transferred to and become the property of the board.

The remainder of- that chapter of the Indiana Code describes such events as the appointment and removal of park board members; the duties and salaries of the members of the park board; regular and special meetings of park boards; the assumption of gifts by park boards for their departments; tax implications of parks; fees that can be levied by a parks department; and the acquisition of property by a parks department.

While those provisions demonstrate a thoughtful legislative framework for the operation of park boards and parks departments, there is no language in those statutes that suggests the General Assembly sought to tie the hands of municipalities that create park boards and parks departments so as to prevent reconsideration of those decisions. Indeed, conspicuously absent from Indiana Code Chapter 36-10-3 is any restriction on a municipal corporation’s authority to dissolve a park board and parks department. And, as plainly described by our Home Rule statutes, “a unit may exercise any power it has to the extent that the power[]is not expressly denied by the Indiana Constitution or by statute.” I.C. § 36-1-3-5. The Park Board Members’ argument, and the trial court’s conclusion, that Chapter 36-10-3 implicitly preempts the Town’s authority to act in a manner not otherwise expressly provided for by the Indiana Code is contrary to law.

Com v. City of Oakland City

Finally, in entering judgment for - the Park Board Members, the trial court relied extensively on this court’s opinion in Corn v. City of Oakland City. In Com, we considered a municipality’s pre-Home Rule Act attempt to repeal a prior enactment in which the municipality had created a judicial office. In considering the municipality’s attempted repeal of its prior enactment, we described the municipality’s common law authority to repeal prior enactments:

It is well settled that the power to enact ordinances has as a necessary incident thereto the power to repeal unless that power is restricted in the law conferring it. Vesenmeir v. City of Aurora, (1953) 232 Ind. 628, 115 N.E.2d 734; Mahuron v. City of Salem, (1950) 120 Ind.App. 247, 91 N.E.2d 648; 20 I.L.E., Municipal Corporations, § 60 (1959); 56 Am. Jur.2d, Municipal Corporations, § 410 (1971); 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations, § 435 (1948). However, the power to repeal is subject to the limitation that no vested rights acquired under the ordinance sought to be repealed can be adversely affected. Vesenmeir, supra; Mahuron, supra; 20 I.L.E., Municipal Corporations, § 60 (1959); 56 Am. Jur.2d, Municipal Corporations, § 410 (1971). Neither can repeal impair any contractual obligations. 56 Am.Jur.2d, Municipal Corporations, § 410 (1971). Further, the rule that the power to repeal is necessarily implied from the power to enact does not apply “where the ordinance has been enacted under a narrow, limited grant of authority to do a particular designated thing in the manner and at the time fixed by the legislature, and which excludes the implication that the council was given any further authority over the subject than to do the one act.” Vesenmeir, supra, 232 Ind. at 632-33, 115 N.E.2d 734; Simpson v. State, ex rel., (1912) 179 Ind. 196, 99 N.E. 980.

415 N.E.2d at 131-32. We further recognized that “abolition of [an] office must be done in good faith.” Id. at 132 n. 2 (citing 56 Am.Jur.2d, Municipal Corporations, § 239 (1971); 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 467 (1948)).

• The common law described in Com and relied on by the Park Board Members and the trial court is based on Dillon’s Rule that preceded the Home Rule Act. For example, nearly identical language to the language in Com appears in Welch v. Bowen, 103 Ind. 252, 2 N.E. 722, 724 (1885). In that case, the Indiana Supreme Court cited Dillon on Municipal Corporations for the following statement:

The general rule is that the power to pass bylaws, or ordinances, or regulations affecting the government of a municipal corporation carries with it by implication the power to modify or repeal such bylaws, ordinances, and regulations unless the power is restricted in the law conferring the right. The limitation to which this power is subject is that the repeal or change cannot be made so as to affect any vested right lawfully acquired under an order or regulation lawfully adopted.

Id. And Com itself based its statements of the law on Vesenmeir and other authorities that preceded Indiana’s Home Rule Act.

Accordingly, we do not consider the Park Board Members’ arguments that they are entitled to summary judgment based on one or several of the reasons stated in Com. The law recited in Com was based on Dillon’s Rule, and it has been abrogated by Indiana’s Home Rule Act. See Kole, 963 N.E.2d at 495-96. And the Park Board Members cite no modern authority in support of any of the limitations described in Com. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Again, under the paradigm of Indiana’s Home Rule Act, the Town’s authority to enact the Ordinance and repeal its prior enactments is not expressly denied by the Indiana Constitution or by statute. See I.C. § 36-1-3-5. Thus, the Town acted within its authority under Indiana’s Home Rule Act when it abolished the Park Board and the Parks Department. The trial court’s determination that the Town must satisfy the requirements of Dillon’s Rule, as described in Com or otherwise, is contrary to law.

Issue Two: Reinstatement of the Park Board Members

The Town next asserts that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it ordered the Town to reinstate the Park Board Members to their positions on the Park Board. The trial court’s determination was premised on its conclusion that the Town’s dissolution of the Park Board was unlawful. Because the trial court’s premise is incorrect, as explained in Issue One, there is no Park Board to which the Park Board Members can be reinstated. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s reinstatement order.

Issue Three: Injunction

Similarly, the Town asserts that the trial court erred when it “enjoined [the Town] from interfering in the workings” of the Park Board. See Appellant’s App. at 48. As with Issue Two, the trial court’s injunction was premised on its conclusion that the Town’s dissolution of the Park Board was unlawful. Because there is no Park Board to interfere with, we reverse the trial court’s injunction against the Town.

Issue Four: The Law Firm

Finally, the Town argues that the trial court erred when it determined that the law firm may not represent the Park Board Members. In their complaint, the Park Board Members alleged as follows:

30. At all times relevant here, [the law firm] has represented both the Town ... and the [Park Board].
31. Said firm has entered an appearance for the defendant Town in this litigation.
33. Plaintiffs ... assert their claims not only individually but as Members of the [Park Board], and for that Board.
35. Plaintiffs ask this court to determine preliminarily that the interests of the Town and the Park Board, and its members, are in conflict.... As a result of that conflict, plaintiffs ask the court to [determine that [the law firm] may not represent the Defendant Town ... in any way in this matter, nor shall [the law firm] continue to represent the [Park Board] during the pendency of this dispute.

Id. at 71. Again, in its order on partial summary judgment, the trial court determined that the law firm “may continue to represent the Town ... in this action. However, it would be a conflict of interest for [it] to continue to represent the [Park Board] and the members of the Park Board in any matters....” Id. at 48.

According to the Town, the trial court erred on this issue because the law firm “has never represented the individual plaintiffs.” Appellant’s Br. at 26. But the Park Board Members are plaintiffs in both their individual and official capacities, the Park Board Members are plainly representing the interests of the Park Board, and the Town does not dispute that the Park Board is a current client of the law firm. Moreover, we disagree with the Town’s assertion that “there has been no showing ... that the Town ... and the Park Board ... are adverse to each other.... ” Appellant’s Br. at 26. This litigation is itself conclusive evidence of the law firm’s conflict.

According to Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(1), “a lawyer shall not represent a client if ... the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client....” Hence, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the law firm currently represents two clients whose interests are directly adverse to one another. As such, the designated evidence supports the trial court’s order that the law firm may not continue to represent the Park Board in any matters. See, e.g., Reed v. Hoosier Health Sys., Inc., 825 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (holding that the trial court did not err when it disqualified plaintiffs attorneys under Rule 1.7(a)).

Conclusion

The traditional rule in the law of municipal corporations strictly circumscribed municipal power. This restriction was based on the principle that there is no inherent right to local self-government, that local governments possess no inherent powers, and, thus, that local governments must depend totally upon state legislatures for every power they exercise. Under this rule, Dillon’s Rule, a municipality could exercise only those powers specifically granted, necessarily implied, or indispensable to a municipal corporation. Before the Powers of Cities Act, this rule was firmly established in Indiana law. The Powers of Cities Act turned Dillon’s Rule upside down. The Power of Cities Act and, later, the Home Rule Act changed the legal landscape of the relationship between the State and its political subdivisions.

Thus, the trial court erred as a matter of law when it used Dillon’s Rule to determine the scope of the Town’s legal authority to dissolve the Park Board and the Parks Department. The proper legal inquiry is based on Indiana’s Home Rule Act. Pursuant to that Act, there is no statutory prohibition against the Town’s exercise of authority to dissolve the Park Board or the Parks Department. And any doubt as to the existence of such power is resolved in favor of its existence. I.C. § 36-1-3-3. Accordingly, the Town’s exercise of that authority by enacting the Ordinance was lawful.

Given the Town’s authority under Indiana’s Home Rule Act, we reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the Park Board Members on their claims for illegal termination, declaratory judgment on the validity of the Ordinance, and injunctive relief. On each of those claims, we remand with instructions that the trial court enter summary judgment for the Town. We affirm the trial court’s order that the law firm may not continue to represent the Park Board and its members in any matters based on a current conflict of interest.

The trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the Park Board Members is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions for the court to enter summary judgment in favor of the Town on Counts I, II, and III. of the First Amended Complaint.

FRIEDLANDER, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.

      . Though counsel for the Park Board Members was not specific as to which statute she was referring, for the reasons discussed below we presume she was referring to Indiana’s Home Rule Act.

      . The Park Board Members do not present this argument on appeal.

      . Between the trial court's denial of the Park Board Members’ request for a preliminary ■ injunction and the stay of its summary judgment order, the Park Board has not met since the Town enacted the Ordinance on April 28, 2011.

      . In its order on partial summary judgment, the trial court withheld judgment on damages pending an evidentiary hearing, which the trial court also stayed pending appeal.

      . In support of this position, the Park Board Members reference a 1930 opinion of the Attorney General, which discussed sanitation districts. We do not consider that document in light of the clear, binding, and current Home Rule statutes. Nor is this case similar to either Gaudin v. Austin, 921 N.E.2d 895, 899 (Ind.Ct.App.2010), aff'd by an equally divided court, 936 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind.2010), in which we held that a municipality could not unilaterally dissolve its fire district in light of a statute that expressly provided for the manner of dissolution of such districts, or County Council of Porter County v. Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority, 944 N.E.2d 519, 525-26 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). trans. denied, in which we held that a county did not have the right to withdraw from the General Assembly’s express placement of that county in a regional development authority. We also note that the Park Board Members do not suggest that Indiana Code Section 36-10-3-6, which allows the removal of park board members "only for cause,” should be interpreted as a restriction on the Town’s apparent authority to dissolve the Párk Board in its entirety.

      . Included in these arguments are the Park Board Members’ assertions that the Town’s repeal of its original enactments adversely affected vested property rights, impaired contractual obligations, interfered with the General Assembly's statutory scheme for parks (this is repetitious to the argument addressed above), and was done in bad faith. Further, the Park Board Members’ passing references to Article I, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution do not present an argument supported by cogent reasoning for this court to decide. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).
      Although we need not decide these arguments, we do note that the Town takes particular exception to the trial court’s determination that the Town acted in bad faith when it abolished the Park Board and the Parks Department. According to the Ordinance, the Town Council had determined that "restructuring and reorganization is in the best interests of the residents of the Town....” Appellant's App. at 191. Thus, the Town continues, the trial court’s substitution of its judgment for the Town’s was "judicial usurpation.” Appellant's Br. at 17; see Bd. of Comm’rs v. Three I Props., 787 N.E.2d 967, 976 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) ("We will not intervene in the local legislative process as long as it is supported by some rational basis.”).

      . In particular, the Town asserts that the trial court "had no authority to reinstate” Reiling, whose term had expired on December 31, 2011, before the court's reinstatement order. Appellant’s Br. at 22. Though the Town's argument is well taken, we need not decide it.

      . The Park Board Members state that the trial court "was incorrect to allow the [law] firm to continue representing the Town.” Appel-lees’ Br. at 24. To the extent the Park Board Members call into question the trial court’s judgment, their statements have not been raised in the appellees’ brief as a cross-appeal issue. See App. R. 9(D). Accordingly, we conclude that the Park Board Members’ statements are wholly in response to the Town’s appellate arguments and are not intended to challenge the trial court’s judgment.