Unsuccessful bidder for project involving athletic field lighting system appealed decision of county board of supervisors, which awarded contract to competing bidder.
The Circuit Court denied unsuccessful bidder’s motion for entry of scheduling order to extent that it requested a discovery period, denied board’s motion to quash subpoenas issued by unsuccessful bidder, and ordered supplementation of record. Board petitioned for interlocutory appeal, which was granted.
The Supreme Court held that statute providing for appeal of a decision of a county board of supervisors, stating that the notice of appeal must designate “all matters that the appellant desires to be made part of the record,” does not permit consideration of new evidence on appeal.
On appeal from a decision of a county board of supervisors, if the parties disagree as to what matters should or should not be included as part of the record for the appeal, then the differences should be settled by the circuit court; the circuit court should conduct a hearing to determine which matters are necessary to convey a fair, accurate, and complete account of the proceedings before the board.