Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the aims of issue preclusion: to promote finality and judicial economy and to prevent inconsistent judicial decisions and endless litigation. Defendants next argue that our reasoning in Scherzinger II does not control here because this case involves the board’s authority to investigate dismissals, while Scherzinger II involved only the board’s authority to order the Scherzinger II custodians’ reinstatement. That distinction misses the point of issue preclusion. Issue preclusion not only prevents a tribunal from deciding an issue that has already been decided, it also prevents a party, and those in privity with that party, from relitigating an issue that was already decided. See Skeen v. Dept. of Human Resources, 171 Or App 557, 560, 17 P3d 526 (2000), rev den, 332 Or 316 (2001) ; Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a prior administrative decision actually decided ultimate factual issues that are essential to plaintiffs present claims and that issue preclusion therefore bars the relitigation of those issues
B. holding that courts should consider the merits of the litigants claims the nature of the factual issues the litigants ability to present his claims and the complexity of the legal issues
C. holding that representation issues are matters relegated to the board representation issues may not be decided by contract and thus may not be decided by an arbitrator
D. holding issue preclusion bars section 1983 plaintiff from relitigating fourth amendment issue decided in state court criminal proceeding
E. holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars readjudication of issues when 1 the prior suit resulted in judgment on the merits 2 identical issues are involved 3 the issue was actually litigated 4 the issue was actually determined and 5 the determination was necessary to the resulting judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.