HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-00871
-h
.11
~'
.
~
It
~
q;:
~
~
.,'
cJ
'.
:~
.1
~
'"5.
u
~
,
~,
"
!
~{t
~<
"
'.:
-
-
-
~
.3
o
~
<:..J
,
"
. ~
(
~
, ~
, :-
.
, . ::l
CJ
-
C"-
Oo
.
f>o
()-
.
~
'~.
'.
,;
"
.(\
(,
I
\(,
I,
M:
, I
.i ~
I
'.
"
,
.r""'ff"
" '..
t., >,~ .
, " I~" '~
\ ! ' .
, '"
v.", ,
",i+.l
,}I'; .
'f.J\.
RYAN SULTZABERGER, A MINOR,
by BARBARA CROWELL, HIS
PARENT AND GUARDIAN
Appellant
IN THE COUR'!' OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v,
CIVIL DIVISION. LAW
MECHANICS BURG AREA SCHOOL :
DISTRICT, BOARD OF SCHOOL
DIRECTORS
No, 98- ~71
CIVIL
Appellee
ORDER
AND NOW this
day of February, 1998, upon consideration of the
within Appeal from Adjudication of the Mechanicsburg Area School District Board
of School Directors and the request by the Appellant for a stay of the imposition of
sanctions pending the outcome of the Appeal the request for a stay is granted and
no sanctions are to be imposed until such time as this Appeal has been decided,
BY THE COURT:
RYAN SULTZABERGER, A MINOR,
by BARBARA CROWELL, HIS
PARENT AND GUARDIAN
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v,
CIVIL DIVISION . LAW
MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BOARD OF SCHOOL
DIRECTORS
No, 98-
CIVIL
Appellee
APPEAL OF ADJUDICATION
Barbara Crowell, an adult individual who is also the parent and legal
guardian of the student, Appellant, appeals from the decision of the Mechanicsburg
Area School District, Board of School Directors and in support thereof states the
following:
1. The Appellant, Barbara Crowell, is the rnother of a student who was
the subject of a disciplinary adjudication and her residence is located at 1111 Apple
Drive, Apartment #1, Mechanicsburg, Curnberland County, Pennsylvania,
2, The Appellee is the Mechanicsburg Area School District, Board of
School Directors whose office is located at the Mechanicsburg Area Senior High
School, 500 South Broad Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania,
3. The Mechanicsburg Board of School Directors convened a hearing by
Board Committee on January 13, 1998, for disciplinary action against the student,
a ninth grade student who attends the Mechanicsburg Area Senior High School.
4. The hearing which convened on January 13, 1998 was suspended and
continued to a later date due to the Appellant's desire to obtain legal counsel.
5, On January 30, 1998 the formal hearing was reconvened by the Board
Cornmittee and a hearing was held with the District's solicitor presiding and the
Appellant represented by legal counsel, R. Mark Thornas, Esquire,
6. The hearing was concluded on January 30, 1998 and on February 10,
1998 a decision was rendered in which the School Board adjudicated the student as
having violated district policies 5010.4,a.2 and 501O.4,e,l of the Student Handbook
of the Mechanicsburg Area School District,
7. As a result of this adjudication the student was expelled from the
Mechanicsburg Area School District for a period of one year and that expulsion was
stayed provided the student complied with certain conditions imposed by the Board
of School Directors, A copy of the School Board's decision and adjudication is
attached hereto and marked Exhibit A.
8. The action of the Mechanicsburg Area School District, Board of School
Directors in adjudicating this matter against the student was in violation of the
student's constitutional rights and the findings of fact were not supported by
substantial evidence in that:
(a) the Board Committee which heard the case relied upon
inadmissible hearsay testimony and made no effort to produce the Declarant so the
student could have the right of confrontation and cross-examination of the
Declarant,
(b) the evidence against the student with regard to the infraction
consisted solely of hearsay statements while the evidence produced by the student
was substantial in establishing that the student could not have placed the phone
call which gave rise to the violations.
9, Despite verbal notice frorn the Appellant that the Appellant intended
to appeal the decision of the Mechanicsburg Area School District, Board of School
Directors the adrninistration at the Mechanicsburg Area Senior High School is
seeking to impose the sanctions against the student prior to the Court's decision on
this appeal,
10, Neither Mechanicsburg Area School District, nor the Board of School
Directors will be prejudiced by staying the imposition of the sanctions
recommended by the Board of School Directors pending the outcome of this appeal,
11, The student, should it be deterrnined that his appeal is warranted and
granted will suffer irreparable harm through the imposition of punishment which
cannot be removed after the fact,
12, The Appellant believes the only fair way to handle this appeal and to
treat all parties justly is to stay the irnposition of the penalty as outlined in Exhibit
A until such time as the Court has ruled on this appeal.
WHEREFORE, APPELLANT requests your Honorable Court to stay the
imposition of any sanctions recommended by the Mechanicsburg Area School
District, Board of School Directors as set forth in Exhibit A, until such time as a
hearing pursuant to rules of procedure following an appeal of a local agency can be
held,
IN RE:
MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SCHOOL
DIRECTORS
RYAN SULTZABERGER,
A Student
STUDENT DISCIPLINE HEARING
CASE OF 1997-1998
ADJUDICATION OF BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
AND NOW, this loth day of February, 1998, the Board of
School Directors of the Mechanicsburg Area School District, after
consideration of the recommendation of a committee of its
members, hereby adjudicates and decides the above matter as
follows:
A. BACKGROUND
As the result of an incident occurring on September 29,
1997, at the senior High School building, Richard Bollinger,
principal of the Senior High School, initiated disciplinary
action against Ryan sultzaberger, a ninth grade student,
including the referral of the case to the Board of School
Directors.
Dr. Douglas R, Bleggi, Superintendent of the Mechanicsburg
Area School District, initiated the formal hearing procedure by
written notice of charges and hearing to Barbara H. Crowell,
mother of the student, dated January 7, 1998. Receipt of the
notice was acknowledged by the parent and student at the formal
hearing and as evidenced by certified mail return receipt
indicating delivery on January 9, 1998.
~~
.':"
" ~.
The Board of School Directors authorized Directors Cochran,
Adams, Galinski, Kortze, Miller and Spangler to serve as a
committee to hear the matter and report a recommendation to the
Board.
A formal hearing was convened by the Board Committee at 7:30
o'clock A.M. on January 13, 1998, in the Board Room of the
District Administration Office. The District's Solicitor,
Richard C, Snelbaker, Esquire, presided at the hearing as hearing
officer. The student, Ryan Sultzaberger, and his mother, Barbara
H. Crowell, appeared in person. At the student's request, the
proceedings were deemed to be closed (non-public). The
proceedings were stenographically recorded by Debora L.
Cunningham of Archive Reporting Service.
The following persons also attended the hearing:
Superintendent Bleggi, High School Principal Bollinger, Assistant
Principal Dennis Baker, and Officer Bock of the Mechanicsburg
Police Department. Mr. Bollinger represented the Administration
in presenting its evidence.
In the course of the hearing, Barbara H. Crowell, mother of
the student, expressed a desire to obtain legal counsel. On the
hearing officer's direction, the hearing was suspended and
continued to another date.
On January 14, 1998, Superintendent Bleggi issued another
notice to Barbara H, Crowell, fixing a continued hearing for
January 30, 1998. Proof of receipt of the notice is established
by certified mail return receipt card indicating delivery on
-2-
January 17, 1998.
The formal hearing was reconvened by the Board Committee at
7:30 o'clock A.M., on January 30, 1998, in the Board's meeting
room. The District's solicitor presided at the hearing as
hearing officer. The committee consisted of the same Directors
as at the earlier session.
The student appeared in person together with his mother and
legal counsel, R. Mark Thomas, Esquire, together with two
witnesses: Chelsea Coy, a 9th grade student, and her mother,
Brenda Schoffstall.
The Administration appeared through Principal Bollinger and
Assistant Principal Baker, who were represented by Allan Holman,
Esquire. The Administration also produced: Officer Earl Bock of
the Mechanicsburg Police Department; Rose Doman, High School
Secretary; Alisha Leighow, a 9th grade student (and her father);
Kristin Sassaman, a 9th grade student (and her parents).
Superintendent Bleggi and the Board's Secretary, Alan
Vandrew, attended the hearing,
The Administration presented sworn testimony from Rose
Doman, Principal Bollinger, Assistant Principal Baker, Alisha
Leighow and Kristin Sassaman.
The student presented sworn testimony from Chelsea Coy,
Brenda Schoffstall, Barbara Crowell and Ryan Sultzaberger (the
student) .
Cross-examination was afforded on all witnesses. Both
counsel presented closing arguments to the Committee.
-3-
Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the committee announced
its intention to report its recommendation to the Board of School
Directors at a meeting of the entire Board to be held on February
10, 1998.
B. FINDINGS OF FACTS
Based upon the evidence produced at the formal hearing and
on the recommendation of its Committee, the Board adopts the
Committee's findings of facts as follows:
1. At all times relevant herein, Ryan
sultzaberger ("Student") was a male ninth grade student
in the Mechanicsburg Area High School.
2. Student had been in attendance in classes at
the District's High School on September 29, 1997, and
partook of the District's lunch program beginning at
approximately 10:55 A.M,
3. Student was subject to District regulations at
the time of the incident described in paragraph 4
below.
4. On September 29, 1997, Student placed a
telephone call to the Senior High School office which
was received by Rose Doman at or about 11:05 A.M.,
relating that a bomb existed in the High School
building. The building was evacuated at or about 11:15
A.M. while a search for an explosive device was made by
school and police personnel. (No such device was
located. )
-4-
5. The actions mentioned in paragraph 4 above
constitute a violation of the following policies of
this District as heretofore enacted by the Board of
School Directors:
- 5010.4a.2: Students shall refrain from any conduct
that will interfere with the rights of
other students to learn or to
participate in other curricular, co-
curricular or extra-curricular
activities.
- 5010.4.e.1: A student commits a violation of this
policy, with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm
a member of the School District faculty or staff,
whether or not during school hours:
*
*
*
(a) a student engages in a course of conduct
or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or
seriously annoy a member of the faculty or
staff and which serve no legitimate purpose.
- 1997-98 Student Handbook statement that a bomb threat
is student misconduct sufficient to
justify disciplinary action by this
Board of School Directors (page 125).
6. Disciplinary action against Student is
warranted.
-5-
~
,
C. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Board's committee recommends that Ryan Sultzaberger
be excluded and expelled from school at the Mechanicsburg Area
School District for one (1) calendar year commencing February 11,
1998, but that expulsion be suspended immediately for such period
of one (1) calendar year, on the following conditions:
a. Student participates in the District's
In-School Suspension Program for a period of ten
(10) school days commencing on February , 1998;
b. Student and parent agree to have Student
evaluated by the District's personnel or
consultants under the District's multi-
disciplinary emotional support program;
c. Student's parent agrees forthwith to provide
private (non-school) counseling for Student based on
the results of the evaluation in b. above and to have
counsellor provide periodic reports to Administration;
d. Student to perform thirty (30) hours of
community service as prescribed and approved by Darby
Christlieb, community Service Program Coordinator of
the cumberland County Juvenile Court Probation Office;
e. Student to comply with the stipulations and
directions of Brian Taylor, site-based Probation
Officer at the Senior High School;
f. Student maintains appropriate school
attendance;
-6-
g. student maintains appropriate academic
achievement, to be monitored by the Administration;
h. student does not participate in or attend
any District sponsored extra-curricular activities
during the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year;
i. student does not participate in or attend
any District sponsored student functions during
the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year; and
j. Student be and remain on good behavior.
D. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board of School Directors concludes as follows:
1. This Board has jurisdiction over this
proceeding and student Ryan Sultzaberger pursuant to
section 1318 and 1317.2 of the Public School Code of
1949, as amended, (24 P.S. ~l3-1318 and ~13-1317.2),
the Student Rights and Responsibilities Regulation of
the Pennsylvania State Board of Education (22 Pa. Code
~12.1 et seq.), and the several policies of the
Mechanicsburg Area School District relating to student
conduct and disciplinary actions,
2. Proper notice of these proceedings was given
to the Student and his parent,
3. The conduct described in the foregoing
Findings of Facts constitutes violation of District
Policies 5010.4,a.2 and 5010.4.e.1 and the current
Student Handbook of the Mechanicsburg Area School
-7-
District,
4. Ryan Sultzaberger's continued presence as a
student at the High School could constitute a
disruption of the educational mission of the School
District and the good order of the School.
5. Such conduct may be redressed by expulsion
from further attendance of school pursuant to Policies
5010.4.a.2, 5010.4.3.1, the current Student Handbook
and the authorities cited in conclusion 1. above.
E. DECISION
AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 1998, upon receipt of
the recommendation of its hearing committee, on the motion of
De, PfJe./t811/ , seconded by (1112, fnll.-LEt2.
and upon the affirmative vote of q directors, with 0
negative votes and 0 directors abstaining (said votes
being recorded upon roll-call), it is the decision of this Board:
1. To accept and adopt the foregoing Findings of
Facts as the findings of this Board;
2. To accept and adopt the foregoing Conclusions
of Law as the conclusions of this Board;
J. To expel and exclude Ryan sultzaberger as a
student of the Mechanicsburg Area School District for
one (1) calendar year from this date, but that such
expulsion be suspended immediately on Student's
performance of and compliance with the following
requirements and conditions during said calendar year
-8-
(except where specifically provided otherwise):
a. student participates in the District's
In-School suspension Program for a period of. ten
(10) school days commencing on February ,1998;
b. Student and parent agree to have Student
evaluated by the District's personnel or
consultants under the District's multi-
disciplinary emotional support program;
c. Student's parent agrees forthwith to provide
private (non-SChool) counseling for student based on
the results of the evaluation in b. above and to have
counsellor provide periodic reports to Administration;
d. Student to perform thirty (30) hours of
community service as prescribed and approved by Darby
Christlieb, Community Service Program coordinator of
the Cumberland County Juvenile Court probation Office;
e. student to comply with the stipulations and
directions of Brian Taylor, site-based Probation
Officer at the Senior High School;
f. student maintains appropriate school
attendance;
g. Student maintains appropriate academic
achievement, to be monitored by the Administration;
h, Student does not participate in or attend
any District sponsored extra-curricular activities
during the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year;
-9-
i. Student does not participate in or attend
any District sponsored student functions during
the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year; and
j. Student be and remain on good behavior.
4. To direct the Superintendent to send forthwith
to the Student, Ryan Su1tzaberger, and his mother,
Barbara H. Crowell, photocopies of this Adjudication,
said delivery to be made by first-class mail and
certified mail with return receipt requested, and a
separate copy to R. Mark Thomas, Esquire, Attorney for
the Student by first-class mail.
BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF
MECHANICS BURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
By
.&~o -
. resident, Board of School
Directors
ATTEST:
~,L;rVCL....J."-f....J
Secretary
P 433 1";8- J.:28
US Poslal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverago Provided.
Do nol use for lnfemallonal Mail Soo revorse
~hanicsburg Area School 'st
(SEAL)
"
500 S. Broad St.
Post OIf1co, Stile, 1\ ZIP Coda
Mechan~csbur . PA 17055
POSlago $
Cortifiod Foe
-l(
Spatial Dolivory Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
"'
g: Relum Receipt Showing 10
:: Whom & Dala De~vored
.~
:t A."" Roc"", ShownJ 10 ~1>om
. DJt&.&Address~'sAd:tess '
o
:6 TOTAL Poslago &. Feos $
~ Postmark or Dale
If
IJJ
Q.
--~"----
,".
... ..
RYAN SULTZADERGER, A MIIIOR,
by 8/lRBMA CIla'IELL, HIS
PARENI' AND GUARDIAN
Appellant
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
MECI-lANICSI3URG AREA SOIOOL
DISTRICT, BOARD OF SOIOOL
DIREX:TORS
NO. 9B-B7l
CIVIL
>eM) Term
Appellee
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
COMMONWEALTIl OF PENNSYLVANIA)
SS.
COUNTY
OF
CUMBERLAND)
TO: Mechanicsburg Area School District, Board of School Directors
We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action
between ~.rger., a minor, bv Barbara Crn_ll, his lY'rpnt and gl'Rrrl;Rn
vs. Mechanicsburg Area School District, Board of School Directors
pending before you, do comnand you that the record of the action aforesaid with
all things concerning said action, shall be certified and sent to our judges of
our Court of Common Pleas at Carlisle, within
20
days of the date hereof,
together with this writ: so that we may further cause to be done that which ought
to be done according to the laws and Constitution of this Commonwealth.
WITNESS, the Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J.
our said Court, at Carlisle, Pa., the 13th day of February
, 19..2a-'
('
CL~~
Prothonota
'.
"
~w OFFICE;9
SNELDAKER.
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted. By way of further response, it is averred (a)
that said hearing on January 30, 1998, was de novo, (b) that it
was a formal hearing under applicable law, and (c) that a
stenographic record was made of the hearing.
6. Admitted,
7. The averments in Paragraph 7 are admitted generally;
however, the full text of the Appellee's decision and its terms
are contained in the "Adjudication of Board of School Directors"
appended to the Appeal of Adjudication as "Exhibit A", which
document speaks for itself.
8. The content of the introductory portion of Paragraph 8
is a series of conclusions of law to which no response is
required as a matter of pleading and, therefore, is deemed to be
denied. However, Appellee specifically denies that the
adjudication violated the student's constitutional rights and
that the findings of facts are not supported by substantial
evidence. In further response, it is noted to the Court that the
allegation of constitutional violation is not supported by any
citation to any alleged specific constitutional right in issue
nor the manner in which said right was supposedly violated. It
is further averred that the Appellee's findings of facts were
more than supported by substantial evidence as borne out by the
record of the formal hearing as filed contemporaneously herewith.
-2-
(a) It is denied that Appellee or its Board Committee
relied upon inadmissible evidence. The record of the formal
hearing clearly indicates that Appellee's adjudication was
supported by substantial evidence without regard to any
alleged hearsay testimony. It is noted that Appellant fails
to aver with sufficient particularity the alleged hearsay
for which she claims error, including the failure to
identify the alleged "Declarant", thereby obfuscating the
issue and preventing Appellee from addressing any specific
alleged error.
By way of further response, it is averred (1) that
Appellant made no known effort to seek the production of the
alleged "Declarant", and made no request for such production
or for continuance of the formal hearing, and (2) that any
possible impact of hearsay evidence was the result of its
emphasis by counsel for the Appellant in extensive cross-
examination of Administration witnesses.
(b) It is denied that the sole evidence of infraction
was hearsay statements. On the contrary, it is averred that
substantial evidence of record supports the adjudication
including the subject student's admission (confession)
l.I\W OFFICr:O
SNELOAKER.
BRl':NNEMAN
8: SPARE
thereof to two other students, both of whom were produced at
the formal hearing, and by the subject student's admission
of having made the statement to such other students in the
hearing, albeit with an incredible explanation that he did
not mean it. It is further denied that the Appellant's
-3-
LAW OFFIces
SNELDAKER.
BRl:NNEMAN
Be SPARE
testimony established that the subject student "could not
have placed the phone call which gave rise to the
violations". On the contrary, it is averred that the
evidence produced by Appellant was incredible and subject to
disregard in the Appellee's exercise of discretion as the
trier of facts,
9. Admitted. By way of further response, it is averred
that Appellee is under no duty to act upon an alleged verbal
notice of intent to appeal.
10. It is denied that Appellee will not be prejudiced by
staying the imposition of the provisions of the Adjudication. On
the contrary, as averred above, there is no legally cognizable
basis for this appeal, and it is further averred that this appeal
lacks merit and is believed to be interposed for the purpose of
delay. The good order of the Mechanicsburg Area School District
and the disciplinary remedial benefits to the subject student
require that the sanctions of the Adjudication be executed
promptly. The subject student has committed a serious offense
(telephone bomb threat to the High School building) for which
immediate redress is required and not to be delayed by frivolous
appeal.
11. It is denied that the subject student will suffer
irreparable harm. On the contrary, the Adjudication provides
that the student's right to education will not be interrupted
since he has not been physically excluded from such education
provided that he complies with the conditions of the
-4-
LAW OFI'ICCO
S,..ELDAKER.
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
Adjudication. By way of further response, it is noted that
Appellant fails to state the manner in which any alleged harm
will occur.
12. It is denied that a stay of the execution of the
Adjudication is appropriate or just to Appellee which has the
responsibility for substantial numbers of students and staff
whose welfare was jeopardized by the student's prior actions and
could be threatened by possible future actions if permitted to go
undisciplined after the full and fair formal hearing.
Prayer for Relief. Appellant indicates that her appeal
requires a "hearing". On the contrary, 2 Pa. C.S. S754(b)
prohibits a hearing where a full and complete record before the
local agency has been made. The record of the proceedings is
filed contemporaneously herewith in response to a writ of
certiorari which includes a copy of notes of testimony of the
formal hearing.
WHEREFORE, Appellee respectfully requests your Honorable
Court to deny the stay of the Adjudication and to deny the appeal
of the Adjudication.
By
ard C. Snelbaker
44 West Main street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318
Attorneys for Appellee
-5-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this date serving a certified
copy of the within Response of Appellee to Rule to Show Cause
upon the Attorney for Appellant by sending the same by regular
first-class mail, postage paid addressed as follows:
R. Mark Thomas, Esquire
54 East Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
ard C. Snelbaker
SNELBA ER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C.
Attorneys for Appellee
Dated: February 20, 1998
LAW oFFices
SNEl.DAKER,
BnEN NEMAN
Be SPARE
R.S., A MINOR, by
B.C., HIS PARENT AND
GUARDIAN,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYINANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MECHANICSBURG AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF
SCHOOL DIRECTORS,
Appellee
.
.
:
.
.
NO, 98-0871 CIVIL TERM
AND NOW, this
IN RE: REOUEST FOR STAY
BEFORE OLER. J.
ORDER OF COURT
I~t\ay of March, 1998,
upon consideration of
Appellantrs request for a stay of sanctions imposed by Appellee in
its decision dated February 13, 1998, and for the reasons stated in
the accompanying opinion, the request for a stay is denied.
BY THE COURT,
J We
R. Mark Thomas, Esq.
54 East Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Attorney for Appellant
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esq.
44 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Attorney for Appellee
c...~,", ~&.L 3j 19/ 'I ~ .
-u ...2>, ~
:rc
R.S., A MINOR, by
B.C., HIS PARENT AND
GUARDIAN,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MECHANICSBURG AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF
SCHOOL DIRECTORS,
Appellee
NO. 98-0871 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: REOUEST FOR STAY
BEFORE OLER. J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
Oler, J., March 18, 1998.
For disposition in this appeal under the Local Agency Law. is
a request by Appellant for a stay of sanctions imposed in a
decision by Appellee. The decision by Appellee, a board of public
school directors, imposed sanctions upon Appellant, a student, for
an allegedly disruptive phone call made to school officials.
For the reasons stated in this opinion, Appellant's request
for a stay will be denied.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On February 13, 1998, Appellee issued a decision adopting
certain findings of fact to the effect that Appellant had made a
disruptive phone call to the office of his school on September 28,
1997, causing its temporary evacuation. Appellee concluded that
this conduct violated ce:t'tain policies of the school district,
warranting disciplinary action. In terms of sanctions, Appellee
decided:
Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, S5, 2 Pa. C.S. S751 at
saq.
NO. 98-0871 CIVIL TERM
g. Student maintains
appropriate academic achievement, to
be monitored by the Administration;
h. Student does not
participate in or attend any
District sponsored extra-curricular
activities during the reminder of
the 1997-1998 school year.
i. Student does not
participate in or attend any
District sponsored student functions
during the reminder of the 1997-1998
school year; and
j. Student be and remain on
good behavior.
The record upon which Appellee based its decision was produced
at a hearing held on January 30, 1998. Evidence at the hearing
included testimony by two individuals that Appellant had admitted
making the phone call in question. Appellant filed an appeal from
the decision on February 13, 1998. Included in the appeal was a
request for a stay pending resolution of the appeal by the court.
DISCUSSION
A stay of sanctions in a case of the present type can be
ordered where the moving party establishes the following: " ( 1)
[that there is] a likelihood of success on the merits of the
appeal; (2) [the] irreparable injury [will result] if a stay is
denied; (3) [that] issuance of a stay will not substantially harm
other interested parties; and (4) [that] issuance of a stay will
not adversely affect the public interest." Yatron v. Hamburg Area
3
NO. 98-0871 CIVIL TERM
School District, 158 Pa. Commw. 204, 209, 631 A.2d 758, 761 (1993),
appeal denied, 538 Pa. 652, 647 A.2d 906 (1994).
Section 754 of the Local Agency Law provides, in pertinent
"
~,
.!
part, as follows:
(a) Incompleto record.- In the event a
full and complete record of the proceedings
before the local agency was not made, the
court may hear the appeal de novo, or may
remand the proceedings to the agency for the
purpose of making a full and complete record
or for further disposition in accordance with
the order of the court.
(b) Complete record.- In the event a full
and complete record of the proceedings before
the local agency was made, the court shall
hear the appeal without a jury on the record
certified by the agency. After hearing, the
court shall affirm the adjudication unless it
shall find that the adjudication is in
violation of the constitutional rights of the
appellant, or is not in accordance with law,
or that the provisions of Subchapter B of
Chapter 5 (relating to practice and procedure
of local agencies) have been violated in the
proceedings before the agency, or that any
finding of fact made by the agency and
necessary to support its adjudication is not
supported by substantial evidence....
I
I,
I'
,I
:,
(
I
1
i
\
\~
f~
, !
;1,
'.
~, .
"I'
"
; I
Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, S5, 2 Pa. C.S. S754.
After a careful review of the certified record which presently
exists in this case, and of the aforesaid responsibility of the
court on an appeal of the present type, the court is unable to
conclude at this stage of the proceedings that Appellant has met
the difficult burden of demonstrating that he will probably prevail
on the merits. The following order will therefore be entered:
4
RYAN SULTZABERGER, A MINOR
by BARBARA CROWELL, HIS
PARENT AND GUARDIAN,
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL DIVISION - LAW
MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BOARD OF SCHOOL
DIRECTORS,
NO. 98-871 CIVIL
Appellee
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: R. Mark Thomas, Esquire
54 E. Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
AND
Ryan sultzaberger, A Minor by Barbara Crowell,
his Parent and Guardian, Appellant
You are hereby notified that you have twenty (20) days in
which to plead to the enclosed New Matter or a Default Judgment
may be entered against you.
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C.
By:
,."._, - r;[j
f' .
. y-' 'J. i-_Q.
Ph 1P . S are, Esqu1re
44 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(717) 697-8528
Attorneys for Appellee
Date:
April 2, 1998
LAW OFFICES
SNELDAKER.
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
ANSWER TO PETITION_TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted,
J. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted, based Upon information and belief.
6. Admi tted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted
that an element of the prosecution's case in the hearing before
Judge Hoffer was the testimony of Mechanicsburg Area High School
Principal, Mr. Richard BOllinger. The averment that said
element was "material" is a legal conclusion which requires no
response and is deemed to be denied.
9. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averment
contained in paragraph 9 is a legal conclusion which requires no
response and is deemed to be denied. It is admitted that Mr.
Richard BOllinger, Mechanicsburg Area High School Principal,
testified at the hearing before JUdge Hoffer. After reasonable
investigation, Appellee is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the averment that the
LAW OFFIces
SNF.:L[3AICER,
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
commonwealth presented evidence to establish that the motive for
placing of this telephone call by the juvenile was to avoid a
Spanish test which was being administered the same day that the
-2-
LAW OFFICES
SNELD.\KER.
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
bomb threat was made; therefore, same is deemed to be denied.
10. Admitted. By way of further answer, it is averred
that such testimony was true and correct to the best of Mr.
Bollinger's knowledge at the time said testimony was given.
11. After reasonable investigation, Appellee is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
averment that the Commonwealth in its arguments to the Honorable
George E. Hoffer, argued vigorously that this was the juvenile's
motive and that this motive was evidence of guilt; therefore,
same is deemed to be denied.
12. Admitted.
13. The averments contained in paragraph 13 are legal
conclusions which require no response and are deemed to be
denied. To the extent said averments are considered factual, it
is denied that the high school principal testified falsely as to
the juvenile's motive and further denied that the testimony was
either knowingly false or given in reckless disregard for the
truth.
14. The averment in paragraph 14 is a legal conclusion
which requires no response and is deemed to be denied. To the
extent the averment is considered factual, it is denied that the
determination of guilt made by Judge Hoffer is tainted by the
allegedly false testimony and is therefore unreliable.
15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted
that the full and complete record in this case shows that at the
-3-
LAW OFFICES
SNELDAKER.
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
hearing before the Committee for the Mechanicsburg Area School
Board of Directors, the prosecution, through Allan Holman,
Esquire argued to the Committee that Judge Hoffer had found this
juvenile guilty. It is denied that Allan Holman, Esquire argued
this point vigorously and that he said therefore this Committee
would be warranted in finding that this juvenile committed this
offense. On the contrary, it is averred that the complete
record in this case reveals that Allan Holman, Esquire mentioned
the juvenile court conviction in his closing as follows:
Furthermore, you heard him testify that he was charged
in juvenile court and was convicted of making the call
by the Court. That certainly goes to his credibility.
I would suggest to you that the Court doesn't randomly
make determinations unless it has a basis to do so,
the same basis as you heard here today.
(1/30/98 Expulsion Hearing Transcript, pg. 79)
16. Denied. Paragraph 16 is a series of legal conclusions
which requires no response and is deemed to be denied. To the
extent the averments contained in Paragraph 16 are considered
factual, it is denied that the finding of Judge Hoffer was
tainted in so much as it allegedly relied upon false testimony,
the reliance upon Judge Hoffer's finding of guilt by the School
Board Committee is also tainted. On the contrary, it is averred
that the complete record in this case indicates that the
findings of fact adopted by the Board of School Directors are
based upon substantial evidence of record.
-4-
L-\W OFFICES
SNELBAKER.
BRENNEMAN
8: SPAR!!
17. Denied. Paragraph 17 is a legal conclusion which
requires no response and is deemed to be denied, To the extent
the averment contained in Paragraph 17 is considered factual, it
is denied that the purported reliance by the school
administration on Judge Hoffer's determination of guilt and its
influence upon the Board of School Directors committee taints
the adjudication as determined by the Mechanicsburg Area School
Board. On the contrary, it is averred that the adjudication in
this case is properly based upon substantial evidence of record
and is not "tainted" in any way whatsoever.
18. Admitted.
19. After reasonable investigation, Appellee is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of this allegation; therefore, same is deemed to be
denied.
20. Denied. It is denied that the transcript is relevant
to the decision that this Court is to make on appeal. After
reasonable investigation, Appellee is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
averment that this transcript was not available at the time the
appeal was first filed; therefore, same is deemed to be denied.
By way of further answer, it is averred that a transcript of the
juvenile hearing is irrelevant to and separate and distinct from
the adjudication of the Board of School Directors which is the
subject of the within appeal.
-5-
21, After reasonable investigation, Appellee is without
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to Appellant's beliefs,
therefore, the averments in paragraph 21 are deemed to be
denied, By way of further answer, it is averred that the record
in this case is full and complete.
22. Admitted.
NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes the Appellee, Mechanicsburg Area School
District, by its attorneys, Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P. C.
and avers the following New Matter as follows:
23. A full and complete stenographic record was made of
the January 30, 1998 hearing before the committee of the Board
of School Directors in this matter.
24. Disposition of this local agency appeal is controlled
by 2 Pa.C.S. S 754(b) which provides:
LAW OFFices
SNI!LDAKI!R.
BRENNI!MAN
Be SPARE
(b) complete record. - In the event a full and
complete record of the proceedings before the local
agency was made, the court shall hear the appeal
without a jury on the record certified by the agency.
After hearing the court shall affirm the adjudication
unless it shall find that the adjudication is in
violation of the constitutional rights of the
appellant, or is not in accordance with law, or that
the provisions of Subchapter B of Chapter 5 (relating
to practice and procedure of local agencies) have been
violated in the proceedings before the agency, or that
any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary
to support its adjudication is not supported by
substantial evidence. If the adjudication is not
affirmed, the court may enter any order authorized by
42 Pa.C.S. S 706 (relating to the disposition of
-6-
VERIFICATION
I, Douglas R, Bleggi, do hereby certify and verify: that I
am the duly commissioned Superintendent of the Mechanicsburg Area
School District, the Appellee herein; that I am authorized to
ake this verification on behalf of said Appellee and its Board
of School Directors; and that the facts set forth in the
foregoing Response of Appellee to Petition to Supplement the
Record with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pat
C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
~'tn' ,--/../) ('......,Qc...t. L--('" fJf~
Douglas R. Bleggi
Date: April 2, 1998
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am on this date serving a certified
opy of the within Response of Appellee to Petition to Supplement
he Record with New Matter to be served upon the Attorney for
ppellant by sending the same by regular first-class mail,
~~~~~. Esquire
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C,
Attorneys for Appellee
I
,
I
ostage paid addressed as follows:
R. Mark Thomas, Esquire
54 East Main street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
ate: April 2, 1998
~
, "
I
LAW OFFICES
SNELDAKER,
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
.~
uJ
0:: In
<( In
0- 0
V1 t:::
t:9 z :S
0 ~ ~ ~
~ ~
w ..J
~ 0 \;: Pi '"
uJ ;z ~ ;;;
Z 8 z ~
'" ~
Z ~ r
:u '- c.. '"
uJ z ~ t- o
0:: Q ~ \5
0:1 ~ 0 ~ ~ .:
(; ~ ::>
~ '"
~ rJ
~
~
J:
U
UJ
::<
'".
",
(l
~\ .,
\
I ~
U;
"
,
,
~,
........:,..
...if
It! ~(':
'- ..,
'~~~~l
: .l:-r'-:
'.
i.
i:..<!: ;.
.~.
}
I
I'
f
\ .
(
. f
;1; .
II
.,
~ ( ,.'
,
~~~.
" .
,
,
~
;..
...".,. .....
'c\7, ,l
"
;- ~..": ~ P"/'. ",
1. ". '
.;t .
".; ,:,' ,
. .t.s( 'h'
'..
.,
,
~ .
'.
. .
,
~:., .:"
'\.
....,. .
.,. .~c. .'
.J' '''', I
t.'. ",
, '
;, ,~
, .
,
,'j'j.
. ; "
'..... . ~
)
,114, ,
:, . .',+
., ,
....
.,;.
..
,
.'
;
... ';- I.. .
'.,...
_"~I
,
-
I, ...
, ,"\
, '
, ,
,\,'<
,..)0'
\1
\
RYAN SUL TZABERGER, A M[NOR,
by BARBARA CROWELL, HIS
PARENT AND GUARDIAN
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
"
;
"
,
v,
)
CIVIL DIVISION - LAW
MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BOARD OF SCHOOL,
DIRECTORS
No, 98.871 CIVIL
Appellee
AND NOW, this
ORDER
(~tt, day of June, 1998, upon consideration of the
Appellant's Petition for Withdrawa[ of his appeal it is hereby ordered that the appeal is
withdrawn, the decision of the Board of Schoo[ Directors for the Mechanicsburg Area
School District is affirrned and the appea[ of that decision is withdrawn with prejudice,
By the Court,
///00
VJ :,,:,';".',~~,:HJ~
11\lf~'~ OJ f' . f" r"I\','1J
N.. "'_ - " .."I
-" .., !.I ,I I' I "'1'- '-'s
Cv'v ,'"_,, 4 t.1 I Co..
I ,,-I If"'.' '.,' .., :1' "0
1\'-'f4\."-"J', .~.v,_.'~ -', - -
381j~O-.{JJ;lj
4, Appellant a[so filcd a Petition for Rcconsideration of a related juvcnilc
dclinqucncy action that had bcen brought by thc Curnberland County District Attorney's
Office, but that Petition for Reconsideration was denied,
5, The Appellant subrnits that based upon the record as it stands there are no
[egal grounds which wou[d cnable this Court to grant his appeal and therefore Appellant
hereby withdraws the appeal with an understanding that the withdrawal wou[d be with
prej udice,
WHEREFORE, Appellant hereby withdraws his appea[ that was previous[y filed in
this case on February 13, 1998,
Respectfully subrnitted,
~/ffJ~
R, Mark Thornas, Esquire
Attorney for Appellant
54 East Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(717)697-4650
10# 41301
R.S,. A M[NOR, BY B.C"
HIS PARENT AND GUARDIAN,
Appcllllnt
: [N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
"
v,
: C[VIL ACT[ONn LAW
MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT. BOARD OF SCHOOL
DIRECTORS,
Appcllcc : NO, 98-0871 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PETITION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD
BEFORE OLER, J,
l ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ,: j aay of April, 1998, aftcr carcful considcration of Appcllant's
petition to supplcrnent the rccord, and for thc rcasons statcd in thc accornpanying opinion,
the petition is dcnied,
ARGUMENT on Appellant's appcal undcr the Local Agency Law is scheduled for
Wednesday, June 3, 1998, at 8:30 a,rn" in Courtroorn No, 1, Curnbcrland County
Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Appellant's bricf shall be duc twelve days prior to
argurncnt, and Appellee's brief shall be duc fivc days prior to argument. Curnberland County
Rules of Procedurc 210-6 through 210-[0 shall apply, cxcept that only one copy of a brief
need be furnished to thc court.
BY THE COURT,
'/ /) ~J
U/v({ 0)/0'\ I'
( . 'J ( ,
, ,\
R, Mark Thornas, Esq,
54 East Main Strcct
Mechanicsburg, P A 17055
Attorncy for Appcllant
R,S" A MINOR, BY B,C"
HIS PARENT AND GUARD[AN,
Appellant
: [N THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS or
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V AN[A
v,
: C[V[L ACT[ON -- LAW
MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BOARD or SCHOOL
DIRECTORS,
Appellee : NO, 98-087[ C[VIL TERM
IN RE: PETITION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD
BEFORE OLER. ],
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
OLER, ]" April 20,1998,
For disposition in this appeal undcr thc Loclll Agcncy Lawl is a pctition of Appcllant
to supplcrncnt thc rccord, The appcal is frorn a dccision of a board of public school dircctors
sanctioning a studcnt for an allcgcd incidcnt of rnisconduct. Thc rccord consists prirnarily
of thc proccedings bcforc school board dircctors,
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On Fcbruary 13, 1998, Appcllcc issucd a dccision adopting ccrtain findings of fact to
the cffect that Appcllant had rnade a disruptivc phone call to thc officc of his school on
Septcrnbcr 28,1997, causing thc school's tcrnporary evacuation, Appellce concluded that
this conduct violatcd scveral policics of the school district, warranting disciplinary action,
Thc sanctions irnposcd havc been rccited in an opinion of this court dated March 18, 1998,
dealing with Appellant's rcquest for II stay,
The procecdings bcfore directors of thc school board wcre stenographically recorded,
and a transcript of thc procecdings has bcen includcd in thc rccord ccrtificd to this court. In
1 Act of April 28, 1978, P,L. 202, ~ 5, 2 Pa, C,S, ~ 751 et seq,
thc pctition sub judice, Appcllant rcqucsts that thc rccord bc supplcrncntcd to includc a
trllnscript of It juvcnilc court procccding Itrising out of thc allcgcd rnisbchllvior,
Thc basis for thc rcquest that thc rccord bc supplcrncntcd is thllt thc school bOllrd's
decision WlIS influenccd by thcjuvcnilc court's adjudication, that inllccuratc testirnony in thc
juvcnilc procceding clluscd thc juvcnilc court to bc rnislcd, lInd thllt a fair rcsolution of thc
issuc of whcther thc school board's dccision should bc uphcld rcquircs a reconsidcration of
thc propcr cffect of the juvcnilc court's adjudication,2 Thc inaccuratc tcstirnony rcfcrrcd to
was that of a school official, who advised thc juvenilc court that Appellant was schedulcd to
takc a Spanish tcst on thc occasion of thc school disruption, thcrcby substantiating lIn allcgcd
rnotivc for the disruptivc activity;l
Appcllec docs not specifically dcny thatthc official was rnistaken in this tcstimony,4
and thc court will assurnc that no such tcst had bcen schcdulcd, for purposcs of disposition
of Appcllant's prcscnt petition, It will also bc assumed arguendo that in thc juvcnilc
procceding the Cornrnonwcalth utilizcd thc testirnony in question in support of its position.s
In addition, the record in the prcscnt casc is clcar that thc juvenile court's deterrnination was
onc of the factors argued to thc school board as tending to underrninc Appellant's
2 See Appellant's Pctition To Supplcrnent thc Rccord, filcd March 3, 1998,
J ld,. paragraph 10: Appcllee's Responsc to Petition To Supplernent thc Record with
Ncw Maller, paragraph 10, filcd April 2,1998,
4 In its answcr to Appellant's Petition To Supplementthc Record, Appellec avers "that
such testirnony was true and correct to thc best of [the officilll'sJ knowlcdge at thc timc sajd
tcstirnony was given." Appellec's Response to Pctition To Supplcment the Record with New
Mallcr, paragraph 10, filed April 2, 1998,
sSee Appcllant's Petition To Supplerncntthc Record, paragraphs 8-1 I, filcd March
3, 1998: Appellee's Responsc to Pctition To Supplcrncnt the Record with Ncw Mallcr,
paragraphs 8- I 1, filed April 2, 1998,
2
-.
protcstlltion of innoccncc,"
On thc othcr hand. thc school bOllrd hlld rcccivcd tcstimollY cOllfirrning thllt 110
Spllnish tcst WlIS sehcdulcd for Appclllllll on thc dllY of thc disruption,7 f'urtherrnorc,
according to Appellllnt, thc juvcnile court dcclincd to nltcr its adjudiclltion lIftcr bcing mlldc
awnrc that thc tcstirnony which it had hcard concerning thc Spanish tcst had bccn rnistakcn,H
DISCUSSION
Scction 754 of thc Loclll Agency Law providcs, in pcrtincnt part, as follows:
(8) Incomplctc rccord,.. In thc cvcnt a full and cornplclc
record of thc procccdings bcfore thc loclll agcncy was not rnadc,
thc court rnay hcar thc appcal dc novo, or rnay rcrnand thc
procccdings to thc agcncy for thc purposc of making a full and
cornplctc rccord or for furthcr disposition in accordancc with thc
ordcr of thc court,
(b) Complete record.-- In thc cvcnt II full and cornplctc
rccord of thc procccdings bcforc thc local agcncy was rnlldc, thc
court shall hcar thc appcal without a jury on thc rccord certificd
by thc agency, After hearing, thc court shall affirrn thc
adjudication unlcss it shall find that thc adjudication is in
violation of thc constitutional rights of thc appcllllnt, or is not in
accordancc with law, or that thc provisions of Subchaptcr B of
6 N.T. 79, Procecdings bcforc School Board Dircctors, January 30, 1998 (hcrcinafter
N.T, _), Specifically, counscl for thc school adrninistrntion statcd:
Furtherrnorc, you hcard [Appcllant] tcstify that he was
chargcd in juvcnilc court and was convictcd of rnaking the call
by the Court, That ccrtainly gocs to his crcdibility. I would
suggcst to you that the Court docsn't randornly rnake
dctcrrninations unlcss it has a basis to do so, thc samc basis as
you heard herc today,
Id..
7 N.T, 37.
H Appcllant's Rcply to New MlIllcr, pllrngrnph 27, filcd April 17. 1998,
3
Chaptcr 5 (rclating to prncticc and proccdurc of localagcncics)
hllvc bccn viollltcd in thc procccdings bcforc thc agcncy, or that
lIny finding of fllct rnadc by thc lIgcncy and ncccssary to support
its adjudiclltion is not supportcd by subslantilll cvidcncc....
Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202. ~ 5, 2 Pa, C,S, ~ 754,
In this casc, a fullllnd cornplctc rccord of thc procccdings beforc thc school dircctors
was rnadc, thcrcby irnplicllting the provision of Scction 754(b) (rcvicw of ccrtificd rccord)
as opposed to Scction 754(a) (dc novo hcaring) of thc Local Agcncy Law, In addition, the
school board hcrcin waS in rcccipt of corrcct information as to thc Spanish tcst whcn it rnadc
its decision, Finally, thc juvcnilc court's adjudication was not changcd upon its rcccipt of
a correct vcrsion of the rnallcr,
Undcr thcse circumstances, thc court is unablc to agrec with Appellant that a
supplcrncntation of thc rccord to includc a transcript of the juvcnile proceedings would bc
authorized by statute or othcrwise neccssary, For this rcason, thc following order will be
cntcred:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 1998, aftcr carcful considcration of Appellant's
petition to supplcrnent thc rccord, and for the rcasons statcd in thc accornpanying opinion,
the petition is dcnied,
ARGUMENT on Appcllant's appcal undcr the Local Agency Law is scheduled for
Wednesday, June 3, 1998, at 8:30 a,rn" in Courtroom No, I, Cumberland County
Courthouse, Carlisle, Pcnnsylvania. Appcllant's brief shall be duc twelve days prior to
argument, and Appcllee's bricf shall bc duc fivc days prior to argurnent. Curnberland County
Rulcs of Proccdure 210-6 through 210-10 shall apply, cxccpt that only one copy of a brief
nccd bc furnishcd to thc court.
4
.'
,
"
.,....
-'
".'h
"
..
"
-'.\
"
"
",
f~_~_~ _
....'1 ~
,
, ,~-'
, ..
':'L
'>""u.,",
't"7" ,'/
"
.. '~'_~{""') ~ .
'., ~ ", .
'," . t
",', ~::. -
... "\ ~~;
'.).1
'.: '" ....,,'"
~~ .:tl ....
'''','' t". '-i
"'. ''':.! ,
~ .,1' .
. "-; ~: "
~... .
. ,
,
",
,'j""
, PJ
~ ,J; "
I
~'\.~,...
.t',
" '
t
..~
lI.
'!
.~
" .
f~.>'
,
.-
I
RYAN SULTZABERGER, A MINOR,
by BARBARA CROWELL, HIS
PARENT AND GUARDIAN
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL DIVISION - LAW
MECHANICS BURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BOARD OF SCHOOL
DIRECTORS
NO. 98-871 CIVIL
Appellee
PETITION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
AND NOW, comes R. Mark Thomas, Esquire, the attorney for the
Appellant, and files this Petition to supplement the Record in
the above captioned case and in support thereof respectfully
represents:
1. On January 30, 1998, a hearing was convened before the
Mechanicsburg Area School District, Board of School Directors.
2. The subj ect matter of the hearing was a disciplinary
action brought by the Administration for the Mechanicsburg Area
School District against Ryan Sultzaberger, a ninth grade student
at the Mechanicsburg Area High School.
3. The allegation brought by the Administration was that
the student had telephoned a bomb threat into the Senior High
School office on or about September 29, 1997 at 11:05 a.m. and
such action caused the building to be evacuated.
4. This action of placing this telephone call under these
circumstances violated various policies of the School District as
previously enacted by the Board of School Directors.
5. Prior to the hearing conducted by the committee for the
Board of School Directors, a Petition had been filed in Juvenile
Court alleging that this student had violated Title 18 Pa.C.S. ~
4905, False Alarms to Agencies of Public Safety. The basis for
this Petition in Juvenile Court was the same basis for the
disciplinary action brought by the Administration of the
Mechanicsburg Area School District.
6. A Determination of Guilt Hearing on
Petition was held before the Honorable George
the
E.
Juvenile
Hoffer on
December 18, 1997.
7. Following the Determination of Guil t Hearing on
December 18, 1997, the Honorable George E. Hoffer found that the
evidence did establish that this juvenile had violated 18 Pa.C.S.
~ 4905.
8. A material element of the prosecution I s case in the
hearing before Judge Hoffer was the testimony of Mechanicsburg
Area High School Principal, Mr. Richard Bollinger.
9. The Commonwealth presented evidence to establish that
the motive for the placing of this telephone call by the juvenile
was to avoid a Spanish test which was being administered the same
day that the bomb threat was made.
10. At the hearing before Judge Hoffer the high school
principal, Mr. Bollinger, did testify that this juvenile was
scheduled to take a Spanish test on the date the bomb threat was
made.
11. The Commonwealth, in its arguments to the Honorable
George E. Hoffer, argued vigorously that this was the juvenile's
motive and that this motive was evidence of guilt.
12. FOllowing the introduction of this evidence and the
arguments made by the Commonwealth Judge Hoffer found the
juvenile guilty.
13. The testimony from the high school principal as to the
juvenile's motive was false. This testimony was either knowingly
false or given in reckless disregard as to whether it was false.
14. The determination of guilt made by Judge Hoffer is
tainted by this false testimony and is therefore unreliable.
15. At the hearing before the Committee for the
Mechanicsburg Area School Board of Directors, the prosecution,
through Alan Holman, Esquire, vigorously argued to the Committee
that Judge Hoffer had found this juvenile guilty and therefore
this Committee would be warranted in finding that this juvenile
committed this offense.
16. Since the finding of Judge Hoffer was tainted in so
much as it relied upon false testimony, the reliance upon Judge
Hoffer's finding of guilt by the School Board Committee is also
tainted.
17. The reliance by the school administration on Judge
Hoffer's determination of guilt and its influence upon the Board
of School Directors Committee taints the adjudication as
determined by the Mechanicsburg Area School Board.
18. The record which has been submitted to the Court on
appeal does not contain the transcript of the hearing which was
conducted before the Honorable George E, Hoffer on December 18,
1997.
19. This transcript has been prepared and is available to
made part of the record of the appeal in this case.
20. This transcript is relevant to the decision that this
Court is to make on an appeal and was not available at the time
the appeal was first filed.
21. Appellant believes that the Court I s access to this
transcript as part of the record is vital to a fair determination
of the outcome of this appeal.
22. On March 3, 1998 Counsel for Petitioner contacted
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire, Solicitor for the Mechanicsburg
Area School District who was unable to concur with the granting
of this Petition.
WHEREFORE, Appellant prays this Honorable Court will grant
this Petition to Supplement the Record and allow the transcript
from the juvenile hearing to be made of part thereof.
RYAN SULTZABERGER, A MINOR,
by BARBARA CROWELL, HIS
PARENT AND GUARDIAN
Appellant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL DIVISION - LAW
MECHANICS BURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BOARD OF SCHOOL
DIRECTORS
NO, 98-871 CIVIL
Appellee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, R. Mark Thomas, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day
serving a copy of the foregoing Petition to Supplement the Record
filed on behalf of Appellant, Ryan Sultzaberger, upon the person
and in the manner indicated below:
Richard C. Snelbaker
44 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Hand Delivered)
/1/J 3, /'f9B-
Date '
~~~
R. Mark Thomas, Esquire
, '
The Board of School Directors authorized Directors cochran,
Adams, Galinski, Kortze, Miller and Spangler to serve as a
committee to hear the matter and report a recommendation to the
Board,
A formal hearing was convened by the Board Committee at 7:30
o'clock A.M. on January 13, 1998, in the Board Room of the
District Administration Office. The District's SOlicitor,
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire, presided at the hearing as hearing
officer. The student, Ryan sultzaberger, and his mother, Barbara
H. Crowell, appeared in person. At the student's request, the
proceedings were deemed to be closed (non-public). The
proceedings were stenographically recorded by Debora L.
cunningham of Archive Reporting Service.
The following persons also attended the hearing:
superintendent Bleggi, High School Principal Bollinger, Assistant
Principal Dennis Baker, and Officer Bock of the Mechanicsburg
Police Department. Mr. Bollinger represented the Administration
in presenting its evidence.
In the course of the hearing, Barbara H. crowell, mother of
the student, expressed a desire to obtain legal counsel. On the
hearing officer's direction, the hearing was suspended and
continued to another date.
On January 14, 1998, superintendent Bleggi issued another
notice to Barbara H. Crowell, fixing a continued hearing for
January 30, 1998. Proof of receipt of the notice is established
by certified mail return receipt card indicating delivery on
-2-
January 17, 1998,
The formal hearing was reconvened by the Board committee at
7:30 o'clock A.M., on January 30, 1998, in the Board's meeting
room, The District's Solicitor presided at the hearing as
hearing officer, The committee consisted of the same Directors
as at the earlier session.
The student appeared in person together with his mother and
legal counsel, R. Mark Thomas, Esquire, together with two
witnesses: Chelsea Coy, a 9th grade student, and her mother,
Brenda schoffstall.
The Administration appeared through principal Bollinger and
Assistant Principal Baker, who were represented by Allan Holman,
Esquire. The Administration also produced: Officer Earl Bock of
the Mechanicsburg Police Department; Rose Doman, High School
Secretary; Alisha Leighow, a 9th grade student (and her father);
Kristin Sassaman, a 9th grade student (and her parents).
Superintendent Bleggi and the Board's Secretary, Alan
Vandrew, attended the hearing.
The Administration presented sworn testimony from Rose
Doman, Principal Bollinger, Assistant Principal Baker, Alisha
Leighow and Kristin Sassaman.
The student presented sworn testimony from Chelsea Coy,
Brenda Schoffstall, Barbara Crowell and Ryan sultzaberger (the
student) .
cross-examination was afforded on all witnesses. Both
counsel presented closing arguments to the Committee.
-3-
"i
, '
,
: ,
Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the committee announced
its intention to report its recommendation to the Board of School
Directors at a meeting of the entire Board to be held on February
. '!
:'
I,
"
:"*
II' :
r '
c,
j
I
I
10, 1998.
B. FINDINGS OF FACTS
Based upon the evidence produced at the formal hearing and
on the recommendation of its committee, the Board adopts the
committee's findings of facts as follows:
1, At all times relevant herein, Ryan
Sultzaberger ("Student") was a male ninth grade student
in the Mechanicsburg Area High School.
2. Student had been in attendance in classes at
'1ft
"
the District's High school on September 29, 1997, and
I
J
partook of the District's lunch program beginning at
J
,.\
.
I
approximately 10:55 A.M.
3. Student was subject to District regulations at
the time of the incident described in paragraph 4
j
,
below.
4. On september 29, 1997, Student placed a
telephone call to the senior High School office which
was received by Rose Dornan at or about 11:05 A.M.,
relating that a bomb existed in the High School
\ .
,':(
1
building. The building was evacuated at or about 11:15
A.M. while a search for an explosive device was made by
school and police personnel. (No such device was
located. )
-4-
~
....\.
5. The actions mentioned in paragraph 4 above
constitute a violation of the following policies of
this District as heretofore enacted by the Board of
School Directors:
_ 5010,4a.2: Students shall refrain from any conduct
that will interfere with the rights of
other students to learn or to
participate in other curricular, co-
curricular or extra-curricular
activities.
_ 5010.4.e.1: A student commits a violation of this
policy, with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm
a member of the School District faculty or staff,
whether or not during school hours:
*
*
*
(a) a student engages in a course of conduct
or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or
seriously annoy a member of the faculty or
staff and which serve no legitimate purpose.
_ 1997-98 Student Handbook statement that a bomb threat
is student misconduct sufficient to
justify disciplinary action by this
Board of School Directors (page 125).
6. Disciplinary action against student is
warranted.
-5-
C. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Board's committee recommends that Ryan sultzaberger
be excluded and expelled from school at the Mechanicsburg Area
School District for one (1) calendar year commencing February 11,
1998, but that expulsion be suspended immediately for such period
of one (1) calendar year, on the following conditions:
a. Student participates in the District's
In-School Suspension Program for a period of ten
(10) school days commencing on February , 1998;
b. Student and parent agree to have student
evaluated by the District's personnel or
consultants under the District's multi-
disciplinary emotional support program;
c. Student's parent agrees forthwith to provide
private (non-school) counseling for Student based on
the results of the evaluation in b. above and to have
counsellor provide periodic reports to Administration;
d. Student to perform thirty (30) hours of
community service as prescribed and approved by Darby
Christlieb, Community Service Program coordinator of
the Cumberland county Juvenile Court Probation Office;
e. Student to comply with the stipulations and
directions of Brian Taylor, site-based Probation
Officer at the Senior High School;
f. Student maintains appropriate school
attendance;
-6-
g. student maintains appropriate academic
achievement, to be monitored by the Administration;
h, student does not participate in or attend
any District sponsored extra-curricular activities
during the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year;
i. student does not participate in or attend
any District sponsored student functions during
the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year; and
j. student be and remain on good behavior.
.
D. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board of School Directors concludes as follows:
1. This Board has jurisdiction over this
proceeding and student Ryan sultzaberger pursuant to
section 1318 and 1317.2 of the Public School Code of
1949, as amended, (24 P.S. S13-1318 and S13-1317.2),
the Student Rights and Responsibilities Regulation of
the Pennsylvania state Board of Education (22 Pa. Code
S12.1 et seq.), and the several policies of the
Mechanicsburg Area School District relating to student
conduct and disciplinary actions.
2. Proper notice of these proceedings was given
to the Student and his parent.
3. The conduct described in the foregoing
Findings of Facts constitutes violation of District
Policies 5010.4.a.2 and 5010.4.e.1 and the current
Student Handbook of the Mechanicsburg Area School
-7-
District.
4. Ryan sultzaberger's continued presence as a
student at the High School could constitute a
disruption of the educational mission of the School
District and the good order of the School.
5. Such conduct may be redressed by expulsion
from further attendance of school pursuant to policies
5010.4.a.2, 5010.4.3.1, the current Student Handbook
and the authorities cited in conclusion 1. above.
E. DECISION
AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 1998, upon receipt of
the recommendation of its hearing committee, on the motion of
pe. PAi2.~'-I"" , seconded by ((112. r1t1ILLc~
and upon the affirmative vote of g directors, with 0
negative votes and () directors abstaining (said votes
being recorded upon roll-call), it is the decision of this Board:
1. To accept and adopt the foregoing Findings of
Facts as the findings of this Board;
2. To accept and adopt the foregoing Conclusions
of Law as the conclusions of this Board;
3. To expel and exclude Ryan sultzaberger as a
student of the Mechanicsburg Area School District for
one (1) calendar year from this date, but that such
expulsion be suspended immediately on Student's
performance of and compliance with the following
requirements and conditions during said calendar year
-8-
(except whsre specifically provided otherwise):
a. student participates in the District's
In-School Suspension Program for a period of ten
(10) school days commencing on February ,1998;
b. Student and parent agree to have Student
evaluated by the District's personnel or
consultants under the District's multi-
disciplinary emotional support program;
c. Student's parent agrees forthwith to provide
private (non-school) counseling for Student based on
the results of the evaluation in b. above and to have
counsellor provide periodic reports to Administration;
d. Student to perform thirty (30) hours of
community service as prescribed and approved by Darby
Christlieb, Community Service Program Coordinator of
the Cumberland County Juvenile Court Probation Office;
e. Student to comply with the stipulations and
directions of Brian Taylor, site-based Probation
Officer at the Senior High School;
f. Student maintains appropriate school
attendance;
g. Student maintains appropriate academic
achievement, to be monitored by the Administration;
h. Student does not participate in or attend
any District sponsored extra-curricular activities
during the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year;
-9-
i. student does not participate in or attend
any District sponsored student functions during
the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year; and
j. student be and remain on good behavior.
4. To direct the superintendent to send forthwith
to the student, Ryan sultzaberger, and his mother,
Barbara H. crowell, photocopies of this Adjudication,
said delivery to be made by first-class mail and
certified mail with return receipt requested, and a
separate copy to R. Mark Thomas, Esquire, Attorney for
the student by first-class mail.
BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF
MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
ATTEST:
BY~~C./ & ~- ~
res~dent, Board of School
Directors
~1V~~
Secretary
(SEAL)
-10-
Z 115 674 344
~ Receipt for
Certified Moll
No Insuranco CovOInuo Provided
~ 00 not llllU lor InloU\otionnl Moil
....., ... (SOD ROIJOlsnl
""W;'. BMbaJUl II. CllOWeU
l't"'''l)''
Ct'lt,l'f'(j rllt'
1
$ .:--??-
/::J5
SlJf'(;~ll (}tllrvl!lV lell
RIl'lllC'lld Dellvt1t r'''I
C") flfllUHl "Klt.P! ShowlnlJ
m 10 'Nhom I!. 001'" Oo!l,yt!l'e-d
~
s:: Retuln "KlIlp' ShO,o"r>g 10 Whom,
t::! 001'", Jf1d AII(j'II!\!WIl', AIIlI"'"
..
::i: lUlAl PuSIIl1)1l
0"'1'''''
C) POSU f,
CD '- /
M Q'/ ~
~ ~;'( ~ '\.
IL .\ ~
Ul' ~
Q. _"J~",,_,-;JL_---
/ 10
$ ,;/ 77
I also wish 10 rocelv.1ho
following ..NlceB (for on
.xtra fB.):
1. 0 Addr.....'. Addr...
2. Il(I RBBtrictod D.llv.ry
~. BMbaJUl. II. CIlOWeU
IIII Apple V4ive, Apt. HI
Mechan.i.Mbllllg, PA 11055
!I
i!.
.lI
~
'-
i
I'
I
)\:
, ,
i "
,
"
Z 115 674 348
I,
~':
, ,
~. Receipt for
Certified Moil
No Insurnnce COverilgo Providod
~II"""I\ 00 not uso for 10(0,"[1110001 Moil
.."...\01....
1500 Aovorso)
CIlOWeU
P011;t\l6
SptlC1d1 Olth~I"I'l' r"'t
L
,
Celhl'f!d rOil
AnUlcled Qehwt!IV fllll
(") RelumRl"cll,plSIUJw,oq
~ 10Whom 'ff!d
~
.<:
I!
~
o
o
CD
M
E
{l
Ul
Q.
\. \0
$d.11
l
\
,
I
....._-~........_......
J
(\0 SENDER:
:I _eomplltll1lrTl11 ancUOf 2 lot MkItIonII MI'VIcn.
. _eomplltlItlml3, .'0 and "b.
i I .Pltnt your name and addren on IhI flYIt"N ollhl. fonn 10 thet we can retum \hi.
card to you.
.Anach 1hI. 10.111 to tM front of thl mallpieoe. or on the badr.1f 'Pace 00.1 not
perml.
t) _Wrlle.Rerum R~pI RlKlUNted"on \he maHpfece btIow 1M ,rUde number.
5 .The Retum RlCIipl wU11hoW to whom the artlcfe wu dllvered and the dall
e delivered..
o
. 1 3. ArtIcl. Addr..sed lo:
D.
ft
~. BMbMct. II. CIlOWeU
IIII Apple Vlllve, Apt. HI
Mechan.i.Mbllllg, PA 11055
I also wish 10 rocelvo th.
following ..NIce. (for on
.xtra f..l:
1. 0 Addr.....'. Addr... ~
2. ex R..tricted D.llv.ry j
Con.ult po.tmaBl.r lor I... a
48. Artlct. Numb.r I
Z 115 614 34& I
I
l
~
I
4b. S.Nlc. Typ.
o R.gl.t.red Iil Certified
o Expr... Mall 0 Insured
o R.tum Rscelpt for Merd1an<l.. 0 COD
7. D.t. of D.llv.ry
I-
7
\ .
,
I>
. I
,
5. R.c.lv.d By: (Print Nam.)
8. Addr.....'. Addr... (Only" requ.sted
and ,..Is paId)
~
"
o
>-
.!!
1. rw...JL
'025....7...017. Domest c Return Rece pt
Z 115 674 347
~ Receipt for
Certified Moll
_ No Insuranco Coyorano Providod
':'-':::L".lr~\ 00 not 1150 for Intornnllonnl Moll
ISoo Rovorsol
~il!l' I III
Rlan Sultzabell ell
511"", .1"11 No
1111 A le V4ive
rXfeS~'h~;:;1'~obivt PA
$
"0""\1"
^ t. HI
11055
S-
.3.\
CIIIlll,(tl:l FilII
SPUC!d1 Uc.-hvulyflm
nulllctOll DtllrvulY Fec
~
~
11
~
.,;
o
CD
M
~
of
[e
i -Campl"1 h;'" 1anl:Uor 2 for.tdtdonll.....a..
. -Compltel htnW 3, "I, and 4b.
I -Pl1ne your name and add,... on ChI reYWH ofthll form 10 ChIt WI can .-.tumthl.
card 10 you,
-Abch thIt tonn 10 thl front of the rnallpitce, or on thl bKk tf 'Pace don not
. .=~etum RlIOIipt RIIQUNtId"on thl maHJMco below lhIartlcl, number,
ti -1"he RItLWn Rapt wtn Ihow to ~ ChI artld. WII dtivtnd and the cUll
S dollvorod,
J 3. Md. Addr..BOd 10:
f
Ryan Sultzabell!jell
IIII Apple V4ive, Apt. HI
Mechan.i.cAbllllg, PA 11055
I also wish 10 recelv. th.
following ..Nlce. (for on
.xtra f..): i
1. 0 Addr.....'. Addr...
2. ~ R.stricted Delivery
1;'
Consult pa.tmost.r for f... _
48. Me/. Numb.r
Z 115 614 341 I:
j,
5. Roc.lv.d By: (Ptfnt NIUIl6)
,
,
8. Addr.... "- Add''''!!?"'y)l rsqu..red
and f.. Is palilJ!2i1~
..
oS
!I
I-
i
I
.lI
10259509"'-0"9 Domestic Return Race pt
,~
ORIGINAL
IN RE:
EXPULSION HEARING OF RYAN SULTZABERGER
Stenographic record of hearing held
at the Mechanicsburg Senior High School,
500 South Broad Street
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
Friday
January 30, 1998
7:30 a.m.
SCHOOL DIRECTORS:
Roberta Adams
Margaret Kortz
Donald Spangler
James Cochran
Frank Miller
David Gallinskie
("'"')
, "
~"~1lo
,t \1
APPEARANCES:
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE
BY: RICHARD SNELBAKER, ESQUIRE
FOR - BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
HOLMAN & HOLMAN
BY: ALLAN HOLMAN, ESQUIRE
FOR - SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
LAW OFFICE OF MARK THOMAS
BY: MARK THOMAS, ESQUIRE
FOR - RYAN SULTZABERGER
ALSO PRESENT:
ALAN VANDREW, SECRETARY
DOUGLAS BLEGGI, SUPERINTENDENT
)
-......
'1 . ~
I
2336 N. Second Streel (717) 234.5922
Harrisburg, PA 17110 FAX (717) 234.6190
ARCHIVE REPORTING SERVICE
"
2
,~ 1 I N D E X
2 WITNESSES
3
4 FOR ADMINISTRATION DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
5 Rose Domen 8 9
6 Richard Bollinger 11 13
7 Alisha Leighow 17 20 25
8 Kristin Sassaman 26 29
9 Dennis Baker 31 34
10 Richard Bollinger, recalled 40
11
12 FOR STUDENT
....~ 13 Chelsea Coy 43 48 51
.,_..1
14 Brenda Schoffstall 51
15 Barbara Crowell 53 56
16 Ryan Sultzaberger 58 64 68 70
17
18
19 EXHIBIT
20 STUDENT EXHIBIT NO. MARKED
21 1 - Phone log 56
22
23
24
,--.J 25
3
')
1 MR. COCHRAN: I would like to call to order the
2 expulsion hearing by the Board of the Mechanicsburg Area
3 School Directors. I would like to turn the proceedings
4 over to our solicitor, Mr. Snelbaker.
5 MR. SNELBAKER: This is the time and placed
6 fixed for the formal hearing in the student discipline
7 matter of Ryan Sultzaberger, a student at Mechanicsburg
8 Area School District.
9 This hearing began several days ago in
10 connection with a notice which was published on January 7.
11 We met on January 13. At that time at the request of the
12 student's parent, the case was continued.
13 At this point we will consider the case to have
14 started the de novo so there is no problem with any of the
15 proceedings which went before.
16 My name is Richard Snelbaker. As indicated,
17 I'm an attorney. I'm the solicitor of the School
18 District. I appear here as counsel to the Board of School
19 Directors of the Mechanicsburg Area School District and as
20 the hearing officer appointed by the Board. I do not
21 represent the administration of the School District.
22 This hearing is intended to be closed or
23 nonpublic. The student has a right to have a public
24 hearing. What is the pleasure of the student?
25 MR. THOMAS: If by closed -- we are not going
.~_.....~
,
~
4
,..........
\
"/--..,
1 to ask for any sequestration.
2 MR. SNELBAKER: By closed we mean that it is
3 nonpublic in the sense that people that have no interest in
4 the case would not be admitted into the proceedings. Is
5 that your preference?
6 MR. THOMAS: That would be our preference.
7 MR. SNELBAKER: We will deem this proceeding to
8 be closed to the general public. In order that the record
9 reflects the identity of the persons and capacities of the
10 persons present, we will note appearances at this point.
11 The Board of School Directors of the
12 Mechanicsburg Area School District is the agency or
13 tribunal hearing this matter pursuant to Section 1318 of
14 the public school code of 1949. The Board has delegated a
15 committee of its members to hear this case and to report
16 its findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the full
17 board at a meeting to be held on February 10, 1998.
18 At this point, the Board committee will be
19 introduced by roll call by the Secretary , Mr. Vandrew.
20 MR. VANDREW: Roberta Adams?
21 MS. ADAMS: Here.
22 MR. VANDREW: Margaret Kortz?
23 MS. KORTZ: Here.
24 MR. VANDREW: Donald Spangler?
25 MR. SPANGLER: Here.
'-'
5
~
l
1 MR. VANDREW: James Cochran?
2 MR. COCHRAN: Here.
3 MR. VANDREW: Frank Miller?
4 MR. MILLER: Here.
5 MR. VANDREW: David Gallinskie?
6 MR. GALINSKIE: Here.
7 MR. SNELBAKER: Dr. Douglas Bleggi, who is to
8 our left, is present in his capacity as superintendent of
9 the Mechanicsburg Area School District.
10 Dr. Bleggi, would you introduce who is here on
11 behalf of the Administration, please?
12 DR. BLEGGI: On behalf of the Administration is
13 Mr. Richard Bollinger, High School Principal.
14 MR. SNELBAKER: I believe you have Mr. Baker
15 who is here, the Assistant Principal.
r,........'
16
MR. BOLLINGER: Mr. Baker, who is the Assistant
17 Principal, is here, Alisha Leighow, student, Kristin
18 Sassaman, student, Rose Dowlman, Secretary, and Earl Bock
19 from the Mechanicsburg Police Department.
20 MR. SNELBAKER: We recognize Allen Holman,
21 Esquire, as the attorney for the Administration. At this
22 point, the student is present, Ryan Sultzaberger.
23 Mr. Thomas, will you introduce yourself and who
24 is present with you, please?
25
MR. THOMAS: I'm Attorney Mark Thomas. I
7
1 of his responsibility.
2 The Administration will have the right to
3 cross-examine this student's witnesses. Upon conclusion of
4 the student's case in chief, the Administration will have
5 the right to present any rebuttal evidence. While the
6 Board intends to be liberal in allowing evidence, the Board
7 insists that all evidence be relevant to the issue.
8 Upon conclusion of this hearing, the Board
9 Committee will caucus at its convenience to prepare an
10 adjudication in assisting the findings of facts,
11 conclusions of law, and a recommendation of disposition to
12 the full Board of School Directors. The full Board will
13 deliberate and pass upon the matter at a public meeting to
14 be held on February 10, 1998.
15 Based upon material provided by the
16 Superintendent, notice of this hearing and the charges
17 involved have been given in writing. I assume that you
18 acknowledge receipt of the notices, Mr. Thomas?
19 MR. THOMAS: Yes, we do.
20 MR. SNELBAKER: Those notices will be made a
21 part of the record. Are there any questions concerning the
22 procedures which we will follow today? Anybody have any
23 questions? Hearing none, we are ready to proceed with the
24 taking of evidence.
25 Was Officer Bock identified?
-......;
,..............
. i
1
Q
2
A
9
Where are you employed?
I/m a secretary in the high school for
3 Mr. Ballinger.
/.
~I
4
Q
5
A
6
Q
How long have you been employed?
Eight years.
Were you present at the high school on
7 September 29/ 1997?
8
A
9
Q
Yes / I was.
will you describe for the Board what took place
10 that morning?
11
A
I received a telephone call. The voice said
12 that there was a bomb in the building and immediately hung
,...-."
13 up.
14
Q
15 do?
16
A
As a result of that phone call, what did you
I punched the number in we were given to have
17 the call traced, and I immediately told Mr. Bollinger.
18
Q
19 matter?
20
A
21
22
23
24
Did you have any other duties in regard to this
NO, I didn't.
MR. HOLMAN: You may cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION
',.,/
25 BY MR. THOMAS:
..-...
\
1
Q
2
A
3
Q
4
A
5
Q
6 What was that statement?
7
A
8
Q
10
Is that Mrs. Dolman?
Yes, it is.
Mrs. Dolman, the phone call was short?
Very short.
In fact, there was only one statement made.
There was a bomb in the building.
Now, in addition to talking with Mr. Bollinger,
9 you also spoke with Officer Bock. Is that correct?
10
A
11
Q
I believe so, yes.
When you spoke with Officer Bock, you advised
12 him that you were able to hear clearly what this person had
",""",
13 said over the phone?
14
A
15
Q
Yes.
You understood exactly what the caller had said
16 over the phone?
17
A
18
Q
Yes, I did.
In fact, you were even able to identify
19 characteristics, although you couldn't be certain. You
20 told him that you thought the caller was young, white, and
21 male?
22
A
23
Q
That's right.
Just to be clear, you also told Officer Bock
24 that you overheard no background noise over the telephone?
25
A
'~
That's right.
11
\
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. THOMAS:
MR. HOLMAN:
No further questions.
Mr. Bollinger.
RICHARD BOLLINGER, called as a witness, being
duly sworn, testified as follows:
8
9 BY MR. HOLMAN:
'-~-.".
10 Q State your name, please.
11 A Richard Bollinger.
12 Q What is your occupation?
13 A Principal at Mechanicsburg High School.
14 Q How long have you been principal?
15 A This is my fifth year.
16 Q Were you at the high school on the morning of
.J
17 September 29, 1997?
18 A I was.
19 Q Did you receive some kind of message concerning
20 a bomb threat?
21 A I did from my secretary, Mrs. Dolman.
22 Q What did you as a result of that bomb threat?
23 A The information came to me at 11:08 that there
24 had been a bomb threat. I immediately notified Central
25 Administration, the Superintendent's office, as well as the
12
..--......,
)
1 Director of Secondary Education. I then instructed that a
2 call be placed to the Mechanicsburg Police Department.
3 That was at 11:10.
4 At 11:15 we made the decision that we had to
5 evacuate the premises due to the nature of the threat.
6 That is what we did.
7 We evacuated the students and facility from the
8 building and then conducted a search in conjunction with
9 Mechanicsburg Police Department of the building. Then I
10 guess it was approximately, I'm going to say, 45 minutes
11 later we brought the students and facility back into the
12 building after we determined, by cursory examination, that
,......
13 there was no evidence of a bomb.
14 Q From whom did you receive statements in regard
15 to this matter?
16 A I didn't.
17 Q From any students?
18 A I didn't receive those statements. Mr. Baker
19 received the statements.
20 Q
21 A
22 school.
23 Q
24 A
25 students,
I
--....../
Who is Mr. Baker?
Mr. Baker is an Assistant Principal at the high
Do you know who those statements were from?
I know that the statements were from two
Alisha Leighow and Kristin Sassaman.
13
/-, , 1
,
2
3
4
MR. HOLMAN: You may cross-examine.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION
5
6 BY MR. THOMAS:
7
Q
Mr. Bollinger, after you had received this
8 information from Mr. Baker, did you speak with these two
9 students?
10
A
I told Mr. Baker that at that point if he had
11 information, that he needed to pass that on to the
12 Mechanicsburg Police Department. Officer Bock was
'''""1
13 notified. I think, if I'm correct, he was the one that
"-~)
14 took the statements or the statements were presented to
15 him.
16
Q
I'm looking at a report that was prepared by
17 Officer Bock. In his report he indicates that you are the
18 one that conveyed the information to him.
19
A
Conveyed the information that we had
20 statements, yes. Mr. Baker conveyed it to me, then I
21 contacted Officer Bock that we had information. That is
22 correct.
23
Q
When you spoke with Officer Bock, you told him
24 that you had received these statements or this information
I
---..I
25 and you also told him that there was some information
14
I ,
to
.\'
r"
-\
,
1 concerning Mr. Sultzaberger going to the nurse's office on
2 the day of the bomb threat?
3 A That's correct. ,
, ,
.,
4 Q You also told Officer Bock that you went to the ,
5 nurse's office and confirmed it?
6 A That was confirmed by Mr. Baker.
7 Q Okay.
8 A The investigation was done by Mr. Baker.
9 Information was conveyed to Officer Bock through my
10 office. The actual investigation was conducted by
11 Mr. Baker.
12
Q
From the School's perspective?
13
A
Yes.
14
Q
The statements that were given by these girls,
15 were you advised of the content of those statements?
16
A
Vaguely, yes.
17
Q
Do you recall that they in their statement said
18 that Ryan Sultzaberger told them that he's the one that
19 made the bomb threat?
20
A
I think that's accurate, yes.
21
Q
He also told them, according to their
22 statements, that the reason he did so was to avoid a
23 Spanish test?
24
A
I believe that was the statement, yes.
o
25
Q
He also said he had a backup plan that he would
...........\
,...........
,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
. '--"
16
1
I would agree with that.
Would you agree with me that it would be a loud
A
2
Q
3 level of noise?
4
A
In the cafeteria?
5
Q
Yes.
6
A
Yes.
7
There are two pay phones near the cafeteria.
Q
8 Is that right?
9
Two pay phones in the hallway outside the
A
10 cafeteria.
11
When you are at those pay phones, you can
Q
12 easily hear the loud hum of noise from the cafeteria. Is
13 that correct?
14
I really don't know. I have never used the
A
15 phones. I'm going to assume that you can, yes.
16 Q You say that that phone call came in at
17 approximately 11:08 a.m. which would have been during
18 Period 4 lunch. Is that correct?
A Correct.
MR. THOMAS: I have no further questions.
MR. HOLMAN: Alisha Leighow.
ALISHA LEIGHOW, called as a witness, being duly
sworn/ testified as follows:
18
'~1 1 bomb threat made by Ryan around lunchtime, which would have
2 been the next period.
3 MR. THOMAS: I'm going to object to that as
4 being hearsay.
5 MR. HOLMAN: It goes to the state of mind of
J
6 the witness and the young man. I don't believe we are
7 bound by the strict rules of evidence.
8 MR. SNELBAKER: I believe that the statement
9 has already been heard. I don't know how I can exclude it
10 now that I heard it.
11 MR. THOMAS: I would ask that with regard to
12 his statement, that it goes to his state of mind because
13 the witness did not overhear the Defendant say that. It
14 doesn't go to his state of mind.
15 With regard it being hearsay, the report that I
16 have says that there was conversation that took place in
17 the cafeteria. Now they are talking about a conversation
18 that took place in cooking class.
19 MR. SNELBAKER: You will have the opportunity
20 to cross-examine.
21 MR. HOLMAN: May I proceed?
22 MR. SNELBAKER: Yes, sir.
23 BY MR. HOLMAN:
24 Q What happened at approximately 11:15 that
25 morning or 11:00 that morning?
,~,
20
5
CROSS EXAMINATION
i':
l,.:'
~ "
'I ~ I
~' ,
1
with the bomb threat?
2
A No.
3
MR. HOLMAN: You may cross-examine.
4
6
7 BY MR. THOMAS:
8
Q
Did you give a written statement to the police?
...
9
A
Yes.
,
10
Q
Now, if I understood you correctly, on
11 September 29, which is the day of the bomb scare, you had
12 heard from somebody prior to the bomb scare that there was
,....-.....
I )
13 going to be one?
14
A
Yes.
)
\
,
1
15
Q
The person you heard that from was not Ryan
16 Sultzaberger?
l
(
17 A No.
18 Q Who was the person you heard that from?
19 A Josh Nye.
20 Q Did you ask him where he got his information?
21 A He told me that Ryan had told him.
22 Q You didn't answer my question. My question
i
~,
23 was, did you ask him where he got his information?
24
A
No.
25
Q
Josh Nye, I take it he's a student here in the
--)
,',<
;-~
1 school?
2
A
3
Q
21
Yes.
If we wanted to hear where Josh Nye got that
4 information, he's here at the school and we can bring him
5 down. Right?
6 A He does not go here anymore.
7 Q He doesn't?
8 A No.
9 Q Has he been expelled?
10
A
I'm not sure. I just know -- I don't know
11 where he goes. I know he does not go here anymore.
12
Q
,,--.
)
-"
13 person?
14
A
Did he have a reputation for being an honest
Well, I'm his cousin. He tells me things. He
15 doesn't lie to me.
16
Q
You say you're his cousin. So Josh Nye still
17 probably lives in the area?
18
A
19
Q
20 correct?
21
A
Yes.
You told Officer Bock about Josh Nye. Is that
I stated -- I never told him, but I stated it
22 in my statement.
23
Q
Who was this other personal that was with Josh
24 Nye when they told you?
25
A
J
Sandy Sheaffer.
.---.,
_.~
..J
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q She was with you on the morning of September 29
before the bomb threat when that statement was made?
A Yes.
Q Did she also make that statement?
A Yes.
Q So she has a source of information which they
got that information prior to telling you on the morning of
the bomb threat?
A Yes.
10 Q Now, you weren't present when the telephone
11 call was made conveying the threat of a bomb. Is that
12 correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q So the only information you have concerning
15 this whole thing is information that you received from Josh
16 Nye, information you received when Candy Sheaffer and you
17 were present during a conversation between Ryan
18 Sultzaberger and who?
19 A Myself and Kristin and Sara Beth.
20 Q Who had started that conversation?
21 A I believe it was Sara Beth.
22 Q How did that conversation start?
23 MR. SNELBAKER: This is the one on October 1?
24 MR. THOMAS: Yes.
25 THE WITNESS: She had asked him if he had done
-'~,
,~--",
--.J
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the bomb threat.
BY MR. THOMAS:
Q Was this in the cafeteria?
A Yes.
Q Was Ryan Sultzaberger sitting at the same table
with you having lunch?
A No, he was standing at the end of our table.
Q Where were you?
A I was sitting at the end of the table where he
he was standing.
Q Next to where he was standing?
A Yes.
Q Where was Sara Beth?
A She was sitting next to me.
Q Was he walking by the table and Sara Beth
stopped him?
A He stopped at our table.
Q What was the question that Sara Beth asked him?
A If he had called in the bomb threat.
Q What was his reply?
A He didn't answer us at first. He was silent,
then he said he had.
Q Did he shrug his shoulders at first when he was
asked if he made the bomb threat?
A No.
"\
.~-
o
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Did he tell you why he made this bomb threat?
A Because he had a Spanish test that he wanted to
get out of.
Q Did he also tell you that he had a backup plan?
A No. He told us that he had gone home. He had
gone to the nurse anyway and he had gone home that day.
Q But from what he told you, his motive for
making this call was to avoid a Spanish test that
afternoon?
A Yes.
Q Were there also rumors going around the school
that other people were rumored to be the ones that made the
bomb threat?
A No.
Q Currently you are not a close friend of Ryan's,
but last year you were a friend of his?
A Yes.
Q Have you ever attempted to call anyone from the
pay phones next to the cafeteria?
A Yes.
Q Is it difficult to speak to someone if it is
during a lunch period?
A Not at the beginning of the lunch period.
Q What's the beginning of the lunch period?
A Everyone is in the cafeteria. There's no one
25
----\
,
'..--,,'
1 in the hallway. At end of the lunch period there's a lot
2 of people in the hallway.
3 Q When does the lunch period begin?
4 A 10:54.
5 Q Aren't people in line in the hallway to get
6 into the cafeteria?
7 A Not usually.
8 Q That's my question. Have you ever made a phone
9 call from the cafeteria during the lunch period?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Have you had difficulty communicating with the
12 person on the other end of the phone because of the noise?
13 A No.
14 MR. THOMAS: No further questions.
15
16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17
18 BY MR. HOLMAN:
19 Q The rumors that were going around the school,
20 who were they relating to?
21 A Ryan.
22 Q Ryan?
23 A Yes.
24 MR. THOMAS: No recross.
25 MR. SNELBAKER: May I ask for Sara Beth's last
-""-.""
26
1 name. Please?
2
THE WITNESS: Bartlett.
3
MR. HOLMAN: Kristin Sassaman.
4
5 KRISTIN SASSAMAN, called as a witness, being
6 duly sworn, testified as follows:
7
8
MR. HOLMAN: May we have the students excused
9 so they can go to class?
10
MR. SNELBAKER: That's entirely up to you
11 folks. Mr. Thomas, do you have any objection?
12
MR. THOMAS: No objection.
...-..
, \
MR. BOLLINGER: How about my secretary?
13
14
MR. SNELBAKER: It is up to you. I don't think
15 the Board would have any questions of any of the witnesses
16 at this point. Indicating none.
17
18
DIRECT EXAMINATION
19
20 BY MR. HOLMAN:
21 Q Kristin, state your name, please.
22 A Kristin Sassaman.
23 Q Where do you live?
24 A 907 Cocklin Street, Mechanicsburg.
25 Q What school do you attend?
'---" j
,:\;
27
1 A Mechanicsburg High School.
2 Q What class are you in?
3 A Ninth grade.
4 Q Ryan and Alisha are in the ninth grade also?
5 A Yes, they are.
6 Q Directing your attention to October 1 of last
7 year, will you describe for the Board what took place at
8 the fourth period lunch?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Would you state what happened?
11 A Ryan came up to our table. Sara Beth had asked
12 him if he had called in the bomb threat. He stalled at
, 13 first, and then he said he had. And then explained to
we
14 him that he could be in a lot of trouble, that somebody
15 could have gotten hurt. He said that he didn't care, and
16 then someone asked him why he had called in the bomb
17 threat. He said because he had a Spanish test the next
18 period.
19 Q
20 period?
21 A
22 Q
23 A
24 shouldn't
----.J 25 saying.
Did he mention his aunt during that time
Yes, he had.
What did he say about his aunt?
That she had worked in the cafeteria and we
talk too loud or she would overhear what we were
28
l-
I,
I'
I
I ,
"'1
(; i
~'
I
.
,
..--....
,
1
Q Kristin, were you at the juvenile hearing that
2
was held in Carlisle?
3
A Yes, I was.
4
Q Were you there when JUdge Hoffer made his
5
determination?
6 A Yes, I was.
7 MR. THOMAS: I'm going to object to the
8 relevancy. It's a de novo hearing.
9 MR. SNELBAKER: Without telling us the results,
10 what's the offer then?
,
~, .
11
MR. HOLMAN: I would ask that she be given the
()
12 right to state what took place at that hearing.
13
MR. SNELBAKER: I'll sustain that objection at
14 this point.
15 BY MR. HOLMAN:
16
Q
What kind of rumors were going around the
17 school concerning the bomb threat?
18
MR. THOMAS: I'm going to object. It's
19 hearsay.
20
MR. SNELBAKER: I believe it has already been
21 the subject of discussion.
22
MR. HOLMAN: You already asked that question.
23
MR. SNELBAKER: That was my understanding.
tt.
tic
.. "
"
'j
, I
! ,
24
MR. THOMAS: Okay.
IJ
25 BY MR. HOLMAN:
!. 1
" ~!
,
.'~-~
~
29
1 Q You may answer.
2 A There were a lot of rumors going around that
3 Ryan called in the bomb threat.
4 Q Was there any reason that you can find or that
5 you can remember why Ryan admitted to this other than the
6 fact that he did it?
7 A No.
8 MR. HOLMAN: You may cross-examine.
9
10 CROSS EXAMINATION
11
12
13
14
BY MR. THOMAS:
Q
These rumors, who was spreading the rumors?
I don't know. I just heard from different
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
people.
Q But if you heard it from different people, you
heard different people say it?
A Yes.
Q Who were these different people?
A Candy Sheaffer said it and Alisha had told me
when we were outside after we had evacuated the building.
Q Alisha told you when you were outside?
A Yes.
Q You also heard it from Candy Sheaffer?
A Yes.
30
-----. 1 Q Did you hear it from anybody else?
2 A I don't think so.
3 Q Candy Sheaffer has also said that Ryan had
4 nothing to do with the phone call, hasn't she?
5 A Yes.
6 Q So Candy Sheaffer one time says that Ryan made
7 the phone call and other time she says he didn't?
8 A Yes.
9 Q So the only other person you heard that from ,
10 was Alisha?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Now, when this conversation occurred in the
")
13 cafeteria on October 1, Sara Beth is the one that asked
15
A
Yes.
"
.
\
,
I
14 Ryan if he did it. Right?
16
Q
At first Ryan didn't give a response to that
17
question. Isn't is that right?
18
A Yes.
r
!
1
~
\ '
,~
U
I,
,.
:1.
I,
\J)
Ii
'I
19
Q Then Sara said to him, Ryan, you know you did
20
it, tell us?
21
A Yes.
22
Q It's only after she said that that Ryan said,
23
yeah, I did it?
24
A Yes.
()
25
Q
Then he went on to say the reason he did it was
;.
i'
'l
...;
:\
31
1 because of this Spanish test?
2
A
Yes.
3
Q
Then he went on to say in case the Spanish test
4 didn't work, I could get out by in case the bomb scare
5 didn't work, I could get out by going to the nurse and
6 claiming I was sick?
7 A Yes.
8 Q But in that entire conversation his whole
.'j
9 reason was because of the Spanish test?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Are you in his Spanish class?
12 A No, I'm not.
13 MR. THOMAS: No further questions.
14 MR. HOLMAN: You may step down. You are
~,,~~'
15 excused.
16
MR. SNELBAKER: Thank you, folks, for coming
17 in.
18
MR. HOLMAN: I call Dennis Baker.
19
20
DENNIS BAKER, called as a witness, being duly
21 sworn, testified as follows:
22
23
DIRECT EXAMINATION
24
---.J
25 BY MR. HOLMAN:
1
Q
2
A
3
Q
32
I
i'
I",
, ,
,
State your name, please.
, "
Dennis Baker.
What is your capacity with the Mechanicsburg
,
~ I
)
I
4 School District?
5 A
6 Q
7 A
8 Q
9 school?
10 A
11 Q
12 students?
>,~-. 13 A
;
Assistant High School Principal.
How long have you been Assistant principal?
Fif teen years.
Are you in charge of discipline at the high
'"
,
That's one of my primary responsibilities, yes.
What about the academic records of the
J
That's usually the business of the guidance
14 counselors, although we, of course, have access to that
J
\
,
,
15 information.
16
Q
Do you have access to Ryan's academic and
t
,
17 disciplinary records?
18
A
19
Q
20 reflects?
I have a copy of the most recently issued one.
Would you state for the Board what that record
21 A I can. It lists the subject, level and the I
I
,~
.,
22 average to date for the first semester. English, 70 1 ~
II
23 percent. Of 70 percent is the minimum for passing. I,
course I:
24 69 would be failing. American studies, 73. Geometry, 82. I
!
25 Spanish, 78. Science, 81. Computer, 78. Phys. Ed,
,J
.,
'I
:".
33
1 honors.
2 Q Do you have his disciplinary record available?
3 A I do.
4 Q State that for the Board.
5 A There were six instances of administrative
6 disciplinary action throughout the year. On September 29,
7 which is the same day as the bomb threat, there was
8 administrative discipline action taken against Ryan for
9 being outside during study hall when he should not have
10 been. The next day, September 30, a similar offense during
11 the same time of the day, being outside when he was not
12 supposed to be. On October 22, a disciplinary action was
ft..
~ ")
13 taken for disruptive behavior in study hall. October 28,
14 disciplinary action was taken for not serving detention
15 time that had been assigned previously. November 5,
16 disruptive behavior in a study hall. December 3,
17 disruptive behavior in a study hall.
18
MR. SNELBAKER: What was the last date, sir?
19
THE WITNESS: December 3.
20
MR. SNELBAKER: Thank you.
21 BY MR. HOLMAN:
22
Q
Were there any disciplinary actions resulting
23 from athletic events?
24
A
Yes, there was one incident. I have a letter
--..J
25 before me from Robert Kauffman, Assistant Principal and
35
1 there were six instances. Do those records reflect that
2 every one of those involved the same teacher?
3 A No, they do not. ThreE involve the same
4 teacher. There were two other teachers involved.
5 Q There are three teachers involved altogether?
6 A Yes.
7 Q If I understood correctly, they all occurred
8 during study hall?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
And according to Mr. Bollinger, you're the one
11 that conducted at least what part of the investigation the
12 school did conduct in this case?
13
A
Yes.
14
Q
When someone is at the cafeteria for lunch, are
15 they allowed to go anyplace in the building?
16
A
NO, they are restricted to the adjacent
17 hallway.
18
Q
In that adjacent hallway is that where the two
19 pay phones are located?
20 A Yes. Is there someone in authority, a teacher
21 or somebody who oversees that area so that students don't
22 walk around the school building?
23 A Yes. There's normally a teacher posted at both
24 ends of that hallway.
25
Q
So if a student were at lunch and they wanted
;
-~
36
1 to make a phone call, they would have to use one of those
2 two pay phones?
3
A
4 cafeteria.
5
Q
6 he knew?
7
A
8
Q
9
A
10 his transfer.
11
Q
Yes, and they are readily accessible from the
Did Josh Nye ever come to you and tell you what
No.
Was Josh Nye a student here on September 29?
I believe he was. I believe that was prior to
You had spoken to a Lisa Leighow. Is that how
12 you pronounce it?
..-~..
)
13
A
14
Q
Yes.
She had told you pretty much the same thing she
15 testified to today. Is that right?
16
A
17
Q
Yes.
That was that Josh Nye had told her that Ryan
18 Sultzaberger was going to call in a bomb threat.
That was
19 part of her testimony?
20
A
21
Q
22 with that?
23
A
24
Q
Yes.
Did you ever go to Josh Nye and confront him
No, I did not.
Did you share that information with the police
..~
25 so the police could go to Josh Nye and confront him with
37
1 that?
2
A
It was shared as part of Alisha's written
3 statement.
4
Q
As far as you know, there was no follow-up done
5 on it?
6
A
That's correct.
7
Q
Did you also go to, based on the information
8 you had concerning that he was going to miss the Spanish
9 test one way or another, the nurse's office to confirm
10 whether or not he had been to the nurse's office that day?
11
A
I took an alternate approach. I went to our
12 attendance secretary and noted that he was, indeed, sent
,~""'
~)
13 home by the nurse that afternoon, Darlene Matty.
14
Q
And did you also check with Miss Hacangeles,
\
,
!
15 Ryan SUltzaberger's Spanish teacher, to see if there was,
!
,
16 in fact, a test that day?
17 A No, I did not.
18 Q Do you know sitting here right now whether or
19 not there was, in fact, a test in Spanish on that
20 particular day?
21 A I did talk with her yesterday as a result of a
\ ...:
,.,
r [
I
22 conversation that apparently you had with her. She
23 approached me and she notified me that according to her
24 lesson plans, there was no test that day.
. \
\'J
25
Q
Did she also tell that you she looked at her
I
If,
....;,;~
,
.-'
38
1 lesson plans and there was no quiz that day?
I
2
A
Yes.
3
Q Have you been in the area of the cafeteria
4
during Period 4 lunch?
"
, I
,
(,
5
A
6
Q
7
A
8
Q
9
A
10
Q
Almost every day.
Pretty active area I take it?
Yes.
Pretty loud area?
At times, especially in the cafeteria.
,
I assume, unless they redesigned the building
11 since I was here, there are two large openings out into the
12 hallway from the cafeteria?
.~
I
.J
13
A
14
Q
15
A
16
Q
17
A
18
Q
Yes, the doorways.
How close are the telephones to those openings?
')
I
.
!
Within 12 feet.
Closer than you to me?
I
,
Maybe 15 feet. From me to the wall, probably.
There's nothing there to interrupt the sounds
19 coming from the cafeteria going to the pay telephone. Is
20 that right?
21
A
22
Q
No barriers, no.
i
i.
,
I.
Have you tried to make a call from the pay
23 telephone during lunch period?
24
A
--J
25
Q
No, I haven't.
Would you agree with Mr. Bollinger that there's
39
"',
.
1 approximately 300 kids in that cafeteria at period four
2 lunch?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Did you ever interview Ryan Sultzaberger to
5 find out what he had to say about this?
6 A No, because we turned the investigation over to
7 the police immediately.
8 Q So the only students you actually interviewed
9 then would have been Alisha Leighow and Kristin Sassaman?
10
A
Yes.
11
MR. THOMAS: No further questions.
12
MR. SNELBAKER: I have a few. On the
r-)
13 disciplinary matters, you gave us six incidents of some
14 sort of disciplinary ffi3tter. Do you know the disposition
15 of those items?
16
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. Ryan was either
17 assigned administrative detention and/or demerits. If you
18 would like, I can specify.
19
MR. SNELBAKER: Please.
20
THE WITNESS: One detention plus three
21 demerits. On September 30, the same, one detention and
22 three demerits. On the other four instances, one
23 administrative detention each.
24
MR. SNELBAKER: What is detention?
J
25
THE WITNESS: It is a requirement from the
41
1 grant the school the authority to do an emotional support
2 evaluation. Two, that the parent will arrange for private
3 counseling for Ryan. Three
4
MR. SNBLBAKER: Stop. Go a little slower. The
5 second one was what?
6
THE WITNESS: The parent will arrange for
7 private counseling sessions for Ryan. Three, during the
8 remainder of this school year, 97-98, Ryan will not be
9 permitted to participate in or attend extracurricular
10 activities. Four, that a 10-day in-school suspension would
11 start beginning February 2.
12
Five, that he would perform 30 hours of
"'-'-')
~. .-'
13 community service as outlined by Mr. Darby and the
14 Community Service Programer, Juvenile Probation Office.
15 Six, that he would adhere to the stipulations of Mr. Brian
16 Taylor, who is our site-based probation officer from
17 Cumberland County located here in the high school.
18 Seven, that he maintain acceptable academic
19 standards, which I will note he is doing, passing all
20 subjects at the current time. Eight, that he maintain
,
,-~
21 approved attendance guidelines at the school. He is also
22 in compliance there, I will note.
23 Finally, Ryan will be expelled for the year,
24 but the expulsion will be stayed. By that I mean he will
25 not be put out of school but continue as a student here at
42
1 the high school. Following the 10-day in-school
2 suspension, that he be placed back in his regular education
3 classes. And if he adheres to all the guidelines, that
4 expulsion would be lifted in February of 1999.
5
MR. SNELBAKER: On the last point, you said
6 expelled for the year. Can you indicate the year?
7 THE WITNESS: For a year.
8
MR. SNELBAKER: For a year?
9
THE WITNESS: Yes.
10
MR. SNELBAKER: From this time to a similar
11 time next year?
12
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
'~
,.,_",1
13
MR. HOLMAN: You may cross-examine.
14
MR. THOMAS: I have no questions.
15
MR. HOLMAN: The administration rests.
16
MR. SNELBAKER: While we are in the procedural
17 matters here, would you explain whether or not you had an
18 informal hearing?
19
THE WITNESS: With whom?
20
MR. SNELBAKER: With Ryan. Was there any
21 informal hearing on this matter?
22
THE WITNESS: No, there was not. As I think
23 was indicated in the testimony, from October 1 on this was
24 a Mechanicsburg police matter.
---J
25
Let me say that on January 7 there was an
43
5 suspension. There's been no discipline administered in any
:\i
I' ,
:/ '
it,
I' '
iI'.
I' .
II ;f
n
)
If
!
I
()
1 informal meeting with Ryan and Brian Taylor, site-based
2 probation officer. I'm not sure which one you are
3 referring to.
4 MR. SNELBAKER: I'm concerned that there was no
6 way as a result of these charges. Am I correct?
7
THE WITNESS: That's correct. I wasn't sure
8 which one you were referring to.
p
9
MR. SNELBAKER: Thank you. That's all. I
,
10 guess we are ready for the student's case.
,-.,..
13
CHELSEA COY, called as a witness, being duly
11
MR. THOMAS: Chelsea Coy.
12
"
-..../
14 sworn, testified as follows:
15
16
DIRECT EXAMINATION
i
,
17
18 BY MR. HOLMAN:
,..)
19 Q Chelsea, how old are you?
20 A Fourteen.
21 Q Where do you live?
22 A 313 South Arch Street.
23 Q In Mechanicsburg?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Are you a student here at Mechanicsburg?
1
A
2
Q
44
Yes.
How long have you been a student at
3 Mechanicsburg?
4
A
5
Q
6
A
7
Q
8 in?
9
A
10
Q
11
A
12
Q
")
,,~
My whole life.
What grade are you in?
Ninth.
That/s the same grade that Ryan Sultzaberger is
Yes.
Are you friends with Ryan Sultzaberger?
Yes.
Do you routinely have lunch with Ryan
13 Sultzaberger?
14
A
15
Q
16
A
17
Q
18
A
19
Q
Every day.
Every day?
Yes.
You sit at the same table with you him?
Yes.
Do you remember the lunch period back on
20 September 29 of this past fall?
21
A
22
Q
Yes.
Why is it that you are able to remember that
23 particular day?
24
A
Because of all of the stuff that's been going
'J
25 on, like the court hearing and everything.
""
1
Q
45
So people have been asking you questions about
2 that day for the past couple of months. Is that right?
3
A
4
Q
5 Mr. Baker ever take the time to interview you?
6
A
7
Q
Yes.
Did anyone from the school or Mr. Bollinger or
No.
Did the police officer that was investigating
8 this case ever take the opportunity to interview you?
9
A
10
Q
No.
Would you have spoken with them if they had
11 asked you to?
12
A
~~,.)
13
Q
Yes.
On September 29 at the lunch period, were you
14 having lunch with Ryan Sultzaberger on that particular day?
15
A
16
Q
Yes.
Could you explain to the Court what you and
17 Ryan did during that lunch period?
18 A Well, every day we go and get our lunch and we
19 sit down. Me and Ryan and Candy Sheaffer always take our
20 trays up together. We took our trays back and Ryan asked
21 if he could borrow a quarter. He wanted to call his mom.
22 He didn't feel good. Candy gave him a quart. He asked if
23 we wanted to go out there while he made the phone call. We
24 said, yeah.
,
/
"-../
25
While he was on the phone, we sat on the senior
1
Q
47
Did I understand you -- who lent him a quarter
2 so he could make the call?
3
A
4
Q
Candy.
Have you ever called your mother during that
5 lunch period from that telephone?
6
A
7
Q
Yes.
Is it difficult to communicate with the person
8 on the other end of the line?
9
A
10
Q
11
A
Yes.
Why is that?
~
Because the noise in the background.
You can't
Now, you were here when Alisha Leighow said
12 hear the person on the phone.
')
-,/
13
Q
14 that Candy Sheaffer had told her earlier in the day that
15 Ryan Sultzaberger was going to make a bomb threat. Are you
16 a good friend with Candy Sheaffer?
17
A
18
j
(
Yes.
Q
Had Candy Sheaffer ever told you that prior to
19 the bomb threat she had information that Ryan Sultzaberger
20 was going to make the call?
21
22
A
No.
Q
In fact, have you heard Candy Sheaffer say that
23 Ryan did not make the call?
24
I mean we talked about it just from going
A
No
,-.J
25 to court. She can't say whether he did or he didn't. I
49
f~\ 1 A Yes.
2 Q It was a very short phone call?
3 A It was about two minutes.
4 Q That includes the time of dialing and so forth?
5 A Yeah. I wasn't paying attention to him being
6 on the phone.
7 Q It could have been shorter?
8 A Yes.
9 Q When you state there's a bomb in the building
10 and hang up, outside noise wouldn't be a factor, would it?
.\,
,(.:
'. .
i', '
I
i I /.
I ' ' I
f'
I) ; ,
I,
.
.r!
I
!
I ~.
11
MR. THOMAS: Objection. He's asking her to
!'
12 speculate.
~,
13
MR. HOLMAN: She has used the phone and the
j
.'
14 fact that
15
MR. SNELBAKER: Would you repeat the question
16 again so I hear what the precise question was?
17 (Question read.)
18
MR. THOMAS: He's asking her to make a
19 determination whether or not outside noise would be a
20 factor when you call somebody and say there's a bomb in the
21 building.
22
MR. SNELBAKER: We are talking about a
23 hypothetical situation. Am I correct?
24 MR. THOMAS: His question is hypothetical.
.J
25
MR. SNELBAKER: You raised the question as to
50
i\
.l....
1 has she made calls there and is it difficult to hear. I'm
2 going to allow it on that basis, that it responds to that
3 general statement of the conditions at the telephone.
4 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?
5 BY MR. HOLMAN:
6 Q If somebody dials the phone and states there's
7 a bomb in the building and hangs up, outside noise would
8 not be a factor, would it?
9 A I really can't answer that. I wouldn't know.
10 Q You did not hear the conversation, did you?
11 A Nope.
12 Q So you don't know whether he called the school
13 or his mother?
14 A No.
15 Q Had you heard rumors around the school
16 concerning who called in the bomb threat?
17 A Yes.
18 Q What were those rumors?
19 A I heard rumors that I guess the seniors were on
20 a field trip that day. I heard rumor that it was somebody
21 on the field trip that did it. I heard rumors that it was
22 Ryan. I can't remember the other person, but there was
23 another person there was rumors about.
24 Q But he never admitted to you that he had made
25 the call?
....-.....
J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
J.2
('j 13
"'-.;,-!-"
14
51
A No.
MR. HOLMAN: I have no further questions.
MR. THOMAS: Just a follow-up on that.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. THOMAS:
Q You said something about the seniors were on a
field trip.
A That's what I thought, yeah.
Q Did that rumor also include that last year when
the seniors were on a field trip there was a bomb scare
made?
A The day that the bomb threat happened somebody
15 said it happened last year on the same day.
16
MR. THOMAS: No further questions. I would
17 call Brenda Schoffstall.
18
J.9 BRENDA SCHOFFSTALL, called as a witness, being
20 duly sworn, testified as follows:
21
22
23
DIRECT EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. HOLMAN:
I
j
25
Q
You spell your last name for the record?
..~
-"
1
A
2
Q
3
A
4
Q
5
A
6
Q
7
A
8
Q
9
A
10
Q
11
A
12
Q
~)
13
A
14 Q
15 capacity?
16
A
17
Q
52
S-c-h-o-f-f-s-t-a-l-l.
Is that Mrs. Schoffstall?
Yes, it is.
,of
,I
Where do you reside?
313 South Arch Street, Mechanicsburg.
Are you related to Chelsea?
Yes.
In what way?
She is my daughter.
Where are you employed?
PNC Bank.
In what capacity are you employed?
vice president and manager.
Do you work in an office during the day in that
~
,
I
Yes.
18 Chelsea while you've been at work and she's been at school?
Have you ever received telephone calls from
19
A
20
Q
Yes, I have.
Have you ever received a telephone call when
Yes, I have.
21 Chelsea was calling you from the pay phone outside the
22 cafeteria?
23
A
24
Q
J
25
A
How do you know that?
Many times she will have to leave a message for
,\
6
7
8
9
J.O
11
12
r'......... 13
)
...._,~
J
53
1 me on my voice mail. I know it is Chelsea calling before
2 she says, hi, mom, because of all the background noise.
3
Q
Describe it.
4
A
The chatter of children. Sometimes you can
5 hear lunch room noises going on.
Q Clanking of silverware?
A Absolutely.
MR. THOMAS: I have no other questions.
MR. HOLMAN: I have no questions.
MR. THOMAS: I would call Barbara Crowell.
BARBARA CROWELL, called as a witness, being
duly sworn, testified as follows:
14
15
DIRECT EXAMINATION
16
17 BY MR. HOLMAN:
18
Barbara, would you state your name and spell
Q
19 your last name and give your relationship to Ryan
20 Sultzaberger?
21
Barb Crowell, C-r-o-w-e-l-l. Ryan is my son.
A
22
When were you first made aware that Ryan was
Q
23 being accused of having called in this bomb threat?
24
My sister called me. I'm not sure if it was --
A
25 I believe it was the day after the bomb threat saying that
54
1 she had overheard some conversations that people thought
2 that people were accusing Ryan of saying that he had done
3 this.
4
Q
Your sister, I take it, is Ryan's aunt who
5 works in the cafeteria?
6
A
Yes.
7
Q
So that was the first information that you had
8 concerning this bomb scare?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
I want to direct your attention to september 29
11 at 11:08 a.m. precisely. What were you doing at that time?
r'.oj
'_...".J
12 A I was at work.
13 Q What were you doing at work at that time?
14 A I received a phone call from Ryan at that time.
15 Q When you received that phone call from Ryan at
16 that time, could you hear any background noise?
17
A
Yes, I could. I knew immediately he was
18 calling me at lunchtime.
19
Q
Why did you know immediately he was calling you
20 at lunchtime?
21
A
Because you can hear the kids in the
22 background, lunch noises.
23 Q Is that something that you can determine
24 immediately? That was the word that you used.
.J
25
A
Well, yeah. I have no access to a clock where
_ -4.. . I'
'-.",.
55
/)
1 I sit other than my watch. I don't even have to look to
2 see what time it is. I know he is at lunch when he calls.
3
Q
Because of the noise?
4
A
Right.
5
Q
Where you work, is there a record kept of
6 incoming telephone calls?
7 A It is accessible, yes.
8 Q Did you obtain a record for the incoming
9 telephone calls that you got on the morning of September
10 29?
11
A
Yes, I did.
12
Q
I want to show you this and ask you if you can
"'..........
. )
'.,,,.J<""
13 identify that?
14
A
This is a printout, a computer printout, from
15 my place of employment. I asked that they print this out
16 and let me know of incoming calls on September 29.
17 Q What happened at 11:08 on September 29?
18 A I received an incoming call that lasted two
19 minutes, 2.1 minutes.
20
Q
Is it your testimony that that is, in fact, a
21 telephone call you received from Ryan Sultzaberger?
22
A
Yes, it is.
23
Q
The record that you have there in front of you,
I
',,--,
24 is that something that's kept in the ordinary course of
25 business where you are employed?
56
1
A
They produce these printouts if you make calls
2 that you are charged for. If it is a personal call that's
3 long distance and you have to pay for it, they do print
4 these out on a regular basis. Or if there's a phone
5 problem with an employee, they will print them out.
6 MR. THOMAS: I'm going to move for the
7 admission of this record as a record of what she is
8 testifying to.
9
MR. SNELBAKER: You have to give it to Counsel.
10
MR. HOLMAN: Where is this from, Mr. Thomas?
11
MR. THOMAS: From her place of employment.
12
MR. HOLMAN: Where?
'<')
".....
13 BY MR. THOMAS:
14
Q
Where are you employed?
15
A
Pennsylvania Medical Society Liability Company.
16
MR. HOLMAN: I have no objection.
17
MR. SNELBAKER: Let's have that marked by the
18 court reporter as Student Exhibit Number 1.
19 (Printout marked as Student Exhibit Number 1.)
20
MR. THOMAS: I have no further questions for
21 Barbara Crowell.
22
23
CROSS EXAMINATION
24
;
'-.../
25 BY MR. HOLMAN:
57
~---"
1
Q
Mrs. Crowell, you don't know whether Ryan made
2 any other phone calls that morning, do you?
3
A
No, I don't.
4
Q
It is possible that he had called in the bomb
5 threat prior to calling you?
6 A I don't know.
7 Q It is possible, is it not?
8 A I don't know.
9 Q Well, I would like to have you answer the
10 question.
11
MR. THOMAS: She has answered the best she
12 can. Anything else is argumentative. Objection.
"",",,\:
13 BY MR. HOLMAN:
""~
14
Q
What did your sister tell you when she called
15 you about Ryan?
16
A
She indicated that she had overheard some
17 conversations where apparently Ryan was being -- I don't
18 want to say accused. There were rumors that Ryan had
19 called in the bomb threat. She thought that I should talk
20 to him and see why these rumors were going around.
21
MR. HOLMAN: I have no further questions.
22
MR. THOMAS: No redirect.
23
MR. THOMAS: I would call Ryan Sultzaberger.
24
.. )
-
25
"
1
5B
RYAN SULTZABERGER, called as a witness, being
2 duly sworn, testified as follows:
3 I
"
,
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. HOLMAN:
6
Q
7
A
8
Q
9
A
10
Q
11
A
12
Q
r-,
,.)
13 District?
14
A
15
Q
Ryan, how old are you?
,
Fourteen.
You have to speak up.
Fourteen.
,
What grade are you in in school?
Ninth.
You're a student here at Mechanicsburg School
Yes, I am.
l.
I
,
I
How long have you been attending school in
16 Mechanicsburg?
J
i
17
A
18
Q
This will be my sixth year.
Ryan, I want to direct your attention back to
19 September 29 of this past school year in the fall. Do you
20 recall what happened on that particular day?
21
A
Somewhat of it.
22 Q Let me direct your attention specifically to
.,
23 lunch. Do you remember what happened over lunch?
24 A Mostly because of it being brought up over and
,
,-..I
25 over again.
,~
.~~)
;
~
61
1 talking to your mom?
2 A On the senior bench.
3 Q After you were finished talking with your
4 mother, did you make any other phone calls?
5 A No, I did not.
6 Q Did you make any phone calls prior to calling
7 your mother?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A No, I did not.
Q Where did you go after you finished making the
call?
A Back into the cafeteria to get our book bags.
Q Did anything happen while you were walking back
in the cafeteria?
A Yes, an alarm sounded.
Q Is that the alarm that's been characterized as
the alarm for the bomb threat?
A Yes.
Q What did you do as a result of that bomb
threat?
A The alarm started going off and everybody
started going outside. I just followed them.
Q Two days later you had a conversation in the
cafeteria with a couple of your fellow students, students
that you don't ordinarily sit with. Who were those
students?
~
1
A
62
Sara Beth and I don't remember Kristin being
2 there because in the beginning of the year. Me and Dean
3
use to talk to Sara Beth. We use to sit in their seat.
4
Q This particular day was it during lunchtime you
;
~ ,
J
I:
5 had a conversation?
6
A
7
Q
8
A
9
Q
10 recall?
11
A
Yes.
Was this October 1, two days later?
I guess, yeah.
What was that conversation, as best you can
,
Sara Beth asked me if I called in the bomb
12 threat. And I like said, yeah. I said it sarcastically.
~
J
13
I didn't think everybody thought I meant it.
14
Q Did you sit down and have any further
1
I
,
I
15
conversation other than making that statement?
16
A
17
Q
18 had?
19
A
20
Q
Yes.
,
i
What was the rest of that conversation that you
I can't recall.
Do you recall telling them that you had a hard
21 Spanish test that day and that was the reason why you made
22 the call?
23
A
24
Q
~J
25
A
~
1
No.
Could you have told them that?
NO, because I didn't. So I don't see why I
~
63
"'"'.
1 would have.
2 Q Did you say anything about having a backup plan
3 to go to the nurse/s office?
4 A No.
5 Q Do you remember everything that you told them
6 on this particular date?
7
A
About the bomb threat, yes. Not everything.
8
Q
Did you/ in fact, call in this bomb threat?
9
A
No, I did not.
10
Q
Do you recall anything about a similar bomb
11 threat being made a year ago on the same date that the
12 seniors were away?
'~
13
A
I didn't at that point, but I heard rumors
14 about it later, that a senior made a bomb threat when they
15 were on a trip.
16
Q
That would have been a threat of one year prior
17
to this. Correct?
18
A I guess.
19
Q Do you want to stay here at Mechanicsburg?
20
A Yes.
21
Q Do you participate in any extracurricular
22
activities?
23
A No, not really.
24
Q Do you have to work hard to obtain your passing
(J
25
grades?
')
.
I
,
I
I
,
~ .
I
I
I
~
\ .
,~
.f
.,
i!,
,'j
"~I
i
.
,
f.[
I:,
"~
65
"'
1 mother?
2
That I was not feeling very well.
A
3
Q
What was she supposed to do about that?
4
A
As I said earlier, I always call her when I am
5 feeling ill just to let her know, just to let her know that
6 I'm not feeling very well.
7
Q
Did you tell her you were going home?
8
I can't tell her that. I go down to the nurse
A
9 and get my temperature taken and call her from there.
10
You didn't have your temperature taken, you
Q
11 called from the cafeteria, didn't you?
12
At first I called from the cafeteria. After
A
.....,...t
, )
'.'..I~
13 the bomb threat, I went back and when they cleared us to go
14 to class, I went to the nurse's office.
15 Q You made another phone call to your mother?
16 A Yeah.
17 Q What time would that have been?
18
A
I don't know. She said it was approximately 45
19 minutes, so I suspect somewhere around 12:00, around in
20 that vicinity, give or take 10 or 15 minutes.
21
MR. HOLMAN: I note from Exhibit 1 that it
22 doesn't indicate where the phone calls are coming from.
23 There's no number on there.
24 BY MR. HOLMAN:
)
.~
25
How many phone calls did you make that day from
Q
;
"
,
"
1 the school?
2
A
66
Two, one to my mom from the cafeteria and one
J
3 from the nurse's office.
4
Q
5 office?
6
A
7
Q
8
A
9
Q
10
A
(
!
Was that free, the call from the nurse's
Yeah.
And did you go home after that?
Yes. I called my mom when I got home.
What time did you get home?
,
I'm not sure. It takes me like an hour or 45
11 minutes to get home. I'm not sure exactly when I left.
12
Q
::-~
It doesn't appear there's a phone call to your
13 mother after 12:25 that day.
14
A Well, I was probably home by then. If I called
. \
,
I
15
her after then
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
16
Q
Is there somebody at home to take care of you
!
(
17 when you go home?
18
A
19
Q
No, there's not.
You didn't say anything to the two young ladies
20 about the Spanish test?
21
A
No, I did not. I did not have one. I don't
22 see why I would.
~
23
Q
Do you recall skipping a class, class number 6
24 on June 29 (sic)?
\
~
25
A
I remember Mr. Baker talking to me about it.
,
I .
~,
68
"---' , 1 MR. THOMAS: Objection, that's confidential
2 information.
3 MR. HOLMAN: It goes to his credibility.
4 MR. SNELBAKER: He was found "guilty" of the
5 charge that has been brought. Is that correct?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.---, 13
I
.....,..." >
14
15
16
17
J
MR. THOMAS: That's correct. There has been no
adjudication yet.
BY MR. HOLMAN:
Q Were you placed on probation?
A Yes, I was.
Q What is that probation?
A I think it is for a year with 30 hours of
community service.
MR. HOLMAN: I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY MR. THOMAS:
19
Ryan, when you appeared in front of Judge
Q
20 Hoffer for your hearing, did you have the representation of
21 private counsel?
22
A
No, I did not.
23
Was it brought to the Judge's attention the
Q
24 location of these telephones and the background noise?
25
A
Not that I can recall.
69
'\
1
Q
Was it brought to the attention of the Judge
2
that your mother had records that she had received a call
t.
4
A No, it was not because she did not receive them
'.< i
,
r
3
from you at 11:08 a.m.?
5 until a day later.
6
Q
The Judge did not have access to all the
,
7 information that the people here have access to. Is that
B correct?
9
A
No, they did not.
,
11
MR. THOMAS: No further questions.
MR. SNELBAKER: Any questions?
10
()
13
MR. SNELBAKER: Let me just ask whether or not
12
MR. HOLMAN: I have no questions.
14 there's been any post-trial motions of any sort filed in
15 the juvenile case.
16
MR. THOMAS: They cannot be filed absent an
,
,
(
17 adjudication. There's been no adjudication.
18
MR. SNELBAKER: May I also ask Ryan a
19 question? When you indicated that you were feeling ill,
20 what was the nature of your illness?
22
MR. SNELBAKER: Upset stomach and headache?
i
I ~~
21
THE WITNESS: Upset stomach, headache.
23
THE WITNESS: Yes.
24
MR. SNELBAKER: I understand you called after
~
25 having lunch.
.~
~,.
70
\
1 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
2 MR. SNELBAKER: Did I understand that you had
3 called your mother more than once about being ill?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes. I usually try to eat Cirot
5 to see if I feel better.
6 MR. SNELBAKER: How often do you call your
7 mother about being so ill?
8 THE WITNESS: Not very often.
9 MR. SNELBAKER: How about during this school
10 year since September?
11 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't know.
12 MR. SNELBAKER: More than once?
13 THE WITNESS: I know that. Yes, I know more
14 than once. I don't know how many.
15 MR. SNELBAKER: You went to the nurse's office
16 when?
17 THE WITNESS: After they came in and said we
18 were allowed to clear out of the cafeteria.
':)
....J
19
20
21
22 RECROSS EXAMINATION
23
24 BY MR. HOLMAN:
25 Q You were represented by counsel at that
MR. SNELBAKER: That's all.
MR. HOLMAN: I have one other question.
71
1 juvenile hearing. Were you not?
2
A
Yes.
3
MR. HOLMAN: That's all.
4
5
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
6
7 BY MR. THOMAS:
8
Ryan, did the nurse authorize you to go home
Q
9 that day as not feeling well?
10 A Yes.
11 MR. THOMAS: No further questions.
12 MR. SNELBAKER: That's all?
. '.....) 13 MR. THOMAS: We have no additional testimony to
......,...
14 put on for Mr. Sultzaberger.
15 MR. SNELBAKER: Are you finished with Chelsea?
16 MR. THOMAS: Maybe she should be excused.
17 Thank you for coming.
18 MR. SNELBAKER: Does the Board have any
19 questions of Ryan?
20 MR. SPANGLER: I have I question about the
21 time. The lunch period starts at what time?
22 MR. BOLLINGER: 10:55. The bell for Period 3
23 ends at 10: 51. Lunch is 10:55 to 11:25.
24
MR. SPANGLER: What time was the call made to
oJ
25 your mom? If we could just look at the record.
,,'
.')
7
8
9
10
11
12
-.'\ 13
~~...../
14
15
16
17
18
19
,...)
72
1
2
MR. SULTZABERGER: I think it says 11:08.
MR. SPANGLER: You bought and consumed two
3 lunches?
4
MR. SULTZABERGER: I eat really quick. You can
5 watch me if you want.
6
MR. SPANGLER: That's okay. That's fine.
MR. SNELBAKER: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: The time issue, let's make sure
we have everything clear. What time was the phone call
received in the office?
MR. BOLLINGER: 11:08. The police log will
indicate they were notified at 11:10 and then a decision
was made to evacuate the building.
MR. SNELBAKER: Does the Administration have
any further testimony?
MR. HOLMAN: No.
MR. SNELBAKER: At this point then is it agreed
that the evidence is complete, you all have everything
presented?
20
21
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
MR. SNELBAKER: At this point we will hear any
22 kind of arguments or statements that you wish to make in
23 response to the hearing. Keep in mind that the Board is a
24 recommending Board.
25
Do you wish to say anything further,
76
..~
I
1 the cafeteria because of the noise. You have 300 ninth
2 grade students in the cafeteria. You have dishes clanking,
3 silverware clanking, talking.
4 The Secretary when she received the call
5 testified that she heard clearly what the caller said. She
6 understood exactly what the caller said. She was able to
7 identify characteristics about the caller being a young
8 white male and it was a very short telephone call. She
9 also said that there was no background noise.
10 That indicates that the telephone call that was
11 made for the bomb scare did not come from one of the pay
12 telephones outside the cafeteria because if it had been
....-""
)
13 made from one of those pay phones, there would have been
...
14 background noise present.
15 Those are the only phones from which Ryan could
16 have made a telephone call because as Mr. Baker testified,
17 there is a teacher at one end of the hall and a teacher at
18 the other end of the hall. Any students in lunch cannot
19 leave that area. If Ryan made that call, he had to make
20 that call from one of those pay phones where there would
21 have been background noise overheard.
22 The other testimony of significance is that
23 according to Mr. Bollinger, the call came in at 11:08. The
24 alarm sounded at 11:15. That's seven minutes. We have no
.J
25 evidence to suggest that there was any more time that Ryan
79
Cl 1 ahead of time.
2 Furthermore, you heard him testify that he was
3 charged in juvenile court and was convicted of making the
4 call by the Court. That certainly goes to his
~)
5 credibility. I would suggest to you that the Court doesn't
6 randomly make determinations unless it has a basis to do
7 so, the same basis as you heard here today.
8 I therefore would ask on behalf of the
9 Administration that you find that Ryan did, in fact, make
10 this bomb threat and accept the recommendation of the
11 Administration as to his punishment. Thank you.
12 MR. SNELBAKER: Is there anything further to
13 come before the hearing?
14 MR. THOMAS: We have nothing further.
15 MR. HOLMAN: Nothing further.
16 MR. SNELBAKER: With those circumstances, we
17 will direct that the record at this point be closed.
18 Again, the Board will caucus after this hearing and make a
19 recommendation to the full Board of School Directors which
20 will meet on February 10. At that time the adjudication
21 will be formally adopted and submitted to you, Mr. Thomas.
22 The decision can be obtained there or you can call the
23 school or I'm sure that Mr. Bollinger will have it the next
24 morning.
25 With that we will adjourn the hearing. Thank
o
80
, ~:,.
1 you for coming.
2 (The
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hearing was concluded at 9:15 a.m.)
)
,:.)
,J
81
~
,
1
I hereby certify that the proceedings and
2 evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes
3 taken by me on the within proceedings and that this is a
4 correct transcript of the same.
5
8
NOTMlIAI. SEAl.
DEBORA L CIJIININGHAM, Nolary Public
Harris~urg, OJuphln Counly
My Commission EII'lr,); Oct 12, 1998
/
ebora L. Cunningham,
otary Public
/~
6
7
9
10
11
12
"......
l,....,.)
13
14
\
,
I
15
16
!
,
17
18
19
20
21
,
I
i,
"
H
22
23
24
I.-.J
25
.,:~
,,.
.J--
Fr6m: 09/29 to 09/29
I
PMSLIC
DIVISION-- -- :
~DEPARTMENT--: MARKETING
T1l0CATION----: 2FL
gxtension Analysis: 313
Page: 1
12/19/97
Name: CROWELL, BARBARA
Title: SECRETARY
Room :
Comment:
'I
"
,
Date Time No. Called Cd
- -...... ----- -----------------
09/;29 11:08 INC OMI NG -30
09/29 11 :53 INC OMI NG -30
09/29 12:25 INC OMI NG -30
Totals for Extension: 313
"
Destination "runk Length Cost Alert Code
..------------ ------ ------- -------- ----------
0030 2.1 0.00
0015 2.5 0.00
0030 2.4 0.00
------- --------
3 Incoming Calls 00:07.0 0.00
0 Outgoing Calls 00:00.0 0.00
3 TOTAL CALLS 00:07.0 0.00 *
AVERAGE 2.3 0.00
i
"
.
,"
{..~
1.
,.
',I
,
.1
!,..'
t; ,
i
,!
.,
I
.
,
.
7fV1Jt,~
~I-(
~(~/
:ti(
"
{
1
(
1
. .
!"
..'~