Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-0871 Civil (2)R.S., A MINOR, BY B.C., HIS PARENT AND GUARDIAN, Appellant MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS, Appellee · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : : · CIVIL ACTION-- LAW : : : · NO. 98-0871 CIVIL TERM INREzP_ETiTIOL',LT~PLE ME~ BEEOREDLEtL £ ORDERD~~ AND NOW, this," ~lay-- of April, 1998, after careful consideration of Appellant's petition to supplement the record, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the petition is denied. ARGUMENT on Appellant's appeal under the Local Agency Law is scheduled for Wednesday, June 3, 1998, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Appellant's brief shall be due twelve days prior to argument, and Appellee's brief shall be due five days prior to argument. Cumberland County Rules of Procedure 210-6 through 210-10 shall apply, except that only one copy of a brief need be furnished to the court. BY THE COURT, R. Mark Thomas, Esq. 54 East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Appellant FILl COPY Richard C. Snelbaker, Esq. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Appellee R.S., A MINOR, BY B.C., HIS PARENT AND GUARDIAN, Appellant Vo MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW NO. 98-0871 CIVIL TERM IN~RE:PETITiONTO SUPPLEMENT RECORD BEFDRE OLER, i. OPINION~tdDRDEROF COURT OLER, J., April 20, 1998. For disposition in this appeal under the Local Agency Laws is a petition of Appellant to supplement the record. The appeal is from a decision of a board of public school directors sanctioning a student for an alleged incident of misconduct. The record consists primarily of the proceedings before school board directors. 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 the school's temporary evacuation. Appellee concluded that this conduct violated several policies of the school district, warranting disciplinary action. The sanctions imposed have been recited in an opinion of this court dated March 18, 1998, dealing with Appellant's request for a stay. The proceedings before directors of the school board were stenographically recorded, and a transcript of the proceedings has been included in the record certified to this court. In Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, § 5, 2 Pa. C.S. § 751 etseq. 1 the petition sub judice, Appellant requests that the record be supplemented to include a transcript of a juvenile court proceeding arising out of the alleged misbehavior. The basis for the request that the record be supplemented is that the school board's decision was influenced by the juvenile court's adjudication, that inaccurate testimony in the juvenile proceeding caused the juvenile court to be misled, and that a fair resolution of the issue of whether the school board's decision should be upheld requires a reconsideration of the proper effect of the juvenile court's adjudication.2 The inaccurate testimony referred to was that of a school official, who advised the juvenile court that Appellant was scheduled to take a Spanish test on the occasion of the school disruption, thereby substantiating an alleged motive for the disruptive activity.3 Appellee does not specifically deny that the official was mistaken in this testimony,4 and the court will assume that no such test had been scheduled, for purposes of disposition of Appellant's present petition. It will also be assumed arguendo that in the juvenile proceeding the Commonwealth utilized the testimony in question in support of its position,s In addition, the record in the present case is clear that the juvenile court's determination was one of the factors argued to the school board as tending to undermine Appellant's See Appellant's Petition To Supplement the Record, filed March 3, 1998. 3Id., paragraph 10; Appellee's Response to Petition To Supplement the Record with New Matter, paragraph 10, filed April 2, 1998. 4 In its answer to Appellant's Petition To Supplement the Record, Appellee avers "that such testimony was tree and correct to the best of [the official's] knowledge at the time said testimony was given." Appellee's Response to Petition To Supplement the Record with New Matter, paragraph 10, filed April 2, 1998. SSee Appellant's Petition To Supplement the Record, paragraphs 8-11, filed March 3, 1998; Appellee's Response to Petition To Supplement the Record with New Matter, paragraphs 8-11, filed April 2, 1998. 2 protestation of innocence.6 On the other hand, the school board had received testimony confirming that no Spanish test was scheduled for Appellant on the day of the disruption.7 Furthermore, according to Appellant, the juvenile court declined to alter its adjudication after being made aware that the testimony which it had heard concerning the Spanish test had been mistaken.8 DISCUS SI_O~ Section 754 of the Local Agency Law provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) Incomplete 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 N.To 6 N.T. 79, Proceedings before School Board Directors, January 30, 1998 (hereinafter ). Specifically, counsel for the school administration stated: Furthermore, you heard [Appellant] 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. 7 N.T. 37. 8 Appellant's Reply to New Matter, paragraph 27, filed April 17, 1998. 3 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 .... Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, § 5, 2 Pa. C.S. § 754. In this case, a full and complete record of the proceedings before the school directors was made, thereby implicating the provision of Section 754(b) (review of certified record) as opposed to Section 754(a) (de novo hearing) of the Local Agency Law. In addition, the school board herein was in receipt of correct information as to the Spanish test when it made its decision. Finally, the juvenile court's adjudication was not changed upon its receipt of a correct version of the matter. Under these circumstances, the court is unable to agree with Appellant that a supplementation of the record to include a transcript of the juvenile proceedings would be authorized by statute or otherwise necessary. For this reason, the following order will be entered: ORDER O_ECOi JilT AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 1998, after careful consideration of Appellant's petition to supplement the record, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the petition is denied. ARGUMENT on Appellant's appeal under the Local Agency Law is scheduled for Wednesday, June 3, 1998, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Appellant's brief shall be due twelve days prior to argument, and Appellee's brief shall be due five days prior to argument. Cumberland County Rules of Procedure 210-6 through 210-10 shall apply, except that only one copy of a brief need be furnished to the court. 4 BY THE COURT, R. Mark Thomas, Esq. 54 East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Appellant Richard C. Snelbaker, Esq. 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Appellee Wesley O/er, Jr.