HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-6393 (2)
KAREN HERTZLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PETITIONER : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
:
WEST SHORE SCHOOL :
DISTRICT, :
RESPONDENT : NO. 12-6393 CIVIL
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 (a)
Ebert, J., May 1, 2013 –
Petitioner, Karen Hertzler, has filed this timely appeal from the Order of Court,
dated February 26, 2013, dismissing her Petition for Review and affirming the decision
of the West Shore School District Board of School Directors upholding Petitioner’s three
day suspension.
Discussion
This Court previously filed a thirteen page Opinion on February 26, 2013, which
deals with the factual and legal issues presented in this case at length. This Opinion is
filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) to supplement the prior Opinion and more
specifically address those issues raised in Petitioner’s Concise Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal. Each matter complained of on appeal is addressed seriatim:
1. Whether the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas erred when it
determined that there was substantial evidence to uphold the Appellant’s suspension for
three days without pay.
RESPONSE: This issue was adequately addressed in this Court’s Opinion and
Order dated February 26, 2013.
2. Whether the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas erred when it
determined that there was substantial evidence to uphold the Board’s determination that
the results of the relevant investigations were subject to a confidentiality requirement.
RESPONSE: There was substantial evidence to uphold the Board’s
determination that the results of the investigations were subject to a confidentiality
requirement. Suzanne Tabachini, Director of Human Resources, and David Zulikoski,
1
Assistant Superintendent, investigated the complaints made against Petitioner.
Petitioner was informed by both Tabachini and Zulikoski that the investigations were a
2
confidential process. Petitioner was unsure whether she could divulge the results of an
3
investigation, but did not ask whether she could do so. Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prevailing party, in this case, Respondent, there was
sufficient evidence that Petitioner was informed the process was confidential and that
process included the results of any investigations. This Court found sufficient evidence
to uphold the Board’s determination and did not err.
3. Whether the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas erred when it
determined that the Board did not arbitrarily or capriciously disregard evidence when it
determined that the results of the relevant investigations were subject to a confidentiality
requirement, despite the fact that no record evidence established that the results of the
relevant investigations were confidential.
1
Petition for Review, Ex. A: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Board of School Directors, p. 1-2;
¶ 2, 3, 8, 12, Sept. 20, 2012 (hereinafter “Findings of Fact __“).
2
Findings of Fact, p.2; ¶ 9, 13; See also Jt. Exs. 2 and 9.
3
Findings of Fact, p. 3-4; ¶ 33, 34-36
2
RESPONSE: This issue was adequately addressed in this Court’s Opinion and
Order dated February 26, 2013.
4. Whether the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas erred when it
upheld the Board’s determination that the Appellant’s testimony was not credible,
regarding the fact that she did not believe the results of the investigations were
confidential, in part because they were not labeled confidential.
RESPONSE: This issue was adequately addressed in this Court’s Opinion and
Order dated February 26, 2013.
5. Whether the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas erred when it
determined that the Board did not capriciously disregard facts concerning whether the
results of the relevant investigations were confidential, in light of the APP.
RESPONSE: The APP, Administrative Performance Plan, applicable to
Petitioner required that she “…practice competent problem analysis and resolution, and
decision making in all aspects of building/department operations…” and that she
4
exercise prudent judgment. While the APP did not specifically state that results of
investigations were to be confidential, the Board did not capriciously disregard that fact.
There was evidence presented that as part of her training as a principal and what she
was told regarding confidentiality, Petitioner did not exercise prudent judgment or
decision making when she divulged the results on the investigation. This Court did not
err.
4
Findings of Fact, p.5; ¶ 45-46
3
6. Whether the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas erred when it
determined that the Board did not capriciously disregard evidence when it ignored the
fact that Beardsley, herself, disclosed details about the relevant investigations.
RESPONSE: This issue was adequately addressed in this Court’s Opinion and
Order dated February 26, 2013.
Conclusion
For the reasons addressed in both the prior Opinion and this supplemental
Opinion filed pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925 (a), this Court did not err dismissing
Petitioner’s Petition for Review and upholding the Board’s decision.
By the Court,
__________________________
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
Charles E. Steele, Esquire
Tara E. Hansen, Esquire
Counsel for Petitioner
Philip H. Spare, Esquire
Gareth D. Pahowka
Counsel for Respondent
4