IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Petition to Reapportion the : Wyomissing Area School District : from at Large to Three (3) : Regions for the Election of School : Directors :

: No. 835 C.D. 2017 Appeal of: Valentin Rodriguez, Jr. : Submitted: September 29, 2017

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT

, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI

, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: January 5, 2018

W est Reading Mayor Valentin Rodriguez

, Jr. (Rodriguez) appeals from

the Berks County Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) May 9, 2017 order granting the

Wyomissing Area Scho o l District’s (District) summary j udgment motion (Cross

Motion) and denying Rodrig uez ’ , James J. Gallen, Jr. ’s and Elizabeth L. Heckler’s

(collectively, Resident Electors) summary judgment motion (Motion ). The sole issue

before this C ourt is whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by granting the

District’s Cross

- Motion and denying Resident Electors’ Motion. 1 After review, we

affirm.

1 Rodriguez’ Statement of Issues to be Presented on Appeal contains four additional issues: (1) whether the trial court’ s narrow interpretation of the Public School Code of 1949 (School Code)

, Act of March 10, 1949

, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. §§ 1

- 101

- 27

- 2702

, was an error of law ; (2)

w hether the trial court failed to consider th e record fact that the West Reading Borough school director candidates have generally not been successful in at

- large elections for over 20 years ; (3) w hether the

trial court failed to consider its ability to redraw election districts pursuant to Section 502 of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code)

, 25 P.S. § 2702 ; and (4) whether the trial court failed to

read Section 303 (b)(1)

- (3) of the School Code, 24 P.S. § 3

- 303(b)(1)

- (3)

, and Section 502 of the2 Background

The District is a third class school district composed of West Reading

Borough and portions of Wyomissing Borough in Berks County. The District’ s Board

of School Directors (School Board) is currently elected by an at

- large election system,

in which all registered voters cast votes for all School Board seats open for election.

The District is currently comprised of six election precincts. Resident Electors made a

presentation to th e District arguing that the at

- large election system is unfair to West

Reading Borough residents and should be regionally reapportioned. The District

declined to consider Resident Electors’ proposal.

Facts

On January 23, 2015, Resident Elect o rs filed with the trial court a Petition

to Reapportion the Wyomissing Area School District from At

- Large to Three Regions

for the Election of School Directors (Petition)

. On February 13, 2015, the District filed

a Motion to Strike the Petition

. The parties were ordered to file Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law. On March 9, 2015, without commenting on the Petition’s merits,

and after considering the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the

Honorable Timothy J. Rowley (Judge Rowley) denied the P etition without prejudice

to re

- file, for fail ure to obtain the necessary registered voters ’ signatures to submit a

proposed regional voting plan under Section 303(b)( 2 ) of the Public School Code of

1949 (School Code)

, 2 24 P.S. § 3

- 303(b)(2).

On November 2, 2015, Resident Electors filed a First

- Amended Petition

for Reapportionment of the District (Amended Petition) , proposing that the trial c ourt

reapportion the voting precincts into three regions, each of which would elect three

Election Code in pari materia

. See Rodriguez Br. at 4. As these issues are subsumed in the stated issue, we will address them therein.

2 Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. §§ 1

- 101

- 27

- 2702.3

members to the School Board. The proposal included a plan that would split one of the

District’s six voting precincts between two regions. On November 5, 2015, the District

filed preliminary objections to the Amended P etition. Following argument, Judge

Rowley overrul ed the preliminary objections. On December 23, 2015, the District filed

a motion for reconsideration of the preliminary objections. On January 13, 2016, Judge

Rowley denied the reconsideration motion

. On January 14, 2016, the District filed its

Answer t o the Amended Petition.

On November 7, 2016, Resident Electors filed their Motion. By

November 15, 2016 order, t he case was transferred from Judge Rowley to the

Honorable Madelyn S. Fudeman (Judge F u deman)

. On December 1, 2016, the District

filed its response to Resident Electors’ Motion and filed its Cross

- M otion. The trial

court heard argument on the summary judgment motions on May 1, 2017. On May 9,

2017, the trial court denied the Motion and granted the Cross

- Motion. Rodriguez

appealed to this Court. 3

3 Because appellate review of a trial court ruling on summary judgment

motions entails a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Starling v. Lake Meade Prop [.] Owners

Ass [ ’ ] n, Inc. , 162 A.3d 327, 340

. . . (Pa . . . . 2017) . . . ; Pyeritz v.
Commonwealth

, . . . 32 A.3d 687, 692 ( [Pa.] 2011)

. Our Supreme Court has explained the standard of review employed by trial courts reviewing summary judgment motions as follows:

Summary judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

. . . The reviewi ng court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, resolving all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party. When the facts are so clear that reasonable minds cannot differ, a tri al court may properly enter summary judgment.

Starling , 162 A. 3d at 340

. . . (quoting Gilbert v. Synagro Cent [

. ] , LLC

,

. . . 131 A.3d 1, 10 ( [Pa.] 2015)).4 Discussion

Rodriguez argues that the trial court erred or abused its discretion by

denying Resident Electors’ Motion because it did not consider the trial court’s authority

to create new districts under Section 5 02 of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election

Code), 25 P.S. § 2702

. The District rejoins that Section 303(b) of the School Code

controls, thus the trial court properly denied Resident Electors’ Motion.

Initially , Section 303(b) of the School Code provides:

(1) The interim operating committee or the board of school directors may develop a plan to elect school directors from regions or to elect some school directors at large and some from regions. Such a plan may also be developed by the resident electors of a school district as provided herein and shall have the same effect as one developed by the board of school directors.

(2) Electors equal to at least twenty

- five (25) per centum of the highest vote cast for any school director in the l ast municipal election may develop a plan to elect school directors from regions or to elect some school directors from regions and some from the school district at large. Plans proposed by electors shall be subject to the same requirements as plans propo sed by the board of school directors.

(3) The boundaries of the regions shall be fixed and established in such manner that the population of each region shall be as nearly equal as possible and shall be compatible with the boundaries of election districts

. Such plan for the division of the school district shall be submitted for approval to the court of common pleas. If approved by such court, the clerk thereof shall certify the regional boundaries contained therein to the county board of elections. In th e event of any division, redivision, alteration, change or consolidation of election districts which renders regional boundaries incompatible with the boundaries of election districts, a new plan shall be developed and

Pane v. Indian Rocks Prop

. Owners Ass ’ n, Inc. of Ledgedale

, 167 A.3d 266, 270 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2017 )

.5 submitted for court approval in like manner. Any proposed change in an approved plan, including abolition of regional representation, shall be submitted for approval to the court of common pleas by the board of school directors, or by a petition of the resident electors within the district. Where a region plan is approved, school directors who reside in each region shall be elected by and from each region. At all times each region shall be represented by directors elected or appointed from that region. Where a combination at large and reg ion plan is approved, all regions shall have an equal number of school directors who reside in each region and who shall be elected or appointed by and from each region. At all times each region shall be represented by a director or directors elected or ap pointed from that region. All plans shall provide that three school directors shall be elected at each municipal election. In a combination at large and region plan, the number of regions shall be three. In a region plan not combining at large directors , the number of regions shall be three or nine.

24 P.S. § 3

- 303(b) (emphasis added)

. Section 502 of the Election Code authorizes:

Subject to the provisions of [S] ection 501 of [the Election Code 4 ] , the court of common pleas of the county in which the

same are located, may form or create new election districts by dividing or redividing any borough, township, ward or election district into two or more election districts of compact and contiguous territory, having boundaries with clearly visible physical feat ures conforming with census block lines from the most recently completed [f] ederal decennial census and wholly contained within any larger district from which

any [f] ederal, [s] tate, county, municipal or school district officers are elected, or alter the b ounds of any election district, or form an election district out of two or more adjacent districts or parts of districts, or consolidate adjoining election districts or form an election district out of two or more adjacent wards, so as to suit the convenie nce of the electors and to promote the public interests. Except for good cause shown, election districts so formed shall not contain more than one thousand two hundred (1,200)

4 Section 501 of the Election Code states: “ Each borough and township, not divided into wards, and each ward of every city, borough and township now existing or hereafter created, shall constitute a separate election district, unless divided into two or more election districts or formed into one election district, as hereinafter provided. ” 25 P.S. § 2701.6 registered electors. No election district shall be formed that shall contain l ess than one hundred (100) registered electors. When a school district crosses county lines, the regions of the school district shall be composed of contiguous election districts.

25 P.S. § 2702.

Rodriguez contends that Resident Electors’ plan offers three regions

which are nearly equal in population and

, although the proposed reapportion ment does

not comply with Section 303(b) of the School Code because it splits an election district,

the tri al court may overlook that noncompliance because S ection 502 of the Election

Code authorizes county common pleas courts to form or create new election districts.

We disagree.

The School Code provides three ways of electing school

board directors: (1) regional elections; (2) at

- large elections; or (3) a combination of regional and at

- large elections. See 24 P.S. § 3

- 303(b)(3)

. Where a regional plan is presented, the School Code sets forth two requirements: (1) the regions shall be compatible with the boundaries of election districts ; [ 5 ] and (2) the boundaries of the regions shall be fixed and established in such manner that the population of each region shall be as nearly equal as possible. Spring

- Ford Area Sch [.] Dist [.] Div [

. ] Case,

. . . 234 A.2d 184 ( [Pa. Super.] 1967)

. Both of the se requirements must be satisfied. In re Chichester Sch [.] Dist [.]

, . . . 234 A.2d 187 ( [Pa. Super.] 1969) ; Cameron [ Cnt

y. ] Sch [.] [ Bd .] , Resident Electors Appeal,

. . . 456 A.2d 226 ( [Pa. Cmwth.] 1983) ; see also Petition of [ Bd. ] of Directors of Hazleton Sch [.] Dist [.]

, . . . 524 A.2d 1083 ( [Pa. Cmwlth.] 1987)

.
In re Petition to Reapportion the Sch

. Dir

. Regions of the Chichester Sch

. Dist.

, 688

A.2d 1275, 1278 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (footnote omitted ; emphasis added )

.

“ Furthermore, of the three criteria which must be complied with here, barring

5 In In re: Petition to Realign Regional Election Districts in Pennsbury School District , 79 A.3d 1218, 1220 n. 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), this Honorable Court explained that for purposes of Section 303 of the School Code, “[t]he term election district refers to the polling place unit or precinct.”7

compelling circumstances to the contrary, two (contiguous territory and election

district boundary lines) are absolutes and only the requirement of population equality

is couched in the malleable language, ‘ as nearly as equal as possible. ’ ” Petition of the

Bd. of Dir s. of Hazleton Area Sch

. Dist

., 524 A.2d 1083, 1086 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). As

the election district boundary lines requirement is “absolute[]

, ” id.

, and Resident

Elector s’ plan violates said statutory mandate , the trial court properly granted the

District’s Cross

- Motion o n that basis.

This would end our inquiry were it not for the adamant and importunate assertion by [Rodriguez] that [Section 1932 of the St at utory Constru ction Act of 1972 ,] 1 Pa.C.S. § 1932 (‘ statutes in pari materia ’ ) compels a different result. This rule of statutory construction states: ‘ (a) Statutes or parts of statutes are in pari materia when they relate to the same persons or things or to the same class of persons or things [;] (b) Statu t es in pari materia shall be construed together, if possible, as one statute. ’

Cherry v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 642 A. 2d 463, 466 (Pa. 1994).

Rodriguez insists that Section 303(b) of the School Code should be read

in pari materia to Section 502 of the Election Code. Specifically

, Rodriguez maintains

that since Section 502 of the Election Code grants the trial court authority to “ form or
create new election districts,” id., the violation of Section 30 3(b)(3) of the School Code

should not prevent the trial court from approving the Resident Electors’ plan.

However, Section 303(b) of the School Code dictates the develop ment of plan s to elect

school directors , while Section 502 of the Election Code refers to the form ation or

creat ion of new election districts . Further, Section 303(b) of the School Code expressly

applies to t he actions of the interim operating committee or the board of school

directors , and resident electors, whereas Section 502 of the Election Code applies to

the trial court’s authority. “ The two statutes thus relate to different persons and things.

Therefore, we do not regard them to be in pari materia. ” Cherry, 642 A.2d at 466.8

A ccordingly, the trial court did not err by not reading Section 303(b) of the School

Code and Section 502 of the Election Code in pari materia.

For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Petition to Reapportion the : Wyomissing Area School District : from at Large to Three (3) : Regions for the Election of School : Directors :

: No. 835 C.D. 2017 Appeal of: Valentin Rodriguez, Jr. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 5 th day of January , 201 8

, the Berks County Common

Pleas Court’s May 9, 2017 order is affirm e d.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge