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

West 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 School District’s (District) summary judgment motion (CrossMotion) and denying Rodriguez’, James J. Gallen, Jr.’s and Elizabeth L. Heckler’s 

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

before this Court 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)

whether the trial court failed to consider the record fact that the West Reading Borough school director 

candidates have generally not been successful in at-large elections for over 20 years; (3) whether 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 the 
2

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 the 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 Electors 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 Petition without prejudice 

to re-file, for failure 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 court 

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 Petition. Following argument, Judge 

Rowley overruled 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 to the Amended Petition.

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

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

Honorable Madelyn S. Fudeman (Judge Fudeman). On December 1, 2016, the District 

filed its response to Resident Electors’ Motion and filed its Cross-Motion. 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 reviewing 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 trial 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 502 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 last 

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 proposed 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 the 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 region 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 appointed 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 

Code4], 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 features 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 bounds 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 convenience 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 less 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 reapportionment does 

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

the trial court may overlook that noncompliance because Section 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 these requirements must be satisfied.

In re Chichester Sch[.] Dist[.], . . . 234 A.2d 187 ([Pa. Super.] 

1969); Cameron [Cnty.] 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 Dirs. 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 

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

District’s Cross-Motion on that basis.

This would end our inquiry were it not for the adamant and 

importunate assertion by [Rodriguez] that [Section 1932 of 

the Statutory Construction 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) Statutes 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 303(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 development of plans to elect 

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

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

applies to the 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

Accordingly, 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, Judge
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. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 5

th day of January, 2018, the Berks County Common 

Pleas Court’s May 9, 2017 order is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge