We disagree with the trial court's conclusion that there existed an ambiguity in the language that appeared in former Section 512. Where the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. Here, because former Section 512 and current Section 603 both clearly indicate that in order to transact business an affirmative vote of the entire board is needed, we find that the trial court erred in concluding that only a majority of a quorum is necessary. Thus, it was error for the court to conclude that Appellee Orlando's appointment to the Board was proper since only two members of the five member Board voted for his appointment. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the order of the Berks County Common Pleas Court and remand the matter to the court and direct that a disposition, consistent with this opinion, be made.
Jurisdiction is relinquished.
1 Present at the meeting were Supervisors Kenneth Beissel, Lucille Brady, Richard Longlott and Milan Sokolovich. The fifth board member, Augustus Hatzas, who was not present at the meeting, was recuperating from heart surgery. 2 Supervisors George Cush and Joann Tait took office in replacement of Hatzas and Longlott. 3 Orlando also challenged Scheipe's standing to bring the quo warranto action. The trial court, however, denied this challenge and this ruling has not been appealed.