Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/commonwealth-court/2002/213md01-6-17-02.html
Timestamp: 2013-12-07 18:31:57
Document Index: 336398609

Matched Legal Cases: ['§17', '§1502', '§763', '§761', '§504', '§702', '§7541']

PA School Boards Association, Inc., et al. v. C. Zogby, et al. (Complete Opinion) :: 2002 :: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Decisions :: Pennsylvania Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia
All Law- State Case Law-- Pennsylvania Case Law--- PA Commonwealth Court---- 2002 PA Commonwealth Court
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > Pennsylvania Case Law > Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Decisions > 2002 > PA School Boards Association, Inc., et al. v. C. Zogby, et al. (Complete Opinion)	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
PA School Boards Association, Inc., et al. v. C. Zogby, et al. (Complete Opinion)Download as PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Inc.; the Cameron County School District, the Butler Area School District, the Mars Area School District and the Pocono Mountain School District, Petitioners : : : : : : : : v. : No. 213 M.D. 2001 : Argued: March 13, 2002 Charles B. Zogby, Secretary of : Education of the Commonwealth of : Pennsylvania; the Pennsylvania : Department of Education, Western PA : Cyber Charter School, Commonwealth : Cyber Charter School, T.E.A.C.H. : Charter School, a/k/a Einstein Academy,: and the Pennsylvania Virtual Charter : School, : Respondents : BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, President Judge HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge HONORABLE RENÉE L. COHN, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge OPINION BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN 1 FILED: June 17, 2002
Charles B. Zogby, the Secretary of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Secretary), and the Pennsylvania Department of Education (Department) (together, Respondents) have filed preliminary objections to the
This case was reassigned to the authoring judge on May 7, 2002.
second amended petition for review (petition for review) filed by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Inc. (PSBA), the Cameron County School District, the Butler Area School District, the Mars Area School District and the Pocono Mountain School District (collectively, Petitioners).
Petitioners filed their petition for review after the Department sent letters to the school districts stating that the Department would withhold state education subsidies from those school districts that refused to pay tuition bills submitted by “cyber” charter schools (cyber schools). The Secretary eventually deducted $839,665 from numerous school districts after the Western PA Cyber Charter School submitted documentation of unpaid invoices. In the petition for review, Petitioners challenge the Secretary’s withholding of subsidies pursuant to the Charter School Law. 2
Counts I, II and III of the petition for review are addressed to this court’s original jurisdiction. 3 In Count I, Petitioners seek an order from this court declaring that cyber schools are illegal, and, therefore, the Department and
Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, added by section 1 of the Act of June 19, 1997, P.L. 225, as amended, 24 P.S. §§17-1701-A to 17-1732-A. The following cyber schools were named as Respondents: Western PA Cyber Charter School, chartered by the Midland Borough School District; Commonwealth Cyber Charter School, chartered by the School District of Lancaster, but later dropped as a party; T.E.A.C.H. Charter School, a/k/a Einstein Academy, chartered by the Morrisville School District; and Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School, chartered by the Norristown Area School District. Other cyber schools were not named as Respondents because, according to Petitioners, they operate differently from the named cyber schools, and no subsidies have been withheld on their account from the school districts.
Secretary have no authority to deduct money from state subsidies to pay cyber schools. In the alternative, Petitioners seek an order declaring that the Department and Secretary may not withhold state subsidies without providing school districts notice and an opportunity to be heard as to whether the cyber schools are acting in compliance with the Charter School Law. In Count II, Petitioners seek to enjoin the Department and Secretary from withholding subsidies to pay cyber schools or, in the alternative, from withholding such funds without providing the school districts notice and an opportunity to be heard. In Count III, Petitioners seek an order in mandamus compelling the Department and Secretary to make all state subsidy payments to the school districts without any deductions for payment to the cyber schools.
In Count IV of the petition for review, Petitioners ask this Court to review in its appellate jurisdiction the decision of the Department and its Secretary to withhold subsidies from the school districts.4 As relief, Petitioners seek to have this court vacate that decision, compel the Department and its Secretary to pay the withheld subsidies to the school districts and prohibit the Department and its Secretary from withholding subsidies on account of students in cyber schools or, alternatively, prohibit such action until a full and complete hearing is conducted.
Where it unclear whether a governmental determination is reviewable pursuant to this court’s original or appellate jurisdiction, a petitioner may file a single petition for review seeking to invoke both the original and appellate jurisdiction of this court; however, the petitioner cannot be successful simultaneously on both jurisdictional theories. See 1 G. Ronald Darlington, et al., Pennsylvania Appellate Practice, 2d §1502:11 (2001).
Respondents have raised several preliminary objections to the petition for review, including: (1) whether the withholding of subsidies represents the performance of a ministerial duty, rather than an adjudication; (2) whether Petitioners lack standing to bring this action; and (3) whether Petitioners have pleaded facts sufficient to state a cause of action that entitles them to relief.
I. Jurisdiction The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that those matters that the legislature has placed within our appellate jurisdiction under section 763 of the Judicial Code5 are excluded from our original jurisdiction under section 761 of the Judicial Code.6 Pennsylvania Department of Aging v. Lindberg, 503 Pa. 423, 469 A.2d 1012 (1983).
In Boyertown Area School District v. Department of Education, ___ A.2d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., Nos. 2286, 2287, 2640, 2699, 2863, 2864, 2865, 2866, 2883, 2892, 2914, 2915 C.D. 2001 & No. 150 C.D. 2002, filed May 2, 2002), an en banc panel of this court held that the Secretary’s withholding of subsidies constitutes an adjudication subject to the provisions of section 504 of the Administrative Agency Law. 7 Because the Secretary withheld subsidies from
school districts without providing an opportunity for a hearing on the matter, we
42 Pa. C.S. §763. In general, section 763 gives this court exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the final orders of government agencies.
42 Pa. C.S. §761 (relating to this court’s original jurisdiction). 2 Pa. C.S. §504.
vacated the Secretary’s actions, remanded the case and directed the Department to provide an expedited opportunity for the school districts to challenge the deductions. Id. We explained that, before taking action to withhold subsidies otherwise due a school district, the Secretary must determine whether the charter school is operating in compliance with the Charter School Law, by which we meant only whether each claimed student is actually attending the charter school and for what period the student attended. Id. We did not address whether the Secretary was required to determine the legality of the charter school’s charter.
Because we held in Boyertown that the Secretary’s decision to withhold state education subsidies is an adjudication properly before us in our appellate jurisdiction8 and because Petitioners may not simultaneously proceed in both our original and appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss Counts I, II and III of the petition for review. 9 Respondents’ preliminary objection to Count IV, based on their contention that the withholding of subsidies is not an adjudication, is overruled. Addressing Count IV in our appellate jurisdiction, we vacate the
Secretary’s withholding of subsidies, remand this case to the Department and
See section 702 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §702 (stating that any person aggrieved by an adjudication of a Commonwealth agency who has a direct interest in such adjudication shall have the right to appeal therefrom to the court vested with appellate jurisdiction). See 42 Pa. C.S. §7541(c)(3) (stating that declaratory relief is