Case Name: Schluraff v. Rzymek, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1965-03-16
Citations: 417 Pa. 144
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 202
Parties: Schluraff v. Rzymek, Appellant.
Judges: Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 417
Pages: 144–152

Head Matter:
Schluraff v. Rzymek, Appellant.
Argued April 23, 1964 ;
reargued January 13, 1965.
Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
John M. McLaughlin, County Solicitor, for appellants.
Lindley R. McClelland, with him Byron A. Baur, and Marsh, Spaeder, Baur, Spaeder & Schaaf, for appellee.
March 16, 1965:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen,
In Commonwealth ex rel. Hanson v. Reitz, 403 Pa. 434, 170 A. 2d 111 (1961), Bowers v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 402 Pa. 542, 167 A. 2d 480 (1961), and Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 386 Pa. 117, 125 A. 2d 354 (1956), we held that where the legislature creates a public office and provides that the holders of that office shall be appointed for fixed terms with staggered expiration dates, the presence of staggered terms indicates a legislative intent that the holders of the office are not removable by the appointor at his pleasure.
Here the lower court relied for its decision on Reitz, Bowers and Watson. It did so improperly since the officer involved in this litigation was appointed to the Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes for a fixed term expiring simultaneously with the terms of the other appointees to the Board and thus does not come within the staggered term rule of the above cases. The Board of Commissioners for a Third Class County is empowered by Article VI, §4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to dismiss a member of the Board for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes at its pleasure and neither the staggered term doctrine nor Article XII, §1 of our Constitution insulates him from such dismissal.
Judgment reversed and remanded for further action by the court below consistent with this opinion.