Court Opinion

ID: 9753209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:03:43.127958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:10.691697
License: Public Domain

*134Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I dissent, for I am unable to accept the majority’s classification of a community college as a “joint school” as that term is used in the Public School Code of 1949, Act of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, Art. Ill, §322, as amended, 24 P.S. §3-322 (Supp. 1971). Also, I believe appellant’s possible influence over the selection of the college’s trustees and its annual budget appropriations was so negligible as to be de minimis.
The applicable statute provides: “Any citizen of this Commonwealth, having a good moral character, being twenty-one (21) years of age or upwards, and having been a resident of the district for at least one (1) year prior to the date of his election or appointment, shall be eligible to the office of school director therein: Provided, That any person holding any office or position of . . . supervisor, principal, teacher, or employe of any school district, shall not be eligible as a school director in this Commonwealth. This section shall not prevent any district superintendent, assistant district superintendent, supervisor, teacher, or employe of any school district, from being a school director in a district other than the one in which he is so employed, and other than in a district with which the district in which he is employed operates a joint school or department. ...” Act of March 10, 1949, supra, 24 P.S. §3-322 (Supp. 1971) (emphasis added).
Unlike the majority, I consider the sequence of legislative enactments a persuasive indicator of the Legislature’s intent not to include a community college within the incompatibility provisions delineated by the terms “joint school or department.” The Public School Code, supra, was enacted in 1949, and the Community College Act, Act of August 24, 1963, P. L. 1132, §1 et seq., 24 P.S. §5201 (Supp. 1971) was not made a part of the laAV of this CommoiiAvealth until 1963. It is dif*135ficult to understand how the drafters of the 1949 Public School Code (which used the same terms “joint school or department”), “intended” that nonexistent community colleges be considered “joint school[s] or department [s].” Furthermore, the Legislature had the opportunity in 1968 and again in 1970 when it passed amendments to Section 322 to consider including community colleges within the purview of the incompatibility clause. No such action was taken.
Furthermore, the majority concedes appellant’s measure of control is diluted. The Jersey Shore Area School District is a district of the third class and thus has nine directors. Assuming that the other nineteen districts are of comparable size, appellant, as a director, possesses approximately 1/171 of the available vote as to college trustees and the annual budget—hardly a significant control bloc. Because of our continued need for informed school board directors and involved college instructors, I believe appellant’s dual capacity could be of substantial benefit to our educational system. Certainly I can perceive no persuasive statutory authority supporting the proposition that just because appellant was a community college instructor at the time he was elected as a school board director, the latter election is void for “incompatibility”.
I dissent.
Mr. Chief Justice Bell joins in this dissent.