Court Opinion

ID: 9765279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:57:53.577405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:07.704438
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
The question is not whether we judges approve of the School District’s decision to expel Student for helping a friend hack into the school’s computer. The establishment of a student disciplinary policy lies, appropriately, with school administrators. However, once that policy is established, those school administrators have a statutory duty to communicate the particulars of that policy, in writing, to students and their families. Here, Student’s expulsion was directly contradicted by the Code of Student Conduct’s (Student Code) explicit directive that Student’s misconduct would be punished, at most, by a 10-day suspension. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
The School District makes computers available to its students and has adopted rules for their use. The rules identify “appropriate use” of the District’s computers and, reasonably enough, also identify prohibited uses. With respect to the latter category of uses, the “Acceptable Computer Use Policy” (Computer Use Policy) states, in relevant part, as follows:
Prohibitions. Use of the Internet, email, and network technology must be in support of the educational mission and instructional program of the Central York School District. With respect to all users, the following are expressly prohibited and violation may result in loss of privileges:
1. Use for inappropriate or illegal purposes.
2. Use in an illegal manner or to facilitate illegal activity.
9. Use to infiltrate or interfere with a computer system and/or damage the data, files, operations, software, or hardware components of a computer system.
*54411. Use to obtain, copy, or modify files, passwords, data or information belonging to other users.
12. Loading or using unauthorized games, programs, files, music, or other electronic media.
23. Any attempt to circumvent or disable the filter for any security measure.
26. Shall not disclose, use, or disseminate any personal identification information of themselves or other students.
Reproduced Record at 221a (R.R_).
The Computer Use Policy is part of the Student Code that is “designed to maintain a standard of conduct in the schools of the district.” Supplemental Reproduced Record at 3b (S.R.R_). The Appendix to the Student Code contains tables that list offenses and the discipline that can be imposed for each type of offense. According to this table, violating the Computer Use Policy can result in a denial of computer and internet privileges and possible suspension for one to ten days. Additionally, the Student Planner1 states that any inappropriate use of the internet or the School District’s technology will result in “technology restrictions and/or disciplinary action.” Specifically, it states:
Inappropriate Computer use will be disciplined according to the following progression:
First Offense: 5-day loss of privileges and detention or [in-school suspension].
Second Offense: 10-day loss of privileges and [in-school suspension].
Third Offense: 15-day loss of privileges and [our-of-school suspension],
R.R. 229a (emphasis added). Thus, a second instance of inappropriate computer use by a student will result in a 10-day “loss of privileges and suspension.”
The School Board found that Student engaged in conduct prohibited by the Computer Use Policy, including the proscription against using a computer in an illegal manner, and that it was Student’s second “computer-type” offense.2 According to the Appendix to the Student Code, a violation of the Computer Use Policy, including using a computer in an illegal manner, can be punished by a denial of computer/internet privileges and/or possible suspension for one to ten days. According to the Student Planner, a second violation of the School District’s technology rules will result in a 10-day loss of technology privileges and in-school suspension. In short, these very specific disciplinary directives establish that a 10-day suspension is the maximum penalty for student’s *545conduct. However, the School Board did not suspend student but expelled him.
To justify its expulsion of Student, the School Board relied on the “Exclusion from School” provision in the School Code that identifies a long list of conduct that can result in either suspension or expulsion. The list includes such conduct as drinking, using drugs, theft, gambling, vandalism of school property and bringing incendiary devices to school.3 Nowhere on that list is there any reference to the school’s computers, a point acknowledged by the School District.
Notwithstanding the lack of any reference to computers in the Exclusion from School provision of the School Code, the School District hangs its hat on Item 18: “Violation of any local, state or federal law[.]” S.R.R. 5b. Student was not charged or convicted of a violation of any law. However, the School District believes the lack of any law enforcement action against Student is of no consequence to the application of Item 18. It believes that hacking into a computer is a substantive violation of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, giving it grounds to suspend or expel Student, and it chose the latter. There are several flaws in the School District’s position.
First, the District’s reading of Item 18 in the Exclusion from School provision is unsupportable. To use a “violation” to *546sanction a student, there must be a prosecution by a law enforcement authority. That is the only way to establish a “violation of law.” Item 18 did not say “conduct that violates law” could lead to suspension or expulsion. It stated “violation.” Because the fact of a violation of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code by Student has never been established, Item 18 did not authorize the School District to expel Student.4
Second, the School District’s reading of Item 18 is so expansive it renders the point of the Student Code, ie., communication of the rules to students, meaningless.5 The School District’s reading would give the District authority to expel a student who is seen jaywalking, even though that student never receives a citation for this misadventure or pays a fíne. It would be enough, apparently, for the School District to rely on the statement of a witness who saw the deed or to extract a confession from the scofflaw student. No one can read the Student Code and understand that jaywalking, or not filing taxes on time, will lead to any expulsion from school.
Third, the School District’s reading of Item 18 conflicts with the provision in the Student Code that using a school computer “in an illegal manner” mil result, at most, in a 10-day suspension. The School District has the general Exclusion from School provision trumping the very specific provision in the School Code on what happens when a student uses a computer “in an illegal manner,” which is the opposite of what should occur. When a general provision is in conflict with a special provision and the conflict is irreconcilable, the special provision shall be construed as an exception to the general provision. Section 1933 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1933. See also Hamilton v. Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, 552 Pa. 245, 249, 714 A.2d 1012, 1014 (1998) (stating that the rules of statutory construction apply to the interpretation of school policies). It is not even clear there is a conflict because the two provisions can be read together. The Exclusion from School provision authorizes suspensions or expulsions for violations of law; the specific provision on using school computers “in an illegal manner” clarifies that the sanction will be a suspension. The School District simply reads the Exclusion from School provision in a vacuum.
In short, I do not believe the School District’s expulsion of Student was author*547ized by Item 18 of the Expulsion from School provision. The majority also relies on prefatory language to the Appendix, which states that “individual cases may warrant the modification of penalties.” S.R.R. 10b. I disagree that this statement authorized the expulsion of Student.
Again, the rules of statutory construction provide direction. Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a), provides that “[ejvery statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.” Stated otherwise, every provision of a statute is presumed to be intended for some purpose and may not be reduced by interpretation to mere surplusage. Philadelphia Correctional Officers Association v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 667 A.2d 459, 462 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995).
Applying these principles here, the majority would have one sentence in a preamble render the very specific disciplinary provisions that have been published and distributed to the student body and parents mere surplusage. Further, the School District’s reading of “modification” is overly broad. “Modification” suggests a tinkering with the sanction the District has publicized, such as increasing the length of the suspension, not a wholesale disregard of an unequivocal statement. More importantly, the majority gives the School District a pass on its obligation to inform students and their families, in writing, of what conduct is expected in schools and what happens when expectations are not met.
School boards have broad discretion in determining school disciplinary policies, and courts are not inclined to interfere with such matters unless it is apparent that the school board action was arbitrary, capricious and prejudicial to the public interest. Flynn-Scarcella v. Pocono Mountain School District, 745 A.2d 117, 120 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000). However, a school board must operate within statutory and constitutional restraints. 22 Pa.Code § 12.3(a).6 One such restraint imposed by the State Board of Education is to require school districts to give students and their parents notification of student conduct rules. To reach that end, a school board must adopt a code of student conduct; publish and distribute the code to students and parents; and define and publish the types of offenses that could lead to exclusion from school, whether by suspension or expulsion. 22 Pa.Code §§ 12.3(c), 12.6(a).7
The regulation requires a school district to communicate the rules to students to avoid surprise. The regulation is frustrated when a school district purports to reserve to itself unbridled discretion to disregard the express and specific terms of its Student Code.8 The preamble to the Appendix cannot nullify what follows in the Appendix. However, lest there be any question about the meaning of the preamble, it was resolved by the Student Planner, which provides for a maximum 10-day *548loss of computer privileges and an in-school suspension.
For the foregoing reasons, I believe the School Board abused its discretion by ignoring its own stated policy and arbitrarily expelling Student. Flynn-Scarcella, 745 A.2d at 120. I would reverse the order of the trial court and the adjudication of the School Board expelling Student from school.9 Any other result renders the publication of the Student Code an empty exercise.

. According to Principal Jay V. Butterfield, the Student Planner is a handbook distributed to students every school year. Notes of Testimony, November 1, 2006, at 44; R.R. 160a. The scope of the Student Planner is unclear since only relevant portions and not the entire document have been included in the record. According to Butterfield, the Student Planner is "derived directly from the [Student] Code,” and consolidates the expectations for students regarding the school's rules and regulations. Id. at 45; R.R. 161a.

. Student’s first offense involved his creation of a web site, apparently using his own computer, where persons could create fake identification cards that were virtually identical to those issued by the School District. Student received a three-day in-school suspension for this misconduct, but it is not clear whether his first action violated the Computer Use Policy or some other provision of the School Code.

.The School Code states:
Exclusions from School
The Board of School Directors has defined the types of offenses, which could lead to exclusion from school. These offenses may take the form of suspension or expulsion and include the following:
1. Disrespect/ Insubordination or defying school staff;
2. Destruction or willful defacing of school property;
3. Hazardous or unauthorized use of vehicles;
4. Use, possession or distribution of dangerous drugs or drug related paraphernalia as defined in the "Dangerous Drugs, Device and Cosmetics Act”;
5. Use, possession, or distribution of "lookalike” drugs defined as a non-controlled substance that has a stimulant or depressant effect on humans and substantially resembles a controlled substance in appearance;
6. Use, possession, or distribution of anabolic steroids as defined in Act 93 or 1989;
7. Use or possession of alcoholic beverages;
8. Use or possession of dangerous weapons, look-alike weapons, or fireworks;
9. Use or possession of tobacco products or lighted cigarettes;
10. Fighting or physical assault;
11. Theft;
12. Gambling;
13. Use of profane language or obscene gestures;
14. Disorderly, vicious, illegal, or immoral conduct;
15. Persistent or severe harassment, intimidation, extortion, or bullying;
16. Participation in or responsibility for causing willful damage, destruction, or vandalism to the personal property of District employees, either on or off school premises;
17. Verbal or physical assault directed toward a District employee or toward an employee of the school bus company, either on or off school premises;
18. Violation of any local, state, or federal law;
19. Persistent violation of school rules and regulations;
20. Excessive unexcused absence by a student not subject to compulsory attendance laws.
21. Possession of any weapon as defined by Act 26 of 1995 to include, but not limited to, any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nunchaku, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument, or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.
22. Possession, use of any incendiary devises to include but not be limited to lighters or matches.
23. Collection of money in school or on school property, or at any school sponsored event, by a student for personal benefit.
S.R.R. 5b (emphasis original).

. Student argues that the School Board lacked jurisdiction to determine whether he violated Section 7611(a)(2) and (3) of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 7611(a)(2), (3), which makes it unlawful for a person to intentionally and without authorization access or alter any computer network, or provide another person with a password to a computer network. The majority has inexplicably omitted this issue.

. In the introduction to the Student Code, the District’s Superintendent explained that the publication of the Student Code was "intended ... [to meet] the legal requirements of Section 12.3(C) of the Pennsylvania Code, which requires that the District adopt these provisions, and distribute copies to both students and parents." S.R.R. 3b. The reference is to 22 Pa.Code § 12.3(c), which states:
(c) Each governing board shall adopt a code of student conduct that includes policies governing student discipline and a listing of students’ rights and responsibilities as outlined in this chapter. This conduct code shall be published and distributed to students and parents or guardians. Copies of the code shall also be available in each school library.
(emphasis added). This regulation was promulgated pursuant to the State Board of Education's broad authority to "establish standards governing the educational program of the Commonwealth.” Section 2603-B(a) of the Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, added by the Act of March 30, 1988, P.L. 321, as amended, 24 P.S. § 26-2603-B(a).

. The regulation states, in pertinent part:
(a) The governing board has the authority to make reasonable and necessary rules governing the conduct of students in school. The rulemaking power, however, is not unlimited; it must operate within statutory and constitutional restraints.
22 Pa.Code § 12.3(a) (emphasis added).

. See n. 5, supra, for the text of 22 Pa.Code § 12.3(c). The regulation at Section 12.6(a) mandates that a school board “shall define and publish the types of offenses that would lead to exclusion from school.” 22 Pa.Code § 12.6(a).

. At a minimum, the School District should provide some standards for when it will exercise discretion to deviate from its published norm, such as, for example, where student safety is an issue.

. I agree with the majority that the School District’s Superintendent did not commingle her prosecutorial and adjudicative functions.