Professional Documents
Culture Documents
{0147071911}
PETITIONER•s BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REVIEW TO APPEAL THE
LOCAL AGENCY DECISION OF HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT TO REMOVE
PETITIONER AS BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR
(0147071911)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(01470!101/1)
TABLE OF AUTHORITY
Casu
ii
{0147090111)
Statutes
24 P.S. §10-1089.. .......... ...... .... .. .. .... ............ ...... ... ..... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19
24 P.S. §4-433 .. .... .. ... ... ....... ......... ..... ............ .. ....... .... ..... ........ .......... ...... 7
24 P.S. §5-514. .. ... .... .. ... ... .. . ...... ... ... . .. ... ... ... ...... ... ..... . ... . .. ...... .. . ... ... .... 8, 9
24 P.S. §1-1080... ... ... ... ... ... ............ ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ......... ...... ......... 8
1 Pa.C.S. §1903(a)...... ...... ... ......... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...... ...... ... ............ ........ 8
1 Pa.C.S. §1921(b)......... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ......... ... ... ...... ...... ... ... ... ..... 8
24 P.S. §2-211... ...... ... ... ... ...... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... 10
24 P.S. §5-510....................................................................................... 11
2 Pa.C.S.A. §555......... ... .. . . .. .. . ... . .. .. . ... . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . ... . .. ... ... .. . . .. ... . .. ... . .. ... ... 14
Other_
Harrisburg School District Policy No. 326... ...... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....... 4
iii
{014'70901/1}
Sean A. Fields, Esq.
CGALawFirm
135 North George Street
York, PA 17401
(717) 718-7120
sfields@cgalaw.com
This matter comes before this Honorable Court upon a Petition for Review filed
..
by Petitioner, Kenneth Medina (''Medina"), against ~he Respondent, Harrisburg School
Medina had engaged in misconduct related to his job performance as the Business
Administrator for the School District, a Loudermi/1 hearing was held on August 7, 2017.
Thereafter, the Administration for the School District ("Administration") notified Medina
Subsequent to a formal request by Medina, a hearing was held before the School
District's Board of School Directors ("School Board") on October 11, 17 and 30, of 2017.
Thereafter, the School Board voted to remove Medina from the position of Business
{01456U4/IJ1
Administrator and reassign him to the position of Programs Grants Administrator. In a
separate email, the School District's Solicitor, Samuel T. Cooper Ill, Esquire, ("Solicitor")
notified Medina's counsel, Sean Fields, that Medina's salary had been reduced from
$121,890.00 to $60,000.00. Thereafter, Medina filed a Petition for Review to Appeal the
In August of 2016, Medina was hired by the School District as the Business
satisfactory. The Business Administrator position for public school districts is subject to
Section 1089 (24 P.S. §10-1089) of the Public School Code of 1949 C'School Code").
Subsequently, on June 19, 2017, the School Board voted to increase Medina's annual
salary to $121,890.00. On June 29, 2017, District Superintendent, Dr. Sybil Knight-
3.} Failure to schedule and execute building renovations at John Harris and
other district properties; and
4.) Failure to make arrangements for mail pickup and delivery at the District's
properties. (Employee Exhibit E-1)
Medina did not receive an employment performance evaluation at the end of the
School District's fiscal year prior to receiving a letter of reprimand and notice of
allegations from the Superintendent. (Transcript Vol. II., Oct. 17, 2017, pp. 170-171).
On August 7, 2017, the Administration held a Loudetmi/1 hearing where Medina was
Medina had engaged in the conduct previously alleged. The letter also stated that the
(0145615411)3
Administration was recommending that Medina, be, "reassigned to the position of
determined by the School Board." (Joint Exhibit- J-1). The letter did not provide specific
information regarding the amount of compensation or salary that Medina would receive
in the new position. Subsequently, Medina requested a hearing before the School Board
pursuant to Section 1089 of the School Code and Harrisburg School District Policy No.
326. Thereafter. a heari~g was held before the School Board on October 11. 17, and
30, of2017.
On November 30, 2017, the School District Solicitor, Samuel Cooper Ill, Esquire
(''Solicitor"), notified Medina's counsel that the School Board voted to remove Medina
absence. (Petition for Review Exhibit- E). Subsequently, t~e Solicitor notified Medina's
~ounsel that Medina's annual salary was being reduced from $121,890.00, to
$60,000.00. (Petition for Review Exhibit-:- F). On December 5, 2017, Medina's counsel
sent a letter tc;> the Solicitor raising concerns that the School Board failed to provide
Medina with a written adjudication under the Local Agency Law or documentation
demonstrating that the School Board had voted on the amount of Medina's
compensation after he was removed from the Business Administrator position and
attached School Board resolution stating that the Program Grants Administrator salary
is subject to a previously adopted salary schedule for employees subject to the School
(0!4561WIJ4
District's Act 93 Administrator Compensation Plan voted on by the School Board at a
regular public meeting on June 17, 2017. (Administration Exhibit A- 6). The salary
$55,631.25 and a maximum salary of $59,512.50. The salary scale provided does not
list the position of Program Grants Administrator. /d. The December 28, 2017, letter also
stated the following regarding the issue of whether Medina was entitled to a formal
Subsequently, Medina filed a Petition for Review to Appeal the Local Agency
Administrator and now seeks relief from this Honorable Court on the grounds that the
School District's actions violated Sections 1089 and 508 of the School Code, the
policies of the School District and the Pennsylvania Local Agency Law.
(Ot456tWtJ5
Ill. Concise Statement of Pertinent Legal and Factual Questlon(s)'lnvolved
The following legal questions have been raised before this Honorable Court
1.) Whether Petitioner's Removal from the Position of Business Administrator by the
School District Violated Section 1089 of the School Code?
3.) Whether the School District's Removal of Petitioner from the Position of Business
Administrator Without a Written Adjudication VIolated the Local Agency Law?
4.) Whether the Reduction of Petitioner's Salary Without an Affirmative Vote of the
Majority of the Harrisburg Board of School Directors Violated Section 508 of the School
Code?
(0145615411}6
IV. Legal Discussion
written employment contract. Pursuant to Section 1089 of the School Code, a Business
Administrator performs duties determined by the School Board, which may include the
business responsibilities specified in Section 433 of the School Code and the duties of
School Board Secretary. Those statutory duties include, but are not limited to, preparing
bills for payment, furnishing reports concerning schooi affairs and having general
supervision of all business affairs. 24 P.S. §4-433. The School Board r:nay also enter
into a written contract that governs the employment of the Business Administrator, but a
The fact that the reasons for the removal of a Business Administrator are limited
to those reasons enumerated In the School Code is instructive because the only other
{01456154'1} 7
the School Code are the positions of superintendent and assistant superlntendent1 •
Other than those specific positions, the reasons for the dismissal or removal of other
public school employees apply to the more general categories of employment in public
employee3".The removal of all other employees in·subject to Section 514<4 of the School
Code which lists the reasons for removal as, "incompetency, intemperance, neglect of
duty, violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwealth, or other improper
administrator is limited to the reasons enumerated in that section of the School Code.
The Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. §1501 et seq., provides that the object of
interpretation and construction of all statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention
ofth_
e General Assembly. 1 Pa.C.S. 1903(a), 1921(b). Generally speaking the best
Gilmour Manufacturing Co., 573 Pa. 143, 833 A.2d 676, 679 (2003). In the Knox v.
Susquenita School District case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the
protections set forth in Section 1089 of the School Code apply to Business
1
Distri~ superintendents and assistant district superintendents may be removed from office and have their contracts
terminated, after a hearing. by a majority vote of the board of school directors of the district for neglect of duty,
incompetency, intemperance, or immorality. 24 P.S. §10-1080.
2
A temporary professional employee is an individual hired in a position requiring a certificate issued by the
Pennsylvania Department of Education who, has been employed to perfonn for a limited time, the duties of a newly
created position or of a regular professional employee whose services have been terminated by death, resignation,
suspension or removal, but has not acquired tenure under the School Code. .
3
A professional employee includes school employees, who are certificated as teachers, supervisors, supervising
~cipals, principal, assistant principals •.." who have acquired tenure under the School Code.
Public school district employees subject to Section 514 are not certificated and commonly referred to as
nonprofessional employees in the nomenclature of public educators in Pennsylvania.
558 Pa. 171, 888 A.2d 640 (Pa. 2005). The court also reasoned that when read in pari
materia with Section 514 of the School Code, Section 1089 appears to extend the same
administrators. /d. at 186, 649. However, unlike the more general classification for
that Business Administrators cannot be removed from their specific positions with cause
In the matter sub judice, Medina was never presented with a statement of
charges to support a removal consistent with Section 1089 of the School Code. Unlike
the case of Lukacs v. Plum Borough, 952 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), where the
removal of a business administrator was upheld after the employee was presented with
presenting evidence that deviated substantially from the Administration's original notice
of allegations, the Administ"'tion has consistently taken the position that M~dina's
Grants Administrator does not constitute a removal under Section 1089 of the School
Code. The School District's reasoning on this issue is inconsistent with Section 1089
The removal and reassignment resulted in the reduction of Medina's salary in the
{01456154/1}9
custodial staff position at a salary of $10.00 per hour. Such an interpretation is
inconsistent with the legislative intent of Section 1089 and would render the statutory
Because Medina w~s never presented with a statement of charges, the School
District did not meet the burden of proof required for the removal of a Business
Administrator under the Local Agency Law. Moreover, rather than presenting evidence
that was consistent with the original allegations presented to Medina, the Administration
presented evidence that differed considerably from the original allegations. Additionally,
was never presented. Moreover, the Administration did not present any evidence that
employee. In fact, the Superintendent admitted during her testimony that her only formal
documentation regar~ing Medina' job performance was a June 29, 2017, reprimand
letter that preceded the Administration's hasty action to remove Medina from his
position. (Hearing Transcript Vol. II, Oct. 17, 2017, pp. 167-169).
the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to Section 211 of the School Code. 24 P.S. §2-
211. The Legislature granted school boards the general authority to establish and
maintain schools, define general policies of a system, and carry out laws governing
public schools. Parents United for Better Schools, Inc. v. School Dist. of Philadelphia
{0145615411} 10
Bd. ofEduc., E.D.Pa.1997, 978 F.Supp. 197, affirmed 148 F.3d 260. Pursuant to
Section 510 of the School Code, the School District has the authority to,
. .. adopt and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations as It may deem
necessary and proper, regarding the management of its school affairs and the
conduct and deportment of all superintendents, teachers, and other appointees
or employes during the time they are engaged in their duties to the district ... 24
P.S. §5-510
The policies of the School District include Harrisburg School District Policy No.
313 ("Policy 313"). Policy 313 establishes a number of requirements regarding the
growth,· promote positive behavior, and facilitate attainment of district goals and
objectives." (Employee Exhibit- 2). Under the policy, the Superintendent is responsible
3.) Apply in a consistent and unifonn manner to all employees in the same class.
The Superintendent admitted during her testimony that despite the requirements
of Policy 313, Medina did not receive a formal evaluation at the end of the fiscal year
prior to the District issuing a letter of reprimand to Medina. (Hearing Transcript, Oct.17,
(0145615411) 11
2017, Vol. II., pp. 170-171). However, the Superintendent testified as follows regarding
Q . Okay.
the first part of the hearing and this part of hearing would
A. They-
(014!6154/1)12
ATTORNEY GALTMAN: Let her finish.
BY ATTORNEY FIELDS:
Based c;>n the plain language of Policy 313 and the testimony of the
Superintendent. the School District did not comply with District Policy prior to
reprimanding and removing Medina from the position of Business Administrator. Despite
at the end of the fiscal year. the Administration acted arbitrarily to reprimand and
subsequently remove Medina from his position. The School District's failure to provide
Medina with an employment evaluation prior to his removal violated Polley 313 and is
reduction in salary directly affected his personal and property rights to his position of
employment. Therefore, the School District's action to remove Medina from his position
salary without the adoption of a written adjudication with findings of fact and conclusions
is erroneous as a matter of law. The Solicitor articulated the School District's position
(0145615411 113
Mr. Medina is not a certified professional entitled to specified procedural rights
under the School Code, and the action ·of the Board was not a termination of this
employment with the District. If you believe that Mr. Medina has the right to
receive a formal adjudication from the Board in connection with the decision to
reassign him and to reduce his compensation, please provide me with the case
law or other authority to support that contention ... (Administration Exhibit - 6)
The School District's position that because Medina is not a certified professional,
the School District is not required to adopt a written adjudication is a misapplication the
on the premise that a written adjudication is only required when action is taken with
express requirements of the Local Agency Law. The Pennsylvania Local Agency Law
sets forth procedural protections for indiv!duals when an agency such as a school
forum in which to assert his or her rights, privileges or immunities, the agency's act is an
Pa.Cmwlth. 616, 591 A.2d 331, 333 (1991). The Local Agency Law also requires, that,
"All adjudications of a local agency shall be in writing, shall contain findings and the
reasons for the adjudication, and shall be served upon all parties or their counsel
school board Is not accompanied by written findings and reasons, the appropriate
remedy Is for a court to remand the matter back to the local agency to make findings
and set forth the reasons for the local agency decision. See Big Spring School District v.
matter of law under the Local Agency Law. The School District's action to remove
Moreover, the decision of the School Board resulted in Medina's salary being reduced
by close to half of his original salary. Moreover, there is no requirement that the
individual whose rights have been implicated by the decision of a school district must be
certificated in order to invoke the Local Agency Law. Those rights were triggered when
the School Board voted to remove Medina from his position and reduce his salary.
Therefore, the School District's failure to provide an adjudication that includes findings
of fact and conclusions of law constitutes a violation of the Local Agency Law that
D. The School District Violated Section 508 of the School Code by Reducing
Medina's Compensation Without an Affirmative Majority of the Board of School
Directors.
Medina argues that because the reduction of his salary was not approved by an
affirmative majority vote of the School Board, his salary reduction is void as a matter of
law and should be overturned by this Honorable Court. The School Code sets forth
specific requirements regarding when the vote of a district's board of school directors is
I
required. School directors can act in an official capacity only when lawfully convened as
{01456U411) 15
a body. School District of Philadelphia v. Frau/au Corp., 328 A.2d 866, 15 Pa.Cmwlth.
621 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974). Section 508 of the School Code requires an affirmative
majority vote of the entire board in order for a district to take certain actions. Setting the
The affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the board of school
directors in every school district, duly reoorded, showing how each member
voted, shall be required In order to take action on the following subjects:--
Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall render such acts of the
board of school directors void and unenforceable. 24 P.S. §5-508 (emphasis
added)
Both the plain language of Section 508 and Pennsylvania case law provide that a
school district lacks the authority to execute certain actions without the express
ratification of the entire school board. In Parnell v. School Board of Clymer Borough, the
Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a majority of school directors duly recorded,
showing how each member voted, is required to fix a teacher's salary. Parnell v. School
Board of Clymer Borough, 99 ~a. Super. 281 (1930). Additionally, the Commonwealth
Court held that a school board's failure to vote publicly on an addendum providing for
Section 508 of the Code plainly presupposes that a vote of the members of a
school board be made ~t a public meeting, since the statute refers to the
recording of the minutes of such meetings: Preston v. Saucon Valley School
Dist., 666 A.2d 1120, Cmwlth.1995, reargument denied, appeal denied 681 A.2d
1344, 545 Pa. 673. Citing Morning Call, Inc. v. Board of School Directors, 164
Pa.Cmwlth. 263, 642 A.2d 619 (1994), petition for allowance of appeal denied,
53~ Pa. 698, 653 A.2d 1235 (1994).
{014$615411) 16
In the matter before this Honorable Court, the School District reduced Medina's
action to reduce Medina's salary in a December 5, 2017 email to the Solicitor. (Exhibit
document entitled, "Harrisburg School District Act 93 Salary Scale 2017-2018.N The
salary scale Includes a hand-written notation with an asterisk for the positions of
not specifically referenced anywhere in the salary scale provided by the Solicitor.
action is insufficient as a matter of law. Section 508 expressly requires that the School
Board take specific action to fix Medina's compensation, including any change to his
compensation. The salary scale provided did not fix the compensation of any individual
but simply provided a range for salaries that have been adopted for specific positions as
part of an overall compensation plan. Under Section 1164 of the School Code, school
{01456U411} 17
districts are required to establish an administrator compensation plan 15 for individuals
"Program Grants Administrator", the salary scale provided by the Solicitor does not
establish or fix a specific salary amount for any of the positions listed. The document Is
simply a record that provides for a minimum, median and maximum range for salaries
for certain positions. Therefore, a further action would be required by the School Board
In the form of a vote to establish the compensation of specific individuals. The School
Board never took action to specifically fix a specific salary or compensation for the
Program Grants Administrator position. Moreover, the School District has not provided
any record that the School Board voted to specifically reduce Medina's compensation.
While the School Board clearly took action to set a salary scale, to date the
School District has not provided any documentation that it voted to fix Medina's salary
prior to his removal and reassignment. Finally, due to the fact that Medina did not
occupy a position on the salary scale at the time it was adopted by the School Board on
June 19, 2017, compensation could not have been fixed for ~edina as the Program
Grants Administrator since he occupied the Business Administrator position at that time.
Because such action requires an affirmative majority vote of the entire School Board,
the reduction of Medina's salary without an affirmative majority vote of the entire School
5
Administrator Compensation Plans are commonly referred to as Act 93 Plans in reference to Act 93 of 1984.
{0145615411} 18
Board was a violation of Section 508 of the School Code and void as a matter of law.
Therefore, the appropriate action for this Court to take is the immediate reinstatement of
Medina's prior salary plus interest because the action is void as a matter of law.
Because the School District's removal of the Medina violates Section 1089 of the
School Code, the Local Agency Law, and School District Policy 313, Medina submits
that his removal from the Business Administrator position should be reversed by this
Honorable Court. In the alternative, this Court should remand this matter back to the
School Board for a new hearing after Medina has been provided with a specific
vote by the School Board under Section 508 of the School Code, Medina's salary prior
to November 17, 2017, Medina should be reinstated immediately with back pay plus
interest.
Respectfully submitted,
{0145615411119
KENNETH MEDINA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Petitioner DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania Case Records of the Appellate and Trial
Courts that require filing confidential information documents differently than non-
Submitted by:
~? rt. ~
Sean A. Fields, Esquire
PA Supreme Court ID# 85141
(01470942/1}
KENNETH MEDINA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Petitioner DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 1Th day of May, 2018, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Petitioner's Brief in Support of Petition for Review to Appeal the Local Agency
was served via first class n:-ail, postage.prepaid upon the following:
Submitted by:
\· n \.t~ fl n
\ _b~·.. .x.--.-A\ l~ "oUh
Cheryl L. Bradle1, J'aralegal to ~
Sean·A. Fields, Esquire U
{01470955/1)