KENNETH MEDINA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Petitioner . DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

vs. NO. 2018 CV 216-MD

HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT CIVIL ACTION - LAW

Respondent

For Petitioner: Sean M. Fields, Esquire (PA Supreme Court 10#85141)

CGA Law Firm
135 North George Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401
(717) 718-7120- direct dial
(717) 843-9039- facsimile
email: sfields@cgalaw.com

For Respondent: Richard B. Galtman, Esquire (PA Supreme Court 10#53681)

Michael I. Levin, Esquire (PA Supreme Court 10#21232)
Levin Legal Group, P.C.
1301 Masons Mill Business Park
1800 Byberry Road
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
(215) 938-6378
(215) 938-6375 -facsimile
email: rgaltman@levinlegalgroup.com mlevin@levinlegalgroup.com

Samuel T. Cooper, Ill, Esquire (PA Supreme Court 10#22079)

Dilworth Paxson
2 North Second Street, Suite 11.01
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 213-4115- direct dial
(717) 236-7811- facsimile
scooper@dilworthlaw.com

{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

Submitted by Petitioner Kenneth Medina

(0147071911)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................... ......... ...................... ..... .

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......... ... ........ .. ........ ......................................... ii

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE ....................... ... ............ ............. 1

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................................................ ·................. 3

CONCISE STATEMENT OF PERTINENT LEGAL AND

FACTUAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED ...... : .............. .' .................. ................. 6

LEGAL DISCUSSION ........................... .................................................. 7

A. Medina's removal from the Business Administrator· Position

violated Section 1089 of the School Code ..... .... ....... ...... ........ ... 7

B. The School District's failure to evaluate Medina's performance

before his removal violated School District policy ...................... 10

C. The School District's removal of Medina from the position of

Business Administrator without a written adjudication violated
the Local Agency Law ............ ........... .................................. 13

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.............................. .............. 15

CONCISE STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 19

(01470!101/1)
 TABLE OF AUTHORITY

Casu

Commonweaffh v. Gilmour Manufacturing Co.,

573 Pa. 143, 833 A.2d 676, 679 (2003)... ......... ... ...... ...... ... ... .... .. ....... 8

Knox v. Susquenita School District, 558 Pa. 171,

888 A.2d 640 (Pa. 2005) .................................................................. 8,9

Lukacs v. Plum Borough, 952 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008)............................ 9

Parents United for Better Schools, Inc. v. School Dist. of Philadelphia

Bd. of Educ., E.D.Pa.1997, 978 F.Supp. 197, affirmed 148 F.3d 260 ........... 10

Wortman v. Philadelphia Commission on Human.Relations,

139 Pa.Cmwlth. 616, 591 A.2d 331, 333 (1991):.... ........ .... .......... .. ........ 14

Big Spring School District v. Hoffman, 489 A.2d 998,

88 Pa. Cmwlth. 462 (Pa. Cmwlth ..1985) ................................................ 15

School District of Philadelphia v. Frau/au Corp., 328 A.2d 866,

15 Pa.Cmwlth. 621 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974)...... ............ ...... ...... ... ... ............ 16

Pamellv. Sc~oo/BoardofCiymerBorough, 99 Pa. Super. 281 (~930) ................ 16

Preston v. Saucon Valley School Dist., 666 A.2d 1120, Cmwlth.1995,

reargument denied, appeal denied 681 A.2d 1344, 545 Pa. 673............... 16

Morning Call, Inc. v. Board of School Directors, 164 Pa.Cmwlth. 263,

642 A.2d 619 (1994 ), petition for allowance of appeal denied,
539 Pa. 698, 653 A.2d 1235 (1994)......... ......... ...... ... ......................... 16

ii

{0147090111)
Statutes

24 P.S. §10-1089.. .......... ...... .... .. .. .... ............ ...... ... ..... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19

24 P.S. §10-1089(c) .......................... ............. ..... ............................ ....... 3, 7

24 P.S. §5-508 ................................................................... 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 19

24 P.S. §4-433 .. .... .. ... ... ....... ......... ..... ............ .. ....... .... ..... ........ .......... ...... 7

24 P.S. §5-514. .. ... .... .. ... ... .. . ...... ... ... . .. ... ... ... ...... ... ..... . ... . .. ...... .. . ... ... .... 8, 9

24 P.S. §1-1080... ... ... ... ... ... ............ ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ......... ...... ......... 8

1 Pa.C.S. §1501............... ... . .. .. . ... . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . ... . . . .. . .. . .. . ... . .. ... ... 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. §101............... ..................................................................... 14

2 Pa.C.S.A. §555......... ... .. . . .. .. . ... . .. .. . ... . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . ... . .. ... ... .. . . .. ... . .. ... . .. ... ... 14

24 P.s·. §11-1164 ................................................................................. 17, 18

Other_
Harrisburg School District Policy No. 326... ...... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....... 4

Harrisburg School District Policy No. 313......_................................... 11, 12, 13, 19

iii

{014'70901/1}
Sean A. Fields, Esq.
CGALawFirm
135 North George Street
York, PA 17401
(717) 718-7120
sfields@cgalaw.com

KENNETH MEDINA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Petitioner DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

vs. NO. 2018 CV 218-MD

HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT, CIVIL ACTION LAW

Respondent

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

I. Procedural History of the Case

This matter comes before this Honorable Court upon a Petition for Review filed
..
by Petitioner, Kenneth Medina (''Medina"), against ~he Respondent, Harrisburg School

District ("School District"). Subsequent to receiving a notice of allegations alleging that

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

that it was recommending his "reassignment" from the position of Business

Administrator to the position of Program Grants Administrator.

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

Local Agency Decision of Harrisburg School District to Remove Petitioner As Business

Administrator before this Honorable Court.

II. Statement of the Facts

In August of 2016, Medina was hired by the School District as the Business

Administrator without an employment contract. In February of 2017, the District

Superintendent rated Medina's performance as the Business Administrator as

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-

Burney ("Superintendent") placed Medina on administrative leave, and he received a

notice of allegations alleging that he had engaged in the following conduct:

1.) Failure to notify the Superintendent of a large vehicle loss;

2.) Submitted Budget to POE with incorrect totals and figures;

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

questioned by Attorney Richard Galtman, Esquire, counsel for the Administration .

.
Subsequently, the Administration sent a letter notifying Medina t~at it concluded that

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

Program Grants Administrator ... effective immediately, at a salary commensurate and

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

from the position of Business Administrator by reassigning him to the position of

Program Grants Administrator with a recorded voted of 5 yeas, 3 abstentions and 1

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

reassigned to a different position. (Petition for Review Exhibit -G).

On December 28, 2017, the Solicitor sent a letter to Medina's counsel·with an

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

schedule Included a handwritten asterisk for the positions of Network/Acctg.

Specialists/Supervisors and a salary range that includes a minimum salary of

$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

adjudication under the Local Agency Law:

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 his
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 reduce his compensation, please provide me with the case law
or other authority to support that contention . . . /d.

Subsequently, Medina filed a Petition for Review to Appeal the Local Agency

Decision of the Harrisburg School District to Remove Petitioner as Business

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

under Medina's Petition for Review.

1.) Whether Petitioner's Removal from the Position of Business Administrator by the
School District Violated Section 1089 of the School Code?

Petitioner's Suggested Answer: Yes

2.)Whether the School District's Failure to Provide an Employee Evaluation to Petitioner

Prior to His Removal from the Business Administrator Position Violated School District
Policy?

Petitioner's Suggested Answer: Yes

3.) Whether the School District's Removal of Petitioner from the Position of Business
Administrator Without a Written Adjudication VIolated the Local Agency Law?

Petitioner's Suggested Answer: Yes

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?

Petitioner's Suggested Answer: Yes

(0145615411}6
IV. Legal Discussion

A. Medina's Removal From the Business Administrator Position VIolated Section

1089 of the School Code.

Medina was hired by the School District as a Business Administrator without a

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

written contract is not mandatory for the position.

The removal of a Business Administrator from employment is limited by Section

1089(c) of the School Code which states in relevant part:

Unless otherwise specified in an employment agreement, the governing board

shall, after due notice, giving the reasons therefor, and after hearing if
demanded, have the right at any time to remove a business administrator for
incompetency, intemperance, neglect of duty·, violation of any of the school laws
of this Commonwealth or other improper conduct. 24 P.S. §10-1089(c).

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

employment classifications that specifically address removal from a specific position in

{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

school districts such as a "te~porary professional employee2" or ''professional

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

conduct." 24 P.S. §5-514.

Based on the plain language of Section 1089, the removal of a business

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

indication of legislative intent is the plain language of the statute. Commonwealth v.

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

Administrators with or without a written contract. Knox v. Susquenita School District,

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

protections afforded to school employees governed by Section 514 to business

administrators. /d. at 186, 649. However, unlike the more general classification for

nonprofessional employees under Section 514, the Legislature specifically recognized

that Business Administrators cannot be removed from their specific positions with cause

for removal under Section 1089.

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

a statement of charges, Medina never received a statement of cha~es. While

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

reassignment from the position of Business Administrator to the position of Program

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

and such an Interpretation would create an absurd result.

Medina was removed from the statutorily recognized position of Business

Administrator prior to being reassigned to the position of Program Grants Administrator.

The removal and reassignment resulted in the reduction of Medina's salary in the

amount of approximately $60,000.00: Therefore, under the School District's

interpretation of Section 1089, it would have unlimited power to reassign Medina to a

{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

safeguards specific to business administrators meaningless and ineffective.

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,

due to the absence of a statement of charges, Is was impossible for the.Administration

to present substantial evidence under Section 1089 because a statement of charges

was never presented. Moreover, the Administration did not present any evidence that

Medina had ever been reprimanded or subject to progressive discipline as an

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).

B. The School District's Failure to Evaluate Medina's Performance Before His

Removal VIolated School District Policy.

In the adoption of policies governing a school district, districts act as an arm of

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

evaluation of district employees. Specifically, the policy states that, "Employee

evaluations shall be used to assess and improve performance, encourage professional

growth,· promote positive behavior, and facilitate attainment of district goals and

objectives." (Employee Exhibit- 2). Under the policy, the Superintendent is responsible

for ensuring that evaluation procedures have the following characteristics:

1.) Clear and unambiguous intent and language.

2.) Establish reasonable standards.

3.) Apply in a consistent and unifonn manner to all employees in the same class.

4.) Available to employees for review before they are applied.

5.) Reviewed and updated periodically.

6.) Referred to the Board for information purposes.

7.) Consistent with the applicable administrative compensation plan, individual

contract, collective bargaining agreement or Board resolution. /d.

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

the results of the mid-year evaluation,

BY ATTORNEY FIELDS Q . Okay, Prior to Mr. Medina being reprimanded in the

reprimand letter, suspended for a period of time, he did not

receive a formal evaluation for this year; isn't that correct?

WITNESS A. He did not have an end-of-the-year evaluation, that's

correct.

Q. Okay. The Policy 313 requires the evaluation of

employees, does it not?

A. And he did have a midyear evaluation.

Q. But he did not have a formal evaluation?

A. Sir, he did have a midyear formal evaluation.

Q . Okay.

A. He did not have an end-of-the year evaluation.

Q . So none of the allegations or none of the conduct that you

may have had a problem with as a Superintendent would

have occurred -strike that. Let me rephrase.

None of the allegations or concerns that you raised during

the first part of the hearing and this part of hearing would

have occurred prior to that evaluation, correct?

A. They-

a. They all occurred after that evaluation; is that fair to say?

(014!6154/1)12
ATTORNEY GALTMAN: Let her finish.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY ATTORNEY FIELDS:

Q. Was the evaluation satisfactory or unsatisfactory?

A. At that time it was satisfactory. pp. 171-172.

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

receiving a mid-year evaluation that was satisfactory and an increas~ in compensation

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

grounds for reversal by this Honorable Court.

C. The School Disb1ct's Removal of Medina From the Position of Business

Administrator Without A Written Adjudication VIolated the Local Agency Law.

Medina asserts that his removal as Business Administrator with a substantial

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

by removing and reassigning him to a position of lesser responsibility at a reduction In

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

regarding the adoption of an adjudication in a December 28, 2017, letter stating,

(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

requirements of a local agency in Pennsylvania. The School District's position is based

on the premise that a written adjudication is only required when action is taken with

respect to certificated employees. However, that position is inconsistent with the

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

district issues an "adjudication". An "adjudication" Is defined as,

Any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency

affecting personal or property rights, prlvllegea, immunities, duties,
liabllltlea or obligations of any or all of the parties to the·proceeding in which
the adjudication is made. The term does not include any order based upon a
proceeding before a court or which involves the seizure or forfeiture of property,
paroles, pardons or releases from mental institutions. 2 Pa.C.S.A. § 101
(emphasis added).

When an agency's decision or refusal to act leaves a complainant with no other

forum in which to assert his or her rights, privileges or immunities, the agency's act is an

adjudication. Wortman v. Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, 139

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

personally, or by mail." 2 Pa.C.S.A. §555. When the adjudication of a local agency by a

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.

Hoffman, 489 A.2d .998, 88 Pa. Cmwlth. 462 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1985).

The School District's removal from the Business Administrator position to a

Program Grants Administrator at a substantial reduction in salary is an adjudication as a

matter of law under the Local Agency Law. The School District's action to remove

Medina as Business Administrator resulted in Medina's loss of a position that was

statutorily recognized by the Legislature for individually specific job protection.

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

requires a reversal by this Honorable Court.

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

specific compensation of an individual is subject to such a requirement. Specifically,

Section 508 of the School Code states,

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:--

... Fixing salaries or compensation of officers, teachers, or other

appointees of the board of school directors.

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

salary increase rendered it unenforceable reasoning,

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

salary from $121,890.00 to $60,000.00. Subsequent to his reassignment, Medina's

counsel requested information regarding documentation verifying the School Board's

action to reduce Medina's salary in a December 5, 2017 email to the Solicitor. (Exhibit

H). On December 28, 2017, Solicitor replied to Medina's counsel stating,

. . . Your letter of December 5 expresses a concem that, contrary to Section 508

of the School Code, the Board did not "take specific action• with regard to setting
Mr. Medina's compensation. However, please note that the Resolution does call
for his salary to be reduced to the salary of Program Grants Administrator. It is
my understanding that Mr. Medina was reassigned into the vacant Program ·
Grants Administrator position. The Program Grants Administrator is an Act 93
position compensated at Salary Index 10 In accordance with the Act 93 .Salary
Schedule (attached) previously set by the Board and adopted by it at its regular
public meeting on June 19, 2017 ... (Administration Exhibit- 6)

The attachment to the Solicitor's December 28, 20171etter is a salary schedule

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

Network/Acctg. Specialists/Supervisors and a corresponding salary that includes a

minimum salary of $51,750.00, a median salary of $55,631.25 and a maximum salary of

$59,512.50. (Administration Exhibit- 5). The position of Program Grants Administrator is

not specifically referenced anywhere in the salary scale provided by the Solicitor.

The documentation provided by the Solicitor to support the School District's

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

who meet the definition of a school administrator. Section 1164 states:

An administrator compensation plan adopted pursuant to this section shall

include, but not be limited to, the following Items:

(1) A description of the program determining administrative salaries.

a
(2) Salary amounts or salary schedule.
(3) A listing of fringe benefits. 24 P.S. §11-1164(e).

In addition to the conspicuous absence of any mention of the position of

"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.

V. Concise Statement of Relief Requested

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

statement of charges. Finally, because Medina's compensation was reduced without a

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,

CGA Law Firm, P.C.

Dated: May 17, 2018 By: s_ A.~

Sean A. Fields, Esquire
Supreme Court ID No. 85141
135 North George Street
York, PA 17401
(717) 718-7120
sfields@cgalaw.com

{0145615411119
KENNETH MEDINA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Petitioner DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

vs. NO. 2018 CV 216-MD

HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT, CIVIL ACTION LAW

Respondent

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-

confidential information and documents.

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

va. NO. 2018 CV 216-MD

HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT, CIVIL ACTION LAW

Respondent

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

Decision of Harrisburg School District to Remove Petition as Business Administrator

was served via first class n:-ail, postage.prepaid upon the following:

Richard B. Galtman, Esquire Samuel T. Cooper, Ill, Esquire

Michael!. Levin, Esquire Dilworth Paxson
Levin Legal Group, P.C. 2 North Second Street, Suite 1101
1301 Masons Mill Business Park Harrisburg, PA 17101
1800 Byberry Road
Huntington Valley, PA 19006

The Honorable John F. Cherry, Judge

Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas
Dauphin County Court House
101 Market Street, 4th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101

Submitted by:

\· n \.t~ fl n
\ _b~·.. .x.--.-A\ l~ "oUh
Cheryl L. Bradle1, J'aralegal to ~
Sean·A. Fields, Esquire U
{01470955/1)