Facts of the Case

The Administrative Director of the Western Montgomery Center of Vocational and Technical Studies Center gave Lucille Seltzer an unsatisfactory rating. The unsatisfactory rating areas included, personality, preparation, and student reaction for the period of June 1994 to December 1994. Additionally, the Office of the Auditor General's Bureau of School Audits discovered discrepancies between student records maintained by the center and the records maintained by local schools. The auditor performed a more extensive investigation, which prompted the center to conduct its own investigation of the educator. Following the investigation, the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) filed a notice of charges against Seltzer with the Professional Standards and Practices Commission, alleging that her conduct was immoral, negligent, intemperate, and incompetent. The commission revoked Seltzer's teaching certification. Seltzer appealed and contended the decision was flawed because the complaint was never remanded to the school board for investigation as required by statute. She also contended that the hearing examiner denied her motion to dismiss without explanation or rationale, facts of the case were not specific and lacked credibility, the commission erred when it classified her as an administrator, her manufacturing of grades was a curriculum deficiency, and that the PDE was barred from filing the complaint because other parties had prior knowledge of her behavior.

Decision of the Court

On June 6, 2001, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the order of the Professional Standards and Practices Commission that had revoked Seltzer's teaching certification. The court concluded that the PDE error in not remanding its complaint against Seltzer was a harmless error. The court also decided that any procedural errors of the Hearing Officer were not so serious as to provide a reason to over turn the adjudication. The court also interpreted the meaning of the "one-year time limit", after the occurrence or discovery of alleged conduct, for the filing as a complaint against an educator as prescribed in the Teacher Certification Law. The court determined that an educator must affirmatively act to disclose the conduct to preclude the filing of a complaint under the discovery exception to the one-year time limit. The court found no evidence that Seltzer affirmatively disclosed her conduct. In fact, the court found that she denied manufacturing grades but later admitted to the act.

Basis

The court based its decision on the Teacher Certification Law, Act of December 12, 1973, P.L. 397, as amended, formerly 24 P.S. § 12-1255, renumbered 24 P. § 2070-5. This law was substantially amended by the Act of December 20, 2000, P.L. 918 (the Professional Educator Discipline Act"), but the new amendments were not applicable to this case. The court used 22 Pa. Code 237 to define the terms used in the complaint. Gow v. Department of Education. 763 A. 2d 528 (Pa. Commwlth..2000) was used as a precedent.

Prepared by Ronald Miller, July 18 2002