Keystone Central School District v. Sugar Valley Concerned Citizens

No. 3192 C.D. 1999 (Pa. Comwlth., 2002)

Facts of the Case

Keystone Central School District (Keystone) petitioned the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to review the November 22, 1999 order of the State Charter School Appeal Board (CAB), which had reversed the decision of the Keystone Central School Board that had denied the resubmitted application of the Sugar Valley Concerned Citizens (SVCC) for a charter school.

On August 18, 1999, the CAB had a 3-3 vote, categorized this tie as "no action" and tabled the matter for further consideration. On August 27, 1999 a revote produced a 4-1 vote to reverse the ruling of Keystone, which had denied the resubmitted SVCC application. Keystone alleged that the CAB had erred by categorizing the tie vote as "no action."

Keystone also argued that the CAB erred by failing to dismiss the SVCC's appeal as premature, since the CAB acknowledged receipt of CVCC's petition to appeal before July, 1, 1999 and prior to the formation of the CAB. Keystone claimed this action was in violation of the Charter School Law (CSL).

Keystone further argued that before the CAB existed formally, Keystone and SVCC should have proceeded without an appeal to the CAB. SVCC should have either appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County or submitted a revised application to the Keystone Central School Board. Finally, Keystone argued that the CAB should affirm the school board's decision unless this decision was not supported by substantial evidence or the school board abused its discretion and that the CAB erred when it conducted an independent review of the findings of the school.

Decision of the Court

The court affirmed the order of the CAB which reversed the denial of SVCC's charter application by the school board.

Basis of the Decision

The court analyzed the voting provision in the Charter School Law, which stated that The CAB must have a majority of its members to act/decide any issue properly. The court concluded that "nothing in the CSL precludes the CAB from tabling a matter for further consideration for any reason."

The court also used West Chester Area School District v. Collegium Charter School, 760 A.2d 452 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000), petition for allowance of appeal granted, 566 Pa. 674, 782 A2d. 552 (2001), in which the CAB did not formally review the appeal until July 1, 1999, and did not offend the spirit of the CSL, 24. P.S. section 17-17-A.

Based upon the language of the CSL section 1717-A (i)(6), the court concluded that the CAB did not err in conducting a new review of the school board's decision. The court stated: "the CAB's findings were supported by substantial evidence." There were 23 findings of fact with articulated reasons on why it disagreed with the school board's decision.

Prepared by Gloria Schwab on June 20, 2002.