Facts of the Case

Lincoln Charter School requested that the School District of the City of York renew its charter, granted in 2000, for an additional five-year period. At the renewal hearing, the school district discovered that some of the Lincoln Board members had failed to file their Ethics Act statements for the years 2001 and 2002, and had filed untimely and incomplete Ethics Act statements for the year 2003, which was in violation of Section 1729-A(a)(5) of the Charter School Law. For this and other reasons, the school district denied the request.

Lincoln appealed the district’s denial to the State Charter School Appeal Board (CAB), which reversed, noting that although members of the Lincoln Board violated Section 1729-A(a)(5) of the Charter School Law, it was not enough to deny Lincoln’s charter renewal application.

The School District appealed the reversal, stating that the CAB abused its discretion by not revoking Lincoln’s charter once it was discovered that members of the Lincoln Board failed to file their Ethics Act statements.

Decision of the Court

Due to the fact that Lincoln was only in violation of the Ethics Act, the CAB found that that was insufficient reason not to renew Lincoln’s charter. The CAB’s reversal of the district’s decision not to renew Lincoln’s charter was affirmed by the Commonwealth Court, which found that the CAB did not abuse its discretion because it has the authority to substitute its findings and judgment for those of the school board.

Basis for the Decision

The court disagreed with the School District of the City of York in the following areas:

1) Nothing requires the CAB to follow the district’s determination to revoke Lincoln’s charter, even if the failure of its board members to file the Ethics Act statements can be attributed to Lincoln. In this case, the district decided to apply its discretion and revoke the charter; however that decision is not binding on the CAB.

2) In West Chester Area School District v. Collegium Charter School, 760 A. 2d 452, 460-461 (Pa. Cmwlth, 2000), it is specifically stated that the General Assembly “unquestionably granted the CAB the authority to substitute its own findings and independent judgment for that of the local school board.” The CAB had the “independent judgment” to determine if the violation of law was serious enough to cause the non-renewal of Lincoln’s charter.

3) The CAB’s reason for not following the district’s determination not to renew and grant the charter was not an abuse of discretion.

Prepared by Jessica L. Spaide, Summer 2006