Facts of the Case

Robyn Burns and Tamara Mullane were suspended for ten days from the Wyalusing Valley High School following an investigation of an alleged incident involving the possession and/or consumption of alcohol on a school sponsored trip. Both of the students were members of the Junior-Senior High School girls' softball team. Principal Marty Weisgold interviewed both students who denied possessing or consuming alcohol on the trip. On May 19, 1995, Weisgold suspended both students in accordance with 12.6 of title 22 of the Pennsylvania Code. As a result, both students were removed from the team, held ineligible for certain sports awards, and denied attendance at school functions. In addition, Mullane, a senior, was not allowed to participate in her graduation ceremony.

Prior to the suspensions and in accordance with 22 Pa. Code Section 12.8 each student had an informal hearing before Principal Weisgold and Superintendent Warner Stark. On May 22, 1995, at the request of the students' parents, the students appeared before the board which convened for a special meeting. Though the school district presented no witnesses nor any evidence regarding the alleged possession/consumption of alcohol, the board upheld Weisgold's decision to suspend the students. The students filed their petition, for review of the board action, before the court of common pleaswhich dismissed it.

On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the students argue that the trial court erred in dismissing their petition. They felt that the board's decision to affirm the suspensions was an adjudication under Local Agency Law ( 2 Pa.C.S. Sect. 551-555, 751-754 ) and therefore must be supported by substantial by the district; the students asserted that the board's decision was improper under Local Agency Law.

Decision of the Court

On October 25, 1995, the court held that the board's decision to affirm the suspension was not an adjudication under the Local Agency Law. However, 22 Pa. Code Section 12.6 (b)(1)(i) provides that the decision to suspend a student for no more that 10 days is within the power of the principal. The principal's review procedures did not violate short term exclusion requirements of 22 Pa. Code Section 12.6 (b)(1)(iv).

Basis for the Decision

The students asserted that although the board was not required to grant them an additional hearing, by doing so and issuing a decision on the matter, the board brought the suspension within the gambit a Local Agency Law which would require substantial evidence ( 2 Pa.C.S. && 551-555, 751-754). Both the Superintendent and board president were on record stating that the meeting was not a formal hearing nor an informal hearing to present evidence or the like. It was also not an expulsion hearing. The board's decision to hold the meeting was purely voluntary and was simply a "gratuitous gesture" to the students and their parents. Its affirmation of the principal's decision had no legal consequence. The principal made his decision to suspend and was not in violation of the short term exclusion requirements of 22 Pa. Code Section 12.6 (b)(1)(iv).

Written by Bryan Noaker and C. Bailey, July, 1998