Stroudsburg Area School District, Petitioner, v. Bridget E. Kelly, D.Ed., Respondent

701 A.2d 1000 ( Pa. Cmwlth.1997). ( 2 cases)

Facts of the Case

Bridget E. Kelly was the principal of Stroudsburg Area High School until she was suspended with pay on 13 August 1996, pending the filing of termination charges. The school district subsequently served Ms Kelly with a notice of hearing, requesting her dismissal as a professional employee on the grounds of incompetence, intemperance, willful neglect of duties, persistent negligence, persistent and willful violations, and failure to comply with school laws, official directives and school policy.

Prior to the hearing, the School Board determined by a vote of five to three that it was biased and was unable to provide a fair and impartial hearing and petitioned the Secretary of Education to conduct the dismissal hearing. The Secretary of Education dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction to conduct an original hearing. The School District appealed.

In a subsequent meeting the School Board President refused to entertain a motion to reinstate Ms Kelly. As a result, Ms Kelly filed two court proceedings; the trial court due to lack of jurisdiction transferred one of which to the Secretary of Education.

The School District filed a motion to consolidate its appeals to the Secretary of Education requesting a de novo hearing.

The arguments were heard 6 October 1997

Decisions of the Court

On 30 October 1997, the Secretary in considering both Ms. Kelly's appeal transfer and the District's petition that he hear the dismissal proceedings, concluded in separate orders that he lacked jurisdiction under Section 1131 of the School Code. The Court held: (1) only after a School Board makes a record and renders a determination is the Secretary vested with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct a de novo review it does not permit him to conduct de novo hearing; (2) the School Board is required to carry out its statutorily or constitutionally mandated duties regardless of bias out of necessity. This Rule of Necessity, is a common law principle requiring the School Board to carry out its statutory duty to hear Ms. Kelly's case regardless of bias.

Basis for Decision

The Secretary of Education based his decisions on Section 1131 of School Code 24 P.S. Sections 11-1131. The Court also cited two cases on jurisdiction and three cases on the Rule of Necessity:

In Krupinski v. Vocational Technical School, Eastern Northampton County, No. 544, PA. 58, 674 A.2d 683 (1996) and Belasco v. Board of Public Education, No 510, PA. 504, 510 A.2d 337 (1986) it was decided that without jurisdiction, the Secretary cannot serve as an alternate forum to hear the dismissal charges.

In Sherman v Kaiser, 664 A.2d 221 (Pa. Commonwealth. 1995); Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, No. 507 PA. 204, 489 A.2d 1291 (1985) and recently in Siteman v. City of Allentown, 695 A.2d 888 (Pa. Commonwealth 1997), the Rule of Necessity was invoked, holding that "if all member of a tribunal are subject to recusal, the tribunal must consider the case despite the personal interest or bias of the members; otherwise the public and litigants would be denied a decision in the matter."

Just as in Siteman the Rule of Necessity requires the School Board to carry out its statutory duty and hear Ms. Kelly's case.

Written by Katrina Howard, July, 1998