Knight v. ELIZABETH FORWARD SCHOOL DIST.
| Decision Date | 18 December 2000 |
| Citation | 764 A.2d 108 |
| Parties | James W. KNIGHT v. ELIZABETH FORWARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Gregory Gleason, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Arnold V. Plum, McKeesport, for appellee.
BEFORE: DOYLE, President Judge, COLINS, Judge, and McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge.
The Elizabeth Forward School District (District) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County awarding James W. Knight $7,200 in damages and ordering the School District to pay Knight's ongoing expenses for the rental of office space as the tax collector for Elizabeth Township. Under the following rationale, we affirm.
Knight was first elected to the Office of Treasurer of Elizabeth Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, in 1970. Having been re-elected in the municipal election of November 1997, he is currently serving his eighth consecutive term. This term commenced on January 1, 1998, and continues until December 31, 2001. In the course of his duties as Treasurer of Elizabeth Township, Knight also serves as the Tax Collector for the Elizabeth Forward School District. As such he is responsible for collecting taxes levied against the owners of real property within the Township. As Treasurer/Tax Collector, Knight receives an annual salary of $12,294, from the District, from which he must pay any employees he chooses to hire.
Commencing in the year 1974, and continuing for twenty-three years until June 6, 1997, the District provided Knight with a rent-free office, located in the Mount Vernon elementary school building, for the purpose of performing his duties associated with the collection of school taxes. The District also provided utilities, use of the school's photocopy machine and use of rest room facilities. In April 1997, Knight received a letter from the principal of the Mount Vernon School informing him that his use of the office space would be discontinued, as it was scheduled for conversion into part of the principal's new office. He was directed to remove himself, his furniture and his equipment from the building by June 6, 1997. The District offered Knight no other office.
Knight relocated his school tax collection office off of school premises, executing a lease for office space located at 1711 Boston Hollow Road in the Village of Boston, Elizabeth Township, Pennsylvania. The lease was executed at the rate of $400 per month and was in effect from June 1, 1997 until December 31, 1997, the remainder of the term to which he had been elected in 1993. The total rental liability incurred by Knight for this period was $2,733. He also entered into a subsequent lease for the same property, and at the same rate, for the duration of his subsequent term as Treasurer beginning January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2001. The total rental liability for the term of the second lease was $19,200.
Knight filed a complaint against the District seeking to recover relocation expenses, as well as rental expenses from January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2001.1 He alleged that the manner in which the District withdrew rent-free office space constituted a violation of Section 36.1 of the Local Tax Collection Law (Law).2 Section 36.1 of the Law provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
When any taxing district or taxing authorities propose to either raise or reduce the compensation or salary for the office of an elected tax collector, such action shall be by ordinance or resolution, finally passed or adopted prior to the fifteenth day of February of the year of the municipal election.
72 P.S. § 5511.36a. In conjunction with Section 36.1, Section 34 of the Law provides in pertinent part:
The District stipulated that it had discontinued Knight's use of the space without first adopting a formal resolution on or before the prescribed date, as set forth in Section 36.1. However, it affirmatively alleged that because "office space" is not included within the definition of "compensation" found in Section 34 of the Law, the District was under no obligation to adopt any such resolution.
Under the rules of procedure providing for compulsory judicial arbitration, Section 7361 of the Judicial Code (Code), 42 Pa. C.S. § 7361, the arbitrators returned a decision in favor of Knight in the amount of $7,200. In addition, the District was ordered to pay Knight's monthly rental for the tax collection office for the period beginning January 1, 1998 and continuing until December 31, 2001, or until such time as Knight ceases to act as tax collector, if before the end of his current term.
The District appealed this decision to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas raising as the sole issue whether "office space" falls within the meaning of "compensation" as set forth in the Law. After a trial de novo, Common Pleas, relying heavily on Brocious v. Sandy Township, 27 Pa. D. & C.3d 744 (1983), concluded that failure to formally adopt a resolution setting forth intended changes in the benefits provided to the office of tax collector, prior to the fifteenth day of February in the year of the municipal election, did indirectly reduce the compensation received by Knight, and thereby violated the provisions of Section 36.1 of the Act. The instant appeal followed.3
The District asserts that the cost of "office space" is not included within the definition of the term "compensation" found in Section 36.1 of the Law, and that under Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a), this Court is prohibited from disregarding the plain language of a statute in an attempt to discern or engraft some other meaning. Absent explicit enumeration of "office space" as a component of compensation, the District maintains that there is no statutory duty that binds the District to notify Knight before taking his office space for its own use.
When construing a statute, we must seek to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent underlying the enactment of the statute. Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa. C.S. § 1921(a). Ordinarily, construction of a statute to determine legislative intent is necessary only where it will bear two or more meanings. Where the statute is unclear or susceptible to differing interpretations, the courts must look to the necessity of the act, the object to be obtained, the circumstances under which it was enacted, and any legislative or administrative interpretations thereof. Fonner v. Shandon, Inc., 555 Pa. 370, 724 A.2d 903 (1999). The District correctly maintains that where the language of a statute is unambiguous on its face, we are bound to give effect to that language. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). However, where we, as a court, have interpreted the language used in a statute, subsequent use of that language in enactments of the General Assembly, require the same interpretation. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(4).
Common Pleas adopted the reasoning found in Brocious v. Sandy Township. In Brocious, a tax collector serving consecutive terms in office brought an action against Sandy Township seeking reinstatement of certain established fringe benefits, including rent-free office space provided to him during his previous terms as tax collector. As in the instant matter, the township discontinued the benefits after the commencement of the tax collector's term. Although the Brocious court concluded that fringe benefits are not compensation,4 the court then went on to hold that the discontinuance of these benefits indirectly reduced the tax collector's compensation by shifting the burden of these expenses directly onto the tax collector. The court further concluded that, by shifting this burden after the 15th day of February in the year of the municipal election, the township acted in violation of Section 36.1 of the Law, 72 P.S. § 5511.36a, which is designed to provide timely notice to all candidates who might seek election to the position of tax collector of any intended changes in the compensation which they would receive. The Brocious court further stated that, in its construction of Section 36.1, 72 P.S. § 5511.36a, the General Assembly also sought to prevent tax collectors from having the amount of their compensation reduced as the result of political reprisals. Therefore, that court reasoned that when any taxing authority wishes to reduce the amount of compensation of a tax collector by shifting any expenses incurred in the necessary function of a tax collection office directly onto the tax collector himself, it must first adopt a resolution, setting forth the nature and date of any such changes, prior to the 15th day of February of the year in which the election...
To continue reading
Request your trial