Save Our Saltsburg Sch. v. River Valley Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 07 November 2022
• Docket Number: 1140 C.D. 2021
• Citation: 285 A.3d 692
• Parties: SAVE OUR SALTSBURG SCHOOLS, Appellant v. RIVER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Rick Harper, individually, and in his capacity as an elected member of Defendant District's board, Anthony Canzano, individually, and in his capacity, as an elected member of Defendant District’s board, Molly Stiles, individually, and in her capacity as an elected member of Defendant District’s board, Connie Constantino, individually, and in her capacity as an elected member of Defendant District's board, Holly Gibson, individually, and in her capacity as an elected member of Defendant District's board, Mary Whitefield, individually, and in her capacity as an elected member of Defendant District's board
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

285 A.3d 692

SAVE OUR SALTSBURG SCHOOLS, Appellant

v.RIVER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Rick Harper, individually, and in his capacity as an elected member of Defendant District's board, Anthony Canzano, individually, and in his capacity, as an elected member of Defendant District’s board, Molly Stiles, individually, and in her capacity as an elected member of Defendant District’s board, Connie Constantino, individually, and in her capacity as an elected member of Defendant District's board, Holly Gibson, individually, and in her capacity as an elected member of Defendant District's board, Mary Whitefield, individually, and in her capacity as an elected member of Defendant District's board

No. 1140 C.D. 2021

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued October 11, 2022

Decided November 7, 2022

Joel S. Sansone, Pittsburgh, for Appellant.

Ned J. Nakles, Jr., Latrobe, and Matthew M. Hoffman, Pittsburgh, for Appellees.

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge, HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge, HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON

Save Our Saltsburg Schools (SOSS) appeals from the September 29, 2021 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County (trial court). The trial court sustained preliminary objections filed by the River Valley School District (District) and six members of the School Board (Board Members) (together, Appellees). The effect of the trial court's order was to uphold Appellees’ decision to close Saltsburg Middle-High School (Saltsburg High) and consolidate its students into Blairsville Middle-High School (Blairsville High). Upon review, we affirm.

I. Procedural & Factual Background

SOSS is a group representing Saltsburg area students, parents, community members, and business owners. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 40a. SOSS filed an initial complaint against the District on June 7, 2021. R.R. at 19a.¹ The District filed preliminary objections on June 29, 2021, and SOSS filed a second amended complaint (Complaint) on August 9, 2021, adding the Board Members as defendants. R.R. at 18a & 26a. The following facts are taken from the Complaint.

Until 2021, the District had two middle-high schools, Saltsburg High and Blairsville High. R.R. at 42a. The District's mission statement declares that the District "has an obligation to ensure that all [District] students will have equal access to a high-quality education[.]" Id . In February 2020, the Board Members voted to schedule a public hearing to discuss closing Saltsburg High. Id . at 43a. Such hearings are required by Section 780 of the Public School Code of 1949 (Public School Code).² 24 P.S. § 7-780.

The Complaint alleges that the Board Members never considered the alternative of keeping Saltsburg High open and closing Blairsville High, which is an older building; that before the Section 780 hearing, some Board Members made public statements about the proposed closure based on what SOSS characterizes as faulty information; that SOSS asked the Board Members to provide more information but the Board Members declined to do so; that Board Members repeatedly indicated publicly before the hearing that the closure was moving forward; and that the Board Members "did not care" about the impact of the closure on Saltsburg High's students. R.R. at 43a-44a.

The Section 780 hearing was held virtually, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, on January 13-14, 2021. R.R. at 44a. The Complaint states that the hearing should have been an occasion for community input before a decision was made, but instead began with a statement by the District's superintendent that the District planned to close Saltsburg High, convert it into a charter school for younger students, and consolidate its students into Blairsville High. Id . Saltsburg students, alumni, parents, business owners, and community members voiced opposition to the plan, including the projected impact of lengthier commutes to Blairsville High on Saltsburg area students’ educational and extracurricular experiences. Id . at 45a.

On April 9, 2021, SOSS provided the District with a report setting forth similar and additional concerns. R.R. at 45a. Nonetheless, on April 22, 2021, the Board Members voted to close Saltsburg High and proceed with the consolidation at the end of the 2020-21 school year.³ Id . The Complaint states that in July 2021, the District superintendent stated on a local radio show that the District was commissioning a study and report on developing a new athletic facility. Id . at 46a.

The Complaint alleges that the Board Members improperly decided to close Saltsburg High before the Section 780 hearing and without public commentary or oppositional information. R.R. at 45a-46a. The Complaint adds that plans for a new athletic facility were not discussed or voted on publicly by the Board, but that those plans, rather than the best interests of students, formed the true motivation for closing Saltsburg High. Id . at 47a. As such, SOSS believes its procedural due process rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution were violated and that the Board Members breached a fiduciary duty to SOSS and the Saltsburg community. Id . at 47a-49a. The Complaint requests a jury trial and seeks money damages and injunctive and/or declaratory relief. Id . at 49a.

After SOSS filed the Complaint, Appellees renewed their preliminary objections, asserting that the Complaint failed to establish a due process right to education at the school of one's choice, that no fiduciary duty existed between SOSS and the Board Members, and that the Board Members were immune from SOSS's suit under both the doctrine of high public official immunity and Pennsylvania's Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541 - 8564. Trial Ct. Op. at 6; R.R. at 31a. Argument was held before the trial court on September 15, 2021. R.R. at 18a. On September 29, 2021, the trial court issued its opinion and order sustaining Appellees’ preliminary objections, after which SOSS timely appealed to this Court. Id . at 18a & 26a-36a.

II. Discussion

In ruling on preliminary objections, this Court accepts as true all well-pleaded allegations of material fact, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible from those facts. Key v. Pa. Dep't of Corr. , 185 A.3d 421, 423 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). However, this Court need not accept unwarranted inferences, conclusions of law, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion. Id . For preliminary objections to be sustained, it must appear with certainty that the law will permit no recovery. Id . Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Id .

A. Procedural Due Process

Article I, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states that "[a]ll men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness." PA. CONST. art. I, § 1. A plaintiff's first hurdle in maintaining a procedural due process challenge is to establish the deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest.

Miller v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Pavex, Inc.) , 918 A.2d 809, 812 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Once a protected interest has been identified, "the basic elements of procedural due process are adequate notice, opportunity to be heard, and the chance to defend oneself before a fair and impartial tribunal having jurisdiction of the case." Lawson v. Pa. Dep't of Pub. Welfare , 744 A.2d 804, 806-07 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).

Article III, section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: "The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth." PA. CONST. art. III, § 14. The right to free public education has been held to include due process protection. Mullen v. Thompson , 155 F. Supp. 2d 448, 452 (W.D. Pa. 2001), aff'd , 31 F. App'x 77 (3d Cir. 2002) (unreported).⁴ However, "a state law that establishes purely procedural rules for the granting or denial of a benefit does not, standing alone, create a constitutionally recognized liberty or property interest in that benefit." Mullen , 155 F. Supp. 2d at 452.

Section 780 of the Public School Code states: "In the event of a permanent closing of a public school or substantially all of a school's facilities, the board of school directors shall hold a public hearing on the question not less than three (3) months prior to the decision of the board relating to the closing of the school." 24 P.S. § 7-780.

In Mullen , the plaintiffs were Pittsburgh public school students. 155 F. Supp. 2d at 450. The district's superintendent and board failed to properly advise the public or otherwise comply with Section 780 before voting to close the schools the plaintiffs were attending, which led the plaintiffs to sue in federal court alleging violations of both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Id . The federal district court concluded that Section 780 is procedural in nature and places no substantive limitations on school authorities’ discretion to close schools. Id . at 452 (citing Section 1311(a) of the Public School Code, 24 P.S. § 13-1311(a), which states that a school board "may, on account of the small number of pupils in attendance, or the condition of the then existing school building, or for the purpose of better graduation and classification, or for other reasons , close any one or more of the public schools in its district[.]") (emphasis added). This Court has explained that

Section 1311(a) ... gives broad discretionary power to school boards to close public schools within their districts. The decision to close a school, therefore, is within a board's discretion unless its action is fraudulent or arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, an equity court will grant relief only if it can be clearly shown that the board acted in such a manner. We

...