Pocono Mountain Charter School, Inc. v. Pocono Mountain School District
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 123
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Charter School leased space from Shawnee Tabernacle Church, and Bloom served simultaneously as Charter School CEO and Church Senior Pastor, creating overlapping interests.
- District renewed the Charter School’s charter in 2006 with 65 conditions and knew of the entanglement but did not challenge it then.
- Lease terms with the Church included high rents, unarm’s-length transactions, substantial improvements funded by the Charter School, and a sign/display arrangement showing Church and Charter School marks.
- Bloom and his family received various benefits from the Charter School and Church, including salaries to Bloom’s wife and bonuses to Bloom’s family members, with questions about Board approval.
- Auditor General’s Final Audit (Feb. 2012) concluded possible entanglements and related-party transactions and noted lack of a police memorandum of understanding; CAB later admitted this evidence after reopening the record.
- CAB initially voted to sustain the Charter School’s appeal (Sept. 2011) but later, after reopening and considering supplemental evidence, issued a written decision revoking the charter (July 2013); this sequence led to judicial review and a remand order for a proper record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there due process deficiency in the May 2008 revocation notice? | Charter School contends insufficient notice and vagueness hindered defense. | District argues notice complied with CSL and allowed full defense. | No due process violation; notice adequate and defenses fully litigated. |
| Did CAB-1 have final, appealable authority absent a written decision? | CAB-1’s Sept. 2011 reversal lacked a written adjudication, thus not final. | CAB may reverse prior position; final action requires written order under CSL. | CAB-1 did not constitute final, appealable action; remand proper. |
| Was the reopening of the record and admission of the Final Audit proper under CSL/GRAPP? | CAB-2’s reopening and admission of the Final Audit were within CAB’s discretion. | Supplemental evidence did not meet “previously unavailable” or GRAPP criteria and was improper. | CAB abused discretion; Final Audit improperly admitted and not previously unavailable. |
| Should the revocation decision rely on Supplemental Evidence for substantial-evidence review? | Some findings could be supported by pre-record evidence; supplemental material should not dictate review. | Supplemental evidence informed the CAB’s final determination. | Remand required to evaluate only properly admitted record evidence from the Board’s proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keystone Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Sugar Valley Concerned Citizens, 799 A.2d 209 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (written order required to finalize CAB actions; finality hinges on statutory prerequisites)
- Shenango Valley Reg’l Charter Sch. v. Hermitage Sch. Dist. & Sharon City Sch. Dist., 756 A.2d 1191 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000) (61-issue framework for due process and agency decision requirements)
- Energy Pipeline Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 541 Pa. 252 (1995) (finality of agency votes varies with statutory framework; review of final action context)