17 Pa. Commw. 136 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1975
Opinion by
On June 9, 1971, a number of plaintiffs, as individuals, parents and guardians of school aged children, and as class representatives of those similarly situated, filed a civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs alleged the violation of constitutional rights resulting from the adoption of a school district reorganization plan which merged the school districts of Rankin, Braddock and North Braddock and formed a new school district named the General Braddock School District. It was alleged that.this plan and resulting new school district maximized segregation and inequality.
Following a trial, District Court Judge Gerald J. Weber found that the creation of the General Braddock School District violated the constitutional rights of the named and class plaintiffs. On May 15, 1973, Judge Weber signed an order directing the State Board to prepare and submit to the District Court a comprehensive plan of school desegregation for the central eastern area of Allegheny County to remedy the constitutional violations which he had found to exist.
A portion of this May 15, 1973 order directed the State Board to prepare a plan in accord with the following guideline: “[T]he plan shall alter the boundary lines of the General Braddock Area School District and, as appropriate, of adjacent and/or near-by school districts.”
On October 14, 1973, the State Board submitted a plan of school desegregation to the District Court in compliance with its order of May 15, 1973.
The State Board’s motions to quash are based on the contention that the reorganization plan of school desegregation submitted to the District Court, in compliance with that Court’s May 15, 1973 order, is not appeal-able since it was not an adjudication or final order and was merely a recommendation based upon a proceeding before a court. We agree with this contention.
Here the plan submitted by the State Board was (1) only a recommendation to the District Court, (2) not a final determination by the State Board since the power to decide and order was, if it did exist, in the District Court, and (3) only formulated and presented “based upon a proceeding before a court”; namely, the court order of May 15, 1973. It was not an appealable action. See LaCamera v. Board of Probation and Parole, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 85, 317 A 2d 925 (1974); Sunbeam Coal Corporation v. Department of Environmental Resources, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 622, 304 A. 2d 169 (1973); McKinley v. State Board of Funeral Directors, 5 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 42, 288 A. 2d 840 (1972); Fricchione v. Department of Education, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 288, 287 A. 2d 442 (1972); Manheim Township School District v. State Board of Education, 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 627, 276 A. 2d 561 (1971).
We sense from oral argument that the appealing school districts do not disagree with this analysis but harbor an understandable concern that the State Board, contrary to its contention here, will subsequently en
The State Board concedes in its brief filed here that it is powerless and without statutory or any other legal authorization to order school district reorganization within this Commonwealth. The State Board admits that its only justification for holding hearings and formulating a school district reorganization plan is the May 15, 1973 order of the District Court.
Although the correctness of the State Board’s concession is not before us and our expression of opinion thereon would be nothing more than obiter dictum, we
Accordingly, the State Board’s plan submitted to the District Court on October 14, 1973 was not an adjudication, final order, or any decision from which the school districts here could appeal to this Court.
For the foregoing reasons, we enter the following
Order
Now, this 20th day of January, 1975, the motions of the State Board of Education to quash the above-captioned appeals are hereby granted. The appeals are quashed.
. The case was docketed as Hoots, et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., Civil Action No. 71-538.
. We refrain from expressing any opinion as to whether or not the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has authority to order reorganization of school districts by altering boundary lines of school districts, some of which
. The State Board set July 1, 1974 as the date upon which its plan, if adopted by the District Court, would become operative.