73 Pa. Commw. 393 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1983
Opinion by
The Allegheny County Common Pleas Court granted fhe Borough of WilMnshurg’s (Borough) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Guthrie and others
The Borough Council of Wilkinsburg, in conjunction with the Mayor and the Community Advocate Unit,
The .sole legal issue here is whether a letter of reprimand is an adjudication under Section 101 of the Local Agency Law.
Any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of any or all of the parties to the proceeding in .which the adjudication is made.
The situations in which those various rights would be affected are enumerated in the Borough Code,
In this case, Guthrie was neither suspended, removed nor reduced in rank; therefore, a letter of reprimand is not an adjudication for ;the purposes of the protections provided in the Local Agency Law.
Affirmed.
Order
The Allegheny Common Pleas Court order, No. SA 71 of 1980 dated April 26,1980, is hereby (affirmed.
The various police officers involved are: Keith Guthrie, Robert Garvin, Henry Riebold, Terrence Lockard, Robert K. Thomas, John Shook, Barry Almy and W. Gregory Ferrell.
The Community Advocate Unit is a division of the Pennsylvania Department of Justice. Michael O. Louik represented the Unit at the inquiry. -
From November, 1978, until June, 1979, Michael Louik, along with members of the Wilkinsburg Borough Council, conducted thirteen meetings, at which approximately forty individuals presented testimony. The police officers who are appellants in this action were among the individuals who were subpoenaed and compelled to give testimony during this time perod. It is conceded that these officers were not afforded the 'benefits guaranteed to them under the Local Agency Law, in that they were noit permitted to confront or cross-examine their accusers, and they never received proper written notice of charges nor a proper hearing as required. The Local Agency Law, of course, did not apply in this case.
2 Pa. C. S. §§101-754.
2 Pa. C. S. §101.
The Borough Code, Act of February 1, 1966, P.L. (1985) 1656, as amended, 53 P.S. §§45101-48501.
53 P.S. §46190.
53 P.S. §46191.