19 Pa. Commw. 479 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1975
Opinion by
On February 14,1975, respondent, Howard S. Shapiro, a Philadelphia newspaper reporter, was informed by certain of the parties in attendance, that his presence was unwelcome at a meeting about to be convened or then being held at a Holiday Inn in Philadelphia. Being so advised, he voluntarily left. The purpose of this meeting
After having been apprised of Mr. Shapiro’s intentions, eleven of the persons who attended the meeting (petitioners), all of whom have identified themselves as members of the board of SEPTA and/or commissioners of one of the counties which comprise SEPTA,
Petitioners do not allege that jurisdiction lies with this Court under section 401 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970 (ACJA).
Section 9 of the “Sunshine Law” reads as follows:
“The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of actions involving State agencies and the courts of common pleas shall have original jurisdiction of actions involving other agencies. . . .”
Initially, we must determine whether petitioners, as individuals, may invoke the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to a statutory provision which is phrased only in terms of “agencies.” As previously recited, petitioners have identified themselves as either members of SEPTA’s board or as county commissioners or, in one instance, as both. SEPTA, as a distinct entity, is not a party to these proceedings.
While the main thrust of the “Sunshine Law” is directed towards agencies, the criminal violation section,
“(a) There is hereby authorized the creation of a separate body corporate and politic in each metropolitan area, to be known as the transportation authority of such area, extending to and including all of the territory in the metropolitan area. An authority shall in no way be deemed to be an instrumentality of any city or county or other municipality or engaged in the performance of a municipal function, but shall exercise the public powers of the Commonwealth as an agency and instrumentality thereof.”8
Despite this delegation of the sovereign’s powers, we held, in Kohn, supra, that SEPTA is not a State agency for purposes of our jurisdiction as defined by the ACJA. The language of the “Sunshine Law” offers no indication that the parameters of State agency jurisdiction have been extended by its enactment.
Further, the very rationales which have been cited in delimitating our jurisdiction under the “Right to Know Act,”
We enter the following
Order
Now, June 4, 1975, pursuant to section 503 (b) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, 17 P.S. §211.503 (b), in lieu of dismissing the above proceedings for want of jurisdiction of this Court, said proceedings are hereby transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
The Chief Clerk shall certify to the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County a photocopy of the docket entries of said proceedings and transmit to him the record thereof.
.. Montgomery, Bucks, Chester and Delaware Counties. SEPTÁ also includes Philadelphia County. However, none of the latter’s public officials are among the petitioners in’ this case.
. The parties herein have included, in addition to those previously mentioned, the Attorney General, who has participated pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 235.
. Act of July 31, 1970, P. L. 673, 17 P. S. §211.401.
. 18 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 546, 336 A.2d 904 (1975).
. Section 8.
. Of course, those four of the eleven petitioners who have not represented themselves to be members of SEPTA are without standing to litigate questions arising under the “Sunshine Law.”
. Act of August 14, 1963, P. L. 984, as amended, 66 P. S. §2001 et seq.
. 66 P. S. §2004(a).
. Act of June 21, 1957, P. L. 390, as amended, 65 P. S. §66.1 et seq. (Supp. 1974-1975).
. See Levine v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of New Castle, 17 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 382, 333 A.2d 190 (1975).