PITTSBURGH – A school committee has lost its lawsuit seeking to prevent the closure of its town’s high school and consolidation with a nearby high school, which claimed that the latter community’s board of education began the closure and merger processes before seeking proper public input under the law.
Save Our Saltsburg Schools of Saltsburg first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 6 versus Blairsville-Saltsburg School District, of Blairsville.
“Defendant District is comprised of two elementary schools and two middle high schools. Defendant District’s middle high schools are Saltsburg Middle High School, serving students residing in Saltsburg, Pennsylvania, with offices located at 84 Trojan Lane, Saltsburg, Pennsylvania 15681, and Blairsville Middle High School, serving students residing in Blairsville, Pennsylvania, with offices located at 100 School Lane, Blairsville, Pennsylvania 15717. Defendant District has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of its students,” the suit said.
“On or about Feb. 24, 2020, Defendant District’s school board voted to schedule a public hearing, pursuant to 24 Pa. C.S. Section 7-780, to discuss possible closures and/or consolidations within its district, specifically, to consolidate BMHS and SMHS and to permanently close SMHS. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that defendant District’s board never considered or proposed a consolidation plan which would result in the permanent closure of BMHS, even though SMHS was only recently built. There was, and is, no rational basis for this difference in treatment between SMHS and BMHS.”
According to the complaint, members of the defendant District’s board stated they would move forward with the proposed consolidation and closure, in advance of a statutorily-mandated public hearing soliciting input from the affected communities.
During a public hearing held in January, the suit said students, alumni, parents, teachers, business owners and other community members voiced major opposition to the potential consolidation of SMHS and BMHS, and the proposed closure of SMHS.
Their concerns included, but were not limited to, the fact that “Saltsburg students would be subjected to long bus rides which would endanger their safety, decrease their accessibility to extracurricular activities, and limit their ability to obtain a quality education once they finally arrived at the Blairsville campus.”
“On or about April 9, 2021, plaintiff provided defendant District’s board with an expert report echoing the concerns of the community at large. This report concluded that consolidation was not in the best interest of the District or its students for various reasons, including, but not limited to, the following: Consolidation would likely increase cyber-schooling, leading to learning loss; consolidation would increase student bussing time, affecting academic performance; consolidation would reduce Saltsburg and Blairsville students’ overall participation in extracurricular actives, especially athletics; consolidation would result in the loss of parallel teaching positions that could benefit students; and consolidation would likely reduce parent involvement in the education of students and defendant District, generally,” the suit stated.
“On April 22, 2021, defendant District’s board voted to consolidate BMHS and SMHS and to permanently close SMHS.”
The plaintiff argued that the District’s board made the decision to consolidate BMHS and SMHS and to permanently close SMHS prior to the public hearing and before the District’s board gathered any public input or necessary information and/or data regarding the effects of consolidation – constituting a violation of due process.
“Furthermore, the consolidation and permanent closure of SMHS has deprived plaintiff, through its members who are Saltsburg students, of an equal and adequate public education. Blairsville students will not be subjected to the same conditions, as described above, which will ultimately negatively impact Saltsburg students’ access to education and ability to learn. There was, and is, no rational basis for this difference in treatment between Blairsville students and Saltsburg students,” per the suit.
“Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that defendant District’s board intentionally failed to act in good faith and solely for the best interests of its students when it voted to consolidate BMHS and SMHS and permanently close SMHS. The decision of defendant District’s board constituted a breach of its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, through its members who are Saltsburg students.”
The District filed a motion to dismiss the suit on May 19, arguing that the plaintiff’s federal and state law clams are unsupported and should lead to the case being thrown out.
Regarding the state law claims, the defense argues that the Pennsylvania Constitution “does not establish a right for students to receive an education at the school of their choice.”
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV ruled on June 1 that the plaintiff’s case was dismissed in its entirety.
“There is, likewise, no question that decisions regarding public education are largely left to the broad discretion of local school officials and are predominantly guided by state law. Only in rare circumstances will federal questions, much less constitutional considerations, be involved,” Stickman said.
“Here, SOSS attempts to inject claims under the United States Constitution into what is, quintessentially, a matter of state law and local discretion. Their assertion of violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is without merit and cannot stand.”
Stickman elaborated on the equal protection claim not being proven, in his view.
“SOSS failed to plead a plausible equal protection “class of one” claim. It neither asserts that SMHS students are being treated differently than any similarly situated class – including BMHS students, nor has it pled enough to overcome the presumption of rationality afforded to the School District,” Stickman stated.
“There is nothing in the complaint that plausibly asserts that SMHS students are being treated differently than students of BMHS or anyone else. Rather, they will attend the same school as those students currently attending BMHS. There is no allegation that the students of the two existing schools will be treated any differently in the merged school, that they will have different academic or athletic opportunities, different teachers or different facilities within the existing physical plant.”
Stickman explained that students “who have a longer and less convenient commute” does not equal a constitutional violation.
While the federal constitutional claims were dismissed with prejudice, the violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution and breach of fiduciary duty claims were dismissed without prejudice, to give the plaintiffs the ability to refile them in state court.
The plaintiff was represented by Joel S. Sansone and Elizabeth Tuttle of the Law Offices of Joel Sansone, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant was represented by Matthew M. Hoffman of Tucker Arensberg in Pittsburgh, plus Ned J. Nakles Jr. and Ryan P. Cribbs of Nakles & Nakles, in Latrobe.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00601
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com