Appeal from the Order of the State Board of Private Academic Schools in case of State Board of Academic Schools v. George L. Koynok, No. 1 Academic Board 1976.
Charles F. Scarlata, with him Scarlata and DeRiso, for petitioners.
Patricia A. Donovan, Assistant Attorney General, with her Arlene J. Diosegy, Assistant Attorney General, Gerald Gornish, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Blatt and DiSalle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 35 Pa. Commw. Page 306]
Glenmore Academy (Glenmore) and George L. Koynok, its owner and director, appeal here from an order of the State Board of Private Academic Schools (Board) which refused to issue a new license to Glenmore for 1976-1977. It is a private academic school which has been in operation since 1958.
Glenmore was originally licensed to provide instruction for grades nursery through twelve and in addition to provide speech therapy and tutoring services. An Order to Show Cause why the Board should not revoke or suspend Glenmore's license was issued and a hearing was held thereon with testimony received as to alleged violations of the Private Academic Schools Act*fn1 (Act) and the Board's rules and regulations.*fn2 On
[ 35 Pa. Commw. Page 307]
December 3, 1976, the Board issued an Order that Glenmore not be given a license for the year 1976-1977, finding that Glenmore was in violation of numerous Board regulations and eight sections of two statutes relating to private academic schools.*fn3 Having considered Glenmore's petition for supersedeas, Judge Bowman of this Court granted supersedeas pending the outcome of this appeal. Glenmore contends that the Board's order was not based upon substantial evidence. It also alleges violations of due process.
Where there is a violation of or a failure to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or of the Board's regulations applicable to private academic schools, the Board may refuse to issue, suspend or revoke a license. See 24 P.S. §§ 2731-2760. The law is clear, however, that such an administrative proceeding is subject to the constitutional guarantees of due process, which we have held are afforded when:
(1) the 'accused' is informed with reasonable certainty of the nature of the accusation lodged against him, (2) he has timely notice and opportunity
[ 35 Pa. Commw. Page 308]
to answer these charges and to defend against attempted proof of such accusation, and (3) the proceedings are conducted in a fair ...