Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County in case of Karen Kudasik v. Board of Directors, Port Allegany School District, No. 37 February Term, 1977.
Shelley W. Elovitz, for appellant.
Edward N. Stoner, II, with him Thomas P. Lawton, III, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three.
[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 255]
In Kudasik v. Port Allegany School District, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 208, 350 A.2d 887 (1976), we held that Karen Kudasik, a temporary professional school employee, was entitled to a hearing prior to the termination of her services as a consequence of her being rated unsatisfactory by the school district's
[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 256]
superintendent. We expressly stated in our opinion the following:
Following such a hearing, the School Board is required by Section 6 of the Local Agency Law, 53 P.S. § 11306, to render a written adjudication which shall contain findings and the reasons for the adjudication and which shall be served upon all parties or their counsel personally, or by mail.
23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 211, 350 A.2d at 889.
The Board of School Directors of the School District of Port Allegany (Board), upon remand of the case, did afford Karen Kudasik a hearing and thereafter took the following action, as reported in the minutes of the Board's special meeting of November 11, 1976:
A motion was made by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Jestes as follows:
RESOLVED, that upon consideration of the unsatisfactory rating of Karen Kudasik's performance while employed as a temporary professional employee of this School District, upon consideration of the observations of Karen Kudasik's performance by Dr. Skelton and Mr. Ungerer, which were the basis for that unsatisfactory rating, and upon consideration of all the testimony given by all persons at the hearing held in this matter on June 4, 1976, THAT Karen Kudasik be terminated as a temporary professional employee of the Port Allegany School District.
Mr. Stoner [legal counsel] explained the motion and what a Yes and a No vote represented and inquired if all of the members of
[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 257]
the Board had a clear understanding of the meaning of a Yes and a No vote.
Upon roll call, the vote on the motion was as follows: