Arthur Wolk, a Philadelphia attorney and Lower Merion resident, and two other township residents, sued the Lower Merion School District in Common Pleas Court in March of 2016, on the issue of how school taxes were raised in Lower Merion. A three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court heard oral arguments today with regard to the appeal of the decision of the lower court in that case.
On August 29, 2016 Judge Joseph Smyth wrote “The Lower Merion School District is hereby enjoined from enforcing or collecting a tax increase for fiscal year 2016-17 of over 2.4% more than was in effect for the prior fiscal year. The board of the School District shall, not later than its next scheduled meeting, adopt a resolution revoking the tax increase of 4.44% for fiscal year 2016-17, and enacting a tax that represents an increase of no more than 2.4% greater than the tax in effect for fiscal year 2015-16.”
The panel of judges listening to oral arguments today at the Widener Building in center city, consisted of Mary Hannah Leavitt (R), the President Judge of the Court; Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter (R) and Christine Fizzano Cannon (R).
Alfred W. Putnam, of the Drinker Biddle and Reath law firm, represented the school district. In his opening remarks, he argued that Judge Smyth failed to require the plaintiffs to show that they had satisfied six prerequisites needed to secure a preliminary injunction. Putnam also argued that the Court of Common Pleas did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the school district acted improperly when it built up what was then a $55 million surplus. Wolk, who is representing himself and the two other Lower Merion residents argued that the increases in taxes that enabled the building of that surplus were illegal and that the overages should be returned to the taxpayers.
Judge: Where does a citizen get a remedy if not in the courts?
President Judge Leavitt challenged Putnam almost immediately after he said that the Common Pleas Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case. She referred to Judge Smyth’s use of the word, “legerdemain” in describing the school district’s budgeting and taxing practices, and asked Putnam what remedy would be available to a citizen in this situation, if not the courts. Putnam insisted that the procedure for that citizen would be to file a complaint with the Department of Education and, if the citizen was not satisfied with its response, an appeal could then be taken to the Commonwealth Court, not the Court of Common Pleas.
President Judge Leavitt then asked Putnam if the school district has continued its practice of “stepped up budgets”. Putnam responded, “yes”. President Judge Leavitt then followed up by asking whether the school district had any capital projects planned at the time the law suit was filed. Putnam responded, “Yes, we knew we needed a new school”.
Wolk: It's pointless to go the Department of Education
When it was Wolk’s turn to speak, he argued that it was pointless for a citizen to be required to seek a remedy through from the Department of Education, because the Department would be powerless to take corrective action in the case of a school district raising taxes illegally. He pointed out that at the lower court trial, the school district’s business manager, Victor Orlando, had testified that the Department of Education routinely granted exceptions to the district which enabled it to raise taxes above the annual ACT 1 limit. Wolk also argued that the district did not have capital projects planned when he filed his suit. He also claimed that the law does not require the “six prerequisites” in order to obtain a preliminary injunction. Wolk said that the courts have been hearing cases about taxes raised illegally since 1874.
Putnam: It's not 1874 any more
Putnam countered Wolk’s reference to the 1874 case, arguing that things are different than they were in 1874, and that we now have a “complex school code and a Department of Education that you have to go through.”