DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 2301 C.D. 1976
Citation Numbers: 35 Pa. Commw. 305
Judges: Blatt, Disalle, Rogers
Filed Date: 5/17/1978
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/24/2022
Opinion by
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 Glen-more 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
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 oppor*308 tunity to answer these charges and to defend against attempted proof of such accusation, and (3) the proceedings are conducted in a fair and impartial manner. (Citations omitted.)
Begis v. Industrial Board of the Department of Labor and Industry, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 558, 560-61, 308 A.2d 643, 645 (1973).
Glenmore argues that due process was not afforded here because the adjudication of the Board was based upon charges not contained in the Order to Show Cause, thus depriving Glenmore of notice and of the ability to defend. Our review of the record, however, indicates that the allegations upon which the Board’s adjudication was based were clearly set forth in the Order to Show Cause and were accompanied by citations of the applicable statutes and regulations. While it is true that the Order to Show Cause included several other violations which were not referred to in the Board’s final Order, there were none in the final Order which had not been included in the Order to Show Cause. We have previously held that for notice to be adequate it must at the very least contain a sufficient listing and explanation of any charges against the “accused” so that he can know against what charges he must defend himself. Begis, supra, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 561, 308 A.2d at 645. We believe that the Order to Show Cause here accorded Glenmore adequate notice of the charges and sufficiently provided a basis for the Board’s subsequent Order refusing relicensure.
Glenmore also alleges a deprivation of due process because the attorney who prosecuted the case submitted a document containing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the Board without submitting them to Glenmore’s attorney. The record indicates, however, that the document in question was
Glenmore further argues a deprivation of due process in that the Board allegedly was predisposed to revoke its license and that the hearing was held merely to satisfy statutory requirements. In support of this contention Glenmore points out that the Board had indicated in a previous Order that Glenmore, while re-licensed for the periods 1974-75 and 1975-76, would be subject to close supervision because of a deficiency in evidence that its educational programs adequately complied with the Board’s rules and regulations. Glenmore also submits minutes of a Board meeting held on July 14,1976, at which the Board, upon receipt and consideration of an investigation memorandum indicating possible violations by Glenmore, directed an attorney to prepare an Order to Show Cause. Our Supreme Court has clearly held, however, that an agency has the right to make a preliminary review as to whether or not a case exists and then to turn the matter over to an attorney and investigative staff for further handling if it decides to do so. State Dental Council and Examining Board v. Pollock, 457 Pa. 264,
. Glenmore was accorded a fair hearing, it was represented by Counsel, it had full notice of the charges against it and it had full right and opportunity to defend. Substantial evidence was offered at the hearing before the Board in support of the numerous findings as to Glenmore’s violations of the various statutory provisions and regulations, all of which is thoroughly discussed in the Board’s Order and opinion. We find Glenmore’s arguments to the contrary to be without merit, and we have found no violations of due process by the Board.
We will, therefore, affirm the Order of the Board.
Order
And Now, this 17th day of May, 1978, the Order of December 3,1976, No. 1 Academic Board 1976, of the State Board of Private Academic Schools on the above-captioned matter, is hereby affirmed.
Act of June 25, 1947, P.L. 951, as amended, 24 P.S. §2731 et seq.
The Board’s regulations are published at 22 Pa. Code §51.1 et seq.
The Order to Show Cause clearly listed the alleged violations, citing specifically the relevant laws and regulations. It noted that (1) there had been a violation of the Fire and Panic Act (Act of April 27, 1927, P.L. 465, as amended, 35 P.S. §1221 et seq.) and regulations pursuant thereto, including various safety requirements; (2) Mr. Koynok did not devote 50% or more of his time in the perfor
The Board found the following violations: (1) that Mr. Koynok failed to meet the regulations concerning administrative and supervisory duties; (2) that Glenmore’s catalog did not comply with the regulations inasmuch as it did not contain a complete and accurate statement of the curricula, educational programs and graduation requirements ; and (3) that Glenmore’s premises, equipment and facilities did not conform to the Fire and Panic Act and the Board’s regulations pursuant thereto. It made no reference to the other alleged violations.