Tenure Case

1. Tenure Case Presented by: Scott Madden October 4, 2009

2. The Case The Office of the Secretary of Education Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Appellant: Dr. Gene Lawrence Rizzo Appellee: Apollo-Ridge School District

3. Dr. Rizzo filed an appeal with the Secretary of Education in regards to the Apollo-Ridge School District’s decision to terminate him. The District responded by filing a Motion to Transfer Appeal due to a lack of substantive jurisdiction. Opinion & Order

4. Findings of Fact • Rizzo was hired on July 28, 2006, effective July 3. • Rizzo was served with a statement of charges in an August 2006 meeting. • On September 16, The School Board held an evidentiary meeting in regards to Rizzo’s termination. • On November 6, the Board issued a letter immediately terminating Dr. Rizzo. • On December 11, the Secretary received Dr. Rizzo’s appeal. • On December 18, the Secretary received The District’s motion.

5. Background The District’s motion claims that Dr. Rizzo is not a professional employee because her never obtained tenure. Therefore the District argues that the Secretary does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate Dr. Rizzo’s appeal. Dr. Rizzo argues that the Secretary should dismiss the District’s motion and allow his appeal to proceed. Rizzo bases his case on the following four arguments. 1. Dr. Rizzo claims that records from PSERS provide proof that he was a full-time salaried employee in the Eat Allegheny School District for 2 years. Based on this, Rizzo argues that he received tenure in Pennsylvania, and is thus a professional employee. 2. Dr. Rizzo possess an Administrative I Certificate. He argues that it would not be possible to attain such a certificate if he were not considered a professional employee.

6. Background 3. Dr. Rizzo claims he never had a chance to put his professional status on record at the hearing before the School Board. He argues that the Board was required to raise the issue of his professional employee status at the hearing. 4. Dr. Rizzo also argues that the District cannot terminate him based on immorality under section 1108 if he is considered to be an temporary professional employee.

7. Temporary Professional Employee vs. Professional Employee • The key feature that distinguishes a temporary professional employee from a professional employee is TENURE. • Article XI, section 1108, clearly spells out the criteria needed for a temporary professional employee to become a professional employee. • The temporary professional employee needs to work at a school district for two years AND be rated satisfactory by the superintendent for the last four months of the second year.

8. Rizzo’s Arguments Destroyed • Dr. Rizzo’s first argument was based on records from PSERS. He argued that since the records show he was a full-time salaried employee for two years, he automatically obtained tenure and hence, he was professional employee. He cites Pookman v. Upper St. Clair School District, as well as section 1108 of the Public School Code. • Ironically, Pookman merely reiterates the language of section 1108, and which clearly spells out that tenure is NOT automatically attained after two years of full-time employment. Moreover, the documentation from PSERS does not show if Dr. Rizzo was a temporary professional employee or a substitute. Section 1108 does not provide a means in which a substitute can become a professional employee. • The Ralston v. Derry Township School District supports a determination that Dr. Rizzo is not a professional employee since he did not obtain tenure. Furthermore, the Ralston case demolishes Rizzo’s claim that only a professional employee can earn a Administrative I Certificate.

9. Cases Cited • Phillippi v. School District of Springfield • Pookman v. Upper St. Clair School District • Ralston v. Derry Township School District • Young v. Littlestown School District • Tenure Act of 1937 • Tenure Act of 1939

10. Determination Since there is no documented proof that Dr. Rizzo attained tenure in Pennsylvania, the Secretary does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate his appeal of dismissal by the Apollo–Ridge School District. Also, since the Secretary has no jurisdiction, due to the fact that Dr. Rizzo is not a professional employee, he cannot rule on the issue of the School Board not raising the issue of Rizzo’s professional status at its hearing. Since the Secretary does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Dr. Rizzo’s appeal, the mater must be transferred to the appropriate common pleas court.