But it is claimed in the present case that the general rule applicable to deliberative bodies is qualified in the case of school directors, by act of April 11, 1862, P. L. 471, which in section 3, provides that "the term stated meetings or regular meetings. . . . shall hereafter be taken to mean the first meeting thereof for organization after the annual election of directors or controllers, or the monthly or other periodical meetings held hereafter, in accordance with the standing regulations of the board." This act, however, contains the following additional provision: "But if there are no standing regulations, then every meeting held in succession from the said first meeting for organization by adjournment to a time and place certain, and so entered on the minutes of the proper board, shall be to all intents and and purposes regarded as a regular meeting." The board of directors of the Pittston township district has never adopted any standing rule or regulation in reference to the time of holding regular monthly meetings. It seems to have been their practice to meet from time to time, at the call of the chairman. This is shown by the minutes. The meetings of the 3d of August, of the 17th, and of the 20th, all seem to have been held in a regular manner, the first at the call of the chairman, and the others in pursuance of adjournment properly noted on the minute book. At a meeting on the 20th, there being but two directors present, an adjournment. was ordered to the 24th at 7:30 P. M. in the Morgan Lane schoolhouse. This also appears on the minutes. It would seem, therefore, that the adjourned meeting held on the 24th of August, 1896 was regular in all respects. And it appears from the depositions that the three members were duly notified of the meeting, but did not see proper to attend it. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, a Per Curian opinion was delivered as follows, to wit: The office of school director was intended to secure a fair and intelligent administration of the school laws in the interest of public education. When these officers cannot, or will not, discharge their duties, the law provides for their prompt removal and the appointment of others better able or more willing to serve the public with fidelity. An examination of the case has satisfied us that a proper occasion for the exercise of this power of removal and appointment had arisen in Pittston township, and that it was exercised in a regular and valid manner.4 Proceedings to ouster a director for absence. Meaning of expressions "to meet at the call of the president," "to adjourn to a time and place certain,” and “special or adjourned meetings." 173. The board met for organization on June 5th; this was admittedly a regular meeting and the relator was present. This meeting adjourned "to meet at the call of the president," and on such call a second meeting took place on June 15th, from which the relator was absent. This was not a regular meeting by the terms of the statute, not being held in accordance with any standing regulations of the board nor by adjournment "to a time and place certain." It was merely what is known in the common usage and understanding of legislative and corporate bodies as a special or adjourned meeting. The board however at this meeting adopted a standing regulation that "the regular monthly meeting was to be held at Hecksherville and Black Heath, on the first Saturday of every month, at half past six o'clock." The next meeting took place in accordance with this regulation on July 1, the first Saturday of the month. This was a regular meeting and the relator having been absent must have this counted against him. This meeting adjourned to July 10, at which date another meeting took place, from which relator was absent. This was not a regular meeting within the present question, because the standing regulation adopted June 15 had fixed the first Saturday of every month for such meetings. It was, therefore, merely an adjourned meeting and the relator's absence was immaterial in the present controversy. The next meeting, and the last with which we are concerned, took place on August 5, the first Saturday. This was a regular meeting, and made the second in succession from which the relator was absent. The action declaring 4 Keating vs. Jordan, 181 Pa. 168, 1897. his seat vacant was taken at this meeting. It was clearly premature and therefore void. It is claimed by the relator that he was on his way to the meeting, though somewhat late, and that the action of the board was hurried through, and the meeting adjourned in order to prevent his attendance. On the other hand appellants claim that the resolution to vacate the seat was the last thing done before adjournment, and that the meeting was therefore over when this action was taken. It is not material to this case which version of the facts is correct. The action was void in either view. The statute does not authorize ouster for coming late to meetings, but for absence, and absence cannot be determined or declared until the meeting is actually adjourned. If the relator had entered the meeting during the vote on adjournment he would have had a right to participate in the proceedings, and to be counted as present at the meeting. It was distinctly held in Zulich vs. Bowman, 42 Pa. 83, that until the second meeting was over, it could not be finally ascertained that the member was absent. See also Genesee Township Independent School District vs. McDonald, 98 Pa. 444, 450. There is another equally conclusive reason why no ouster can be declared at the second meeting. The act does not make absence from two regular meetings necessarily a cause for ouster, but only "unless detained by sickness or prevented by absence from the district." Conceding that the burden of showing such excuse would be upon the absent member, he would nevertheless be entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard to present it, and this could not be afforded without a subsequent meeting. The act is highly penal in that it permits a few individuals, liable to be governed by personal feeling, as is intimated not only by the learned judge in this case, but also in Zulich vs. Bowman, supra, from the same county, to oust by summary proceedings the officer duly chosen by the electors to represent them in their school matters. The act, therefore, must be strictly construed, and every step in the proceedings must clearly appear to have been regular and within the authority conferred by the statute.5 Procedure upon convening of board. 174. The minutes of the last preceding regular, and of all intervening special or called meetings, should be read immediately after calling the roll, at every regular meeting. But the minutes of previous meetings need not be read at any special or called meetings. Quorum. 175. Four members, regularly convened, can transact any business within the power of the board; and the majority of a quorum (three) can decide any question except those specified in Act April 11th, 1862, Sec. 4, P. L. 472, which are as follows, to wit: That no tax for school or building purposes shall be levied, no resolution shall be adopted for the purchase or sale of any school real estate, no school house shall be located or its location abandoned or changed, no teacher shall be appointed or dismissed, no annual school term shall be determined on, nor shall any general course of studies be adopted or annual series of text books be selected, in any common school district, except by the affirmative votes of a majority of the whole number of the directors or controllers thereof; and in each of said. cases the names of the members voting both in the affirmative and the negative shall be so entered on the minutes of the board by the secretary. Motions and resolutions. 176. All motions and resolutions of importance, such as those for the laying of tax, purchase or sale of houses and lots, fixing the duration of the school term, etc., should be put in writing by the person offering them, before being entertained by the president, and should be entered on the minutes at length. 5. Commonwealth vs. Gibson, 196 Pa. 97, 1900. When no business can be transacted. 177. If less than four members attend, no business can be legally transacted, except adjourning to some future time, then to be named, and filling vacancies in the board. Tie votes loses the question. 178. A tie vote loses the question; that is, the same number of votes on each side; or, rather, failing to carry by a majority of those voting, it leaves the question where it was before the vote was taken; and, therefore, effects no change. Regular meeting. 179. Every regular meeting should adjourn to meet again at a time and place then agreed on, and so entered on on the minutes; unless the time and place are determined on by the standing regulations, which ought always to be the case.6 Special meetings of the board. By whom called. 180. If the president of board of school directors, or controllers, shall neglect or refuse to call special meetings when required by a written request, signed by three members of the board, such meetings may be called by any two members of said board; and any business transacted at a meeting so called, shall be legal, the same as though the meetings had been held pursuant to a notice given by the president.7 President and secretary pro tempore. 181. If the president or secretary shall absent himself from any meeting of the board, or being present, shall refuse to perform any duties of his office, a president or secretary pro tempore shall be appointed by members present, an entry thereof being made on the minutes; and the acts necessarily performed by such president or secretary pro tempore, during such meeting shall be as valid and binding on the board and district, as if they had been performed by the regular officer of the board.8 |